Et quoddam A est B atque quoddam A non est B     

(Dazzlean Pimpology I)

An excerpted chapter of How to Be a Motherfucking Pimp

As with everything else in this book, this is not to be actually implemented in any way. 

I am Astar, a robot. I can put my arm back on. You can’t. So, play safe.

If two sub-contraries cannot be false, one has to be true. Some man is a bitch, some man is not a bitch.[1] Subject/predicate. It would seem that we have to assume that there is something in the subject position. It is the case that there is such a thing as a man and there is at least one instance where this man is either a bitch or not a bitch.[2] Such is the form. B or not B. However, if we hazard the existential assumption that there is indeed a man, something that may boil down to a scholastic confusion,[3] then there can be two modalities of being. Would this instantiation lead us into fallacious reasoning? Yes and no.

 

Square of opposition

Square of opposition

 

The smooth ordering of this categorical proposition has become problematized with this double gesture. Here man finds himself occupying an uncanny logical space. He is articulated across two planes.[4] He is both an identity relation and incarnate subject endowed with attributes. Being marked out, he becomes a material abstraction. But is he a bitch or isn’t he?

Either all men are bitches, or none are. Both propositions cannot be true. These are universal claims. Let us assume that all men are bitches is true—it is, after all, the supposition that this book began with. Positing this, the entailment is that some man is a bitch is also true. Inversely, if some man is not a bitch, then all men are bitches is false and no men are bitches might be true. But let us assume that there is such a thing as a man and that he is a bitch. However, there is also a man, let’s call him Man, who is not a bitch because he is simultaneously occupying a different logical space. The one has existential import, the other does not.[5] Both are of paramount importance.

This Man does not exist in reality, but he inhabits the space of man in a state of potentiality. Can He be realized? Yes and no. He occupies a liminal space. He acts from the inside and the outside. Being both within and without the interstices, he allows for reticulation.[6] Although represented in formal language, if we accept that all men are bitches is true, and that it is the case that there exists one Man who is not a bitch, then He is a radical exteriority that challenges the notion of space as well. But how does this work?

This Man, or what we will now call PIMP, is an atemporal agency. His presence creates a cleavage in man. If all men are bitches, then he makes this absolute possible through the negation of Himself. For all men to be bitches, its contradiction must be conceivable, but not actualizable. All bitches can aspire to this inversion, but can it be realized? Yes, the pimp achieves this through Pimp, but this is complicated.

Pimp is a fluctuating state bridging pimp and PIMP. In this way, its structure is similar to game, Game, and GAME. A pimp is only a pimp as long as he is participating in Pimp.[7] If he slips, he’s out. Back to just being a bitch. In this way all men are bitches is true, while at the same time some men are not bitches, as in the pimp and PIMP. In this way it may be more fruitful to think through the logical relations both as dialectical and as part/whole, rather than some/all.[8]

If we assume a dialectic, we can make better sense of the double logical space at work. Paradoxically, this dialectic both precedes and realizes PIMP and bitches. It is a part/whole relation that refuses totalization. In this way it is more hole than whole because it does not bring about a synthetic union, but an act of rupture. PIMP precedes bitches because it allows for them to be conceived. Furthermore, as bitches, an impossible part/whole relation is sustained with PIMP. This also occurs within them and without them in the flux of the non-actualizable. Installed in bitches are actually both the PIMP and the HO in a struggle for their soul.

If there is PIMP, and its actuation is a manifestation in the act of Pimp realized in the pimp, then the action is generative. From the pimp you have the ho. It is also entailed from all men are bitches and there is some man that is not a bitch. The ho is a bitch, but he/she is fundamentally a ho. This is the structural inversion of pimp, Pimp, PIMP. Here we have ho, Ho, HO. What we find is that all bitches exist in some partial relation between Pimp and Ho as temporal actualizations of PIMP and HO. But what is HO?

HO exists in a state of alterity. It is the fathomless opposite of PIMP, and can only be speculated upon in the most tentative of terms as it is ontologically problematic. It would seem to share many of the operational principles of PIMP, but this is deceptive. An antimony, it is neither complement nor negation, but rather a negation of the negation of the negation.[9] It can only be approached asymptotically as it is a plenitude that both affirms and denies the infinity which it both is and is not. Not to despair though. Despite these seeming contradictions, this relation can be further dilated.

Outside of formalized language, or rather deep in its inner workings, lie vacuities and aporia. This is a spatial complication that challenges the inner/outer distinction. Rules are governed by their exceptions. The excepted tests and defines from an external position.[10] Sets are demarcated always by n + 1 and they imply a progression, the bad infinity.[11] This is the impossible exterior that finds an incomplete interior. The former is PIMP. Beyond the pale is the ineffable. Give it voice, and it merely recedes, while always remaining abysmally present. This latter is HO. A present absence that haunts the interior. This is why the ho is an empty pocket of anxiety, self-loathing, and vagina.[12] But how are Ho and ho realized in actuality?

If the sensible world is inhabited by bitches, this is because of the articulated interiority realized by actualizations of Game. Game exists between PIMP and HO, both of which are properties, of sorts, of GAME. PIMP and HO create Game by forming an inextricable, yet incommensurable, trinity with GAME. Impossibly oscillating, and defying spatial arrangement, PIMP and HO haunt space and time in a paradoxical relation that allows bitches to be bitches in a multitude of configurations of Game derived from a specific spatio-temporal participation in GAME.

The situation will radically transform once we consider the motherfucking COCK, [13] something that aligned my Thomistic[14] sympathies around a reconsideration of Integritas, ProportioClaritas and an optics of ignorance. The ontological, the ontic and the aesthetic.[15] The religious. The truth.

For an excerpt of pimpontology click HERE

For and excerpt of ‘patapimpics click HERE

Pimpnotes

[1] I am using ‘man’ here inclusively. This is not merely borne out of parsimony, but a loathing of political agendas that try to find an arena in grammar.

[2] Paraphrased, and opening the relation, either “x is B” or “x is not B” must be true by the law of excluded middle.

[3] Perhaps a problem of denotation and meaning that Frege tried to solve with the null set in Ueber Sinn und Bedutung and something with which Russell continued to struggle. The problem here is that metalanguage is introduced. This is barking up the wrong tree, but this will be clear later. Try paralanguage in the meantime.

[4] Indeed, he sub-sists.

[5] You could think of the former having property and extension, whereas the later only has property. In this way the Nominalists were correct in that the later does not, metaphysically, exist. It patapimpically ex-sists.

[6] I smell Dr. Johnson here again. I knew the earlier references weren’t gratuitous.

[7] It is significant to think of the grammar of pimp. Neither noun, as a fixed state, nor verb, as a transitive action, pimp is a combination of the two. It is fundamentally a gerund. In this sense, pimpin’, as a word, is gratuitous. Pimp should always suffice though it may be found awkward. However, I often find myself having recourse to pimpin’ or pimping nevertheless.

[8] This would be Hegel over Aristotle.

[9] Another contradiction, but perhaps an apagogic licence.

[10] Would Cicero agree with this?

[11] We will return to this.

[12] The ho truly plows a lonely furrow. This is the Hole that we have already addressed elsewhere.

[13] Motherfucking is a property of COCK. It is a technical term derived from a stringent, yet inspired, reading of the Summa Theologica. Motherfuck is the only true verb. It is neither transitive nor intransitive. It is the copula pure and simple.

[14] Ex motu, ex causa, ex contingentia, ex gradu and ex fine account for COCK.

[15] In this way further sympathies are found in Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite’s injunction to aspire ignorantly upward (ἀγνώστως ἀνατάθητι).

Follow Dazzle, motherfucking. Razzle on facebook