How To Develop a Schizo Theory-of-Everything
Table of Contents
A.k.a, "something I though of in the shower and scribbled down a page of notes on"1. "Schizo" here is more of a tone marker than anything else, and I'll reference a bunch of people who aren't actually schizophrenic; however, if you want to vibe schizo, this is probably the easiest way to do it short of scribbling all over the walls of your house with your own feces.
1. Start out with a single abstract concept
This can be anything. The Last Psychiatrist chose narcissism, Based Beff Jezos chose thermodynamics, an ex-criminal on YouTube2 chose "vice", and the Church of the SubGenius chose Slack. The graph of all concepts is undirected and strongly connected3, so you can fit it to anything you want4.
After you have your concept established, create or choose an "opposing force". The traditional form is a duality, but 3 or 4-force systems are not uncommon5 , 6. I will focus here on the duality, since it's the most common and the easiest to recognize as "schizo".
1.1. Basic Dualities
The most basic and common dualities involve the chosen concept as "good", and the "good" being opposed by either "the void"7 or "the devil"8. It is crucial here to not fall into Taoism9; while it can work, it is much better to begin a crusade and vehemently fire against the opposing element10.
As an example, let us create our own duality with the basic concept of "hygiene"11 as the "good"12. We have a choice for our opposing element; intuitively, "filth" springs to mind13, but how is "filth" implemented? We could define it as hygiene's devil, but we could also define it simply as a lack of hygiene16. It all depends on what you want to do with it. To spread "hygiene" as a Good Thing, choose "filth" as the absence of hygiene; to use it as a weapon and a way to label outsiders, use "filth" as the devil.
It is important to note that, as we are choosing axioms, none of this requires any justification, and any justification demanded can be derived post-hoc, using the tools discussed in the next section.
2. Connect to some external analytical framework
This is a key point in the development of the theory, as it allows you to express it in seemingly-reasonable terms that are illegible to those who would oppose you17 and appear impressive and intimidating to those who you wish to win over. The traditional venue for this is math18, but philosophy, physics, biology19, and theology20 are all proven tools. I don't think anyone has done chemistry yet, but it could be a useful framework21.
Remember, your abstract concept and the opposing force(s) you have established are your axioms. Whatever they imply22 must be true, and needs no clarification. Once you have put this into the forms requried by your analytical tools, the tools will lead you to the conclusions you wish for23.
3. Find cases where your ideas apply
Now that you have your analytical framework, you can begin finding situations where your theory applies24. Take your gut feeling about how the situation should shake out in terms of your theory, then work out how to analyze it in terms of your analytical framework25.
Here is an example of it in action. The framework? Geography. The assertion? The Vatican is Satanic. The proof? Drawing lines between cathedrals to form a triangle. The comments? Full of people going "exactlyyyy".
4. Write screeds
Now comes the fun part. You have your idea, your analytical framework, and a bunch of cases of it applying, so now it's time to take up the mantle of the judge and prophet and spread the word to the masses. Any effort to discredit or disprove you is an action on the part of the devil26. Take every opportunity to fit your theory to popular discourse27.
5. Conclusion
You now have all the tools you need to create your own schizo theory-of-everything. Go forth and do so! Spread chaos! If you're lame and scared, then see how this guide applies to both regular and satirical crazy people, and find the gaps (What does it miss? Why? How could it be adapted?). Happy hunting!
Footnotes:
They don't look particularly sane, either
Whose name I cannot recall
It is known
By the transitive property
The Chinese wuxing is an illustrative example of dealing with higher-dimensional systems, though it all reduces down to rock-paper-scissors
The higher the number of forces you have, the more likely you are to either a) reinvent some scientific field or b) get twigged as a poseur. Use with caution, and always remember to KISS
The absence of good
An anti-element, the yang to the yin
Wherein each contains a piece of the other
Nobody would know about the Time Cube guy if he was passive. A deeper life lesson resides here, whose derivation I will leave as an exercise to the reader
I told you I came up with this in the shower
Any number of real-world systems reduce down to this. Food for thought
Though it does not have to. In fact, a less-obvious opposing force, while more challenging to reason into a system, will generate greater returns14 than the obvious ones. For example, we could use "knowledge" as an opposing force and argue that knowledge destroys hygiene, and to remain ignorant is to remain pure15, or somesuch. However, as this essay is meant to broadly cover the subject as a basic how-to guide, I will use the obvious dichotomy.
I.e., more surprise and argumentation, and fewer people going "Yeah, heard it Grandad"
Something something infohazards
The reverse could also be true (and, indeed, is, by Warhammer's Nurgle; a Nurgullian could argue that hygiene is the absence of life, and to achieve true cleanliness only complete destruction of all life is possible, and thus should be opposed)
Since you are unlikely to use a tool within the actual domain of your theory, as that could disprove it
Especially geometry
Wolfram's theories of computation
King Terry
Regression to pseudo-alchemy; a reagent or element represents some part of the abstract theory and its effect on other substances is a reification of the stated power dynamics. To use the hygiene example from earlier, we could state that solvents are agents of hygiene, who are opposed by the things that are insoluble. A soluble thing is "saveable", though not yet cleansed if it remains a solid, while an insoluble thing cannot be saved and must be destroyed through some other method (or is categorized as taboo and untouchable, or as an agent of "filth" who seeks to undermine the clean)
Which you choose
Circular reasoning can be very useful here, and you can use your analytical tools to obscure your methods
If you're doing it right, this should be "every situation ever"
If you've chosen will, this should be trivial
If you have chosen that type for your duality; otherwise, it is a rival camp (for a triality) or the disbelieving sheep (for the void)
Dogwhistle analysis is a good example of how to do this, and deconstruction can come in extremely handy, as it allows you to decide the meaning of an action or statement regardless of what the intended meaning was.