S-violation or symmetry violation helps us understand how humans individualize. 

Let’s begin with Wikipedia:

The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter if CP-symmetry was preserved; as such, there should have been total cancellation of both—protons should have canceled with antiprotons, electrons with positrons, neutrons with antineutrons, and so on. This would have resulted in a sea of radiation in the universe with no matter. Since this is not the case, after the Big Bang, physical laws must have acted differently for matter and antimatter, i.e., violating CP-symmetry.

Individualization of a system is possible only through the destruction of that system

A system of properties pertinent to “fish” can never designate a particular fish. Particular fish have to break the symmetry of the system of fish properties. Even the most elaborate and detailed sum of fish properties (fishiness) can not separate one particular sole lying in Dover sand from another lying beside it. Individualization is thus a symmetry-breaking operation.

Using quantum mechanics terminology in matters of analog human existence and behavior seems far-fetched. I do not use it as a pretext for being scientific; this text is not scientific. It is homonistic.

Intersubjectivity and peer reviews

One should take all memetic realities as equally valid.

As explained in many other instances in this blog, memetic reality is intersubjective. Value and confirmation are not based on peer review, as in science, but as constant, never-ceasing intersubjective re-evaluation.

The value of each meme is like a brand. The brand owner or user does not own a brand; the brand emerges in between. A brand is a memetic emergence of intersubjectivity.

A meme itself is such an emergence. No one has privileged access to any meme.

S-violation as sense-making 

Symmetry violation (CP) is a memetic activity constant in the form of constant sense-making. Thus, symmetry violation occurs in both physical and memetic reality. Physics-related insights help us co-construct CP in a new way without harming the CP co-constructed by physicists.

According to recent discoveries in CERN and KEK, it was CP – violation after the Big Bang that “allowed” matter to exist. Without matter, there would only be energy. One could say that CP allowed (metaphorically speaking) a particular fish to emerge out of fishiness.

Individualization can be related to the present state of the universe, which occurs as a result of CP violation, the violation of the combination of C- and P-symmetry.

A similar violation of T-symmetry and time symmetry produces a perception of NOW and, from this NOW, an axis of time that itself contradicts CPT-symmetry as a basis for the standard model of particle physics. The specific topology of space (CP-violation) and the time perspective (T-violation) are thus nothing but another side of individualization as an S-violation: violation of a System that an individual “has to” break to actualize himself.

Identity is an S –violation.

The perfect is dead

From here, all-important lessons begin about the relations of individuals within any system (language, family, state…). You have to break a system that you belong to if you want to exist as an individual. You have to be a poet (language constructor and destroyer simultaneously). You have to engage in self-actualization to separate from the collective, from the state, for instance.

However, such violation also operates in opposite directions, somewhat paradoxically. The totality of individualizations and the complexity of actions that are all destroying the symmetry of a System (state, for instance) is, in fact, constructing the System, the state. The state that would remain in absolute symmetry would be a perfect totalitarian (collectivistic) state. Such a system would offer the highest possible equality and, thus, the highest possible entropy. Such a system would already be dead. The more the System is perfect, the less it is possible. The more individuals break the state (the symmetry of a System), the more it becomes alive. From the view of sustainability, the “perfect” system is thus a System that is constantly broken, violated, and corrupted by individuals.

Homonism as a theory of individualization is thus a theory of symmetry-breaking of any system. But it is essential to understand that symmetry breaking is not an act of deconstruction, of anarchism. Symmetry breaking is a necessary act that distinguishes, respects, and constitutes the system that it breaks, violates, and corrupts. 

But how?

Every post on this blog is devoted to answering this question. It is a tricky question, not because it would be hard to answer it, but because it goes against the grain of present political correctness. Therefore, it has to be unveiled in as many dimensions as possible. One might describe this blog as using the tactic of “if you cannot persuade, exhaust.”

So, let me continue by answering this central question through the consequences of CP violation.

Big-Bang, WOKE and conservatism

During a substantial period after the Big Bang, the system was utterly symmetrical and, at the same time, chaotic, with no single point distinguishable. One cannot describe such a state of the cosmos as a system. A system exists only from the moment of first individualization, of first symmetry-breaking. Individualization of life could have happened only after the initial CP and T violation occurred. Only after that “moment” was it possible to distinguish pre-violation chaos from chaos that we can understand as chaos. Only after that did unknown unknowns exist, as well as known unknowns.

That means that a system has an emergent property of individualization. Thus, a state should, by definition, be subject to individuals and people.

The US Constitution, as James Madison conceived it, reflected this ideal. However, using that same Constitution has largely abandoned individualization as a cornerstone principle. European continental constitutions, derived from Bismarck’s ideal State, harshly mock individualization.

The WOKE ideology of equalization on an ontological level somewhat surprisingly goes hand in hand with totalitarian tendencies against individualization and liberal public space. It is progressive and not conservative.