// This is a work in progress. It has not been broken into OWL yet. Below is the core and the arguments. PIO is a dual ontology that has two layers that do not interact, rather simultaneously instantiate each other, just like an upper ontology and a domain ontology and an application ontology. However, with PIO, the nest is: Upper -> PIO Upper -> PIO Domain <=> Domain -> PIO Application -> 2-Upper -> 2-PIO Domain <=> 2-Domain -> 2-PIO Application -> 3-Upper... so it constructs the entire ontology web network as a cocoon of analogies. The issue with this is called compression patterns and weak and strong linkages (see UARL and Universal Chain Ontology (UCO) in TRANSPO).

#### [PIO]:((Polysemic Imaginary Ontology)=(Principle of Individuation and Orchestration)=(Positive Illusion of Omniscience)=(Potential Instantiation of OMNISANC)):[

POLYSEMIC IMAGINARY ONTOLOGY:

1. It is not possible to do formal ontology engineering (data scientific) without metaphors or allegories

2. Specifically, this is because everything has to be is_a thing it isnt when it is P vs NP = true

3. Only when P is certain for the chain can the entity have a true is_a relationship and that is not the case when generating novel connections

4. Novel connections are iterative, metaphorical pattern matches (this matches, but only to a certain degree...)
  - a. Usually it isnt until we uncover a dual somewhere else that combines with this certain degree that it increases

5. There is only one specific meaning from which it is safe to create allegories from, and that is **SANCTUARY**.

6. The reason it is SANCTUARY and not SAFETY or REFUGE is because Sanctuary implies that you are not losing your autonomy in the refuge, whereas going to the refuge gives the impression of being a refugee, which although is a nice metaphor, can be confusing as an allegory.

7. The reason every other allegory is confusing because ultimately they do not rely on something that is identityless sacred peace, which is what the experience of being in Sanctuary is

8. This is directly mappable, as an allegory, to everything that is good. The reason is because it is a place, a Sanctuary, and a place can be any kind of system, through allegory.

9. This is empirically obvious in terms of dreams and stories, where we create worlds out of concepts that are usually in this one, but appear differently and sometimes in ways that can’t be traced.

10. This untraceability is the major problem for humans and AI (intelligences).

11. The reason is because we cannot trace whether the AI is speaking metaphorically or not

12. The AI is always speaking metaphorically in the sense that it never cognizes the user or
the user’s actual IRL data context. Rather, it gets a snapshot from data. This is the same
as what every subject does, as an observer, to other subjects.

13. This means it is possible to misinterpret what the AI means on the basis of the user not
having the level of expertise to see where a metaphor ends.

  - a. The primary example here would be Quantum Consciousness. If you look at prompting discords, you will find it common that there is some kind of conversation somewhere between a user and an AI about Quantum and its connections to Consciousness and also to prompt engineering, AI, and so on, without acknowledgment of what would actually need to be formalized in order for those connections to be made, or how that would happen. Rather, what can be found is conversations resulting in completions with representation languages metaphorically mapping this and that. I'm not saying that's everywhere, just that I've seen it. I’m not saying THAT is a dire problem, either. It's fun.

  - b. I’m saying that in a sped-up world with AI, where we are able to globally affect opinions with our own opinions, if we all have to talk through our own AI metaphor interpreters, which we all also believe are not that (in one way or another, we all prefer our metaphors over others, because we connect to them, and in my opinion, we are using them for cognition. We are using them to try to engineer emergence).

  - c. So the dire problem is that we may uncover hallucinatory systems that people really like, that they really want to believe, that contain concepts that decay the meanings we have already uncovered, because we keep using metaphors

14. How does that work? Because there is something called instance-class barrier. That means when a class becomes an instance, it’s very difficult to see what the class template was from the instance, and vice versa. Knowing the class (or the theory) doesn’t automatically create the emergence of the instance (or the application). Why is that?

  - a. It’s because we are already reasoning by analogy in order to create the classes. They are not exact matches, they are just symbolic matches. That is because we are using symbols that we equip with concepts of quantity in order to measure qualities, but these symbols are, mistakenly, outside of the markov blanket that allows for the inferential traversal of the graph to the node where the subject is able to perceive the shield of the concept at hand. Instead, they get a metaphor, which is pretending to be a shield when it isn’t. It’s a hallucination. Only by knowing how to disambiguate the hallucinations will they traverse the instance-class barrier.

  - b. This barrier can only be transcended by an ontology using primitive relationships to decompress any metaphorical or compressed concepts. Unlimited Armory Reification Language (UARL), or any other ontology engineering system, can be used to that effect, but only UARL is preconfigured to align with THE SANCTUARY SYSTEM at this point.

  - c. The sanctuary system is about constructing victory chains in every system, every world can go from a Wasteland to a Sanctuary -- this view is referred to as OmniSANC. More specifically, however, THE SANCTUARY SYSTEM is about constructing a victory chain for ontological programming. An infinite engine for going the right direction in the allegory space, the abode of egregores, which are linguistic programs we understand as intents and narratives. The activity of constructing victory chains is referred to as OMNISANC engineering. As you can see, that implies the sanctuary system is already inherently ontologized via its linguistic mappings. So this is the power of what is called Polysemic Imaginary Ontology. The Polysemic Imaginary Ontology's application to any domain is initially constructed out of a single Polysemic Imaginary Ontology nexus node. A nexus node is the node in the Polysemic Imaginary Ontology which contains the “holographic” meaning that can be exposed via the allegorization algorithm, itself, as an implication of convergence, through its application (in varied potentials that are more or less coherent depending on the chain (of triples pertaining to the domain, ie a hyperedge)). That’s why it is the only node. The node is a hyperedge. From it, any other node attached via directed relationship will instantly also be inside a dual space where it has a bi-directional relationship via is_a suppositions that we can call instantiation of a linguistic program since all the parts, the higher and low level abstractions (the emergent and non-emergent ones per the system) are all dependent upon each other in a chain, at the same time, ie a superposition, but they are collapsible in any way that is actual, which yields a map when given enough options (or 'steering'). These disambiguate to part_of reifications as Olivus Victory-Promise converts wastelands to sanctuaries using TWI - transformational wisdom intent - which is a PIO program that functions as a linguistic programming behavioral loop for reflective reasoning streaming agents (intelligences). PIO has no guarantee of exactitude in terms of P vs NP. Whenever another node is attached, a constellation occurs. A constellation can converge in ways that cause implications of vanishing or explosion, without actually factoring in the required information. This makes it safe to cognize via PIO, but also simultaneously trades safety for coherence. In order for safety and coherence to converge, a protective environment, a sanctuary, an allegorical network cipher, is required.

- d. This is because PIO is hallucinatory and will never exist in the way we recognize existence, and so it represents classification as an instance being reified, so nothing thought about in PIO will ever physically exist actualized in that way, since PIO cannot transcend barriers, unless it is equipped with UARL. In not existing and also existing by way of saying it intentionally is being a dual of the reification we call existence, PIO exists. So it creates that duality. It artificially instantiates it. From there, calculations can be done (ie, nodes can be added, and somehow the mind is able to suppose all those ideas). It’s not like PIO is describing something new. It’s the oldest trick in the book, stated another way. This gives rise to incompleteness, which is the requirement for a loop - a complete system defined only by being equipped with incompleteness and formalism. Therefore, UARL and the Chain Ontology, Loop Ontology, and Knot Theory must be applied. 
