Metapoles, Plectrons and Plectoms

Briefly, the trend of all this, which seems highly speculative to me, leads to some rather fundamental ways we view the world and insist it is a proper and unique view as physics. In particular the underlying metaphysics of ideas like galatomic's and Lincoln's on the nature of particles (of which I find a sort of similarity and see what in one system objects to in the other) and of course galatomic has some issues which he thinks of mine as overly mathematical or geometrical while I regard some of his as on the surface too close to the ideas of physics.

A metapole then is a way to treat these particles (wether they are point-like or not) and if they are insome sort of quasic box or matrix and so on. There are in this view no monopoles per se but a sort of direction or singularity as if a movable cleft of patterns of a gray local rotocenter group in the quadradic plane. Of course we can see them as point particles or even strings depending on how we see and define dimensions, especially the exotic ones and those that hide beneath what we think of as the ultimate unity of some physicality in our equations.

By this thought I think I know, in the question I asked galatomic, where the ecotoms move- that is in my sort of Euclidean space or the standard one? Anywhere they want was his answer and so we come again to the idea of some disti9nguishing of force or will. If this means we have no inherent restrictions by present theories of physics and metaphysics ultimately I agree but with some higher restrictions on some analogious level as allways seems the vague logical case. What is the difference between (our terms on and om) the metaphysical and philosophic particles?

But all of this could have been deduced from my fundamental theorem of motion and not motion or being and not being and so on when it comes to understand the symmeteric and not symmetric nature of fundamental numbers- what in effect is to ask the gender or its neutrality of the chi for example from spirituality.