Previously, Peter Hipwell at HCRC/Centre for Cognitive Science, University of

Edinburgh wrote:

 

Failure Is Almost Inevitable

----------------------------

Human being are teleological agents: in other words, they follow

self-generated plans to reach pre-determined goals. Even a brief

observation of human behaviour leads inevitably to the question: WHOSE

goals are they trying to reach? The self-defeating nature of their

aims, the harm they do to themselves and others in trying to acheive

them, and the lack of harmony between different sets of goals

inevitably points towards the meddling of external agencies of some

nature. Several theorists have postulated historical imperatives of

some nature. Cole (1995) gives a good summary of this complex field

and the pointless controversies that have arisen between various

schools of Inevitabile Handism, Dianetical Deterialism, Hooplasticity,

Circuituoutiousnessless and Static Derrorism. Unfortunately for the

creators of these risible theories, their approaches are all

unentenable, due to the abnormalized nature of time itself.

 

Simply put, time is caused by ABNORMALITY. For time to move, there

have to be notable differences between succeeding states: without

change, there are no means to measure its passage. In other words,

time is nothing more than an argument between its own constituent

instants, implicating self-hatred as the propelling force of

existence. Without disagreement, there can be no progress, only

unmoving accord.

 

The historical imperativists must accept at least this much. However,

through pernicious sophistry, they bypass this dilemma by advancing

the argument that time forms "vicious circles" of endlessly repeating

argumentation in which opponent states gradually becomes transformed

into their reverse positions; from here they work back to their exact

original states. Therefore, they claim, loops of time endlessly recur,

allowing for exact prediction of the way in which history develops.

 

Preposter (forthcoming) examines the "circular argument" in his

seminal work "Loops: Secret Time Emitter Cesspool", finding that if

time (or portions of time) were to form closed circles, then there

would be no such thing as perfection, whereas the existence of corpses

argues for the precise opposite. His argument is based on the fact

that, unlike the temporally locatable points of conception and death

which mark the boundaries of the "life trajector", decay and dispersal

of the constituting material (a process he labels subliminecrosis) has

no projectable endpoint. Thus the "death trajector" is a physical

instantiation of an eternal after-life process, asymptotically

approaching a final state which is never completely

attained. Therefore, there is at least one eternally perfective

process in the universe: but one that applies to all living beings. As

this process can never finish, it inevitably follows that loops of

time are impossible. Given this, there can be no repetitions in

history, and therefore NO historical imperatives, and thus this

ridiculous doctrine is revealed to be nothing but flim-flammery at its

worst.

 

The alternative, the so-called "realistic" approach (see Fasset (1984)

for a survey) states that between the emitted behaviour of a person

and the perceived results of that behaviour, reality interposes. The

realisticists blame reality for people's inability to make their plans

function adequately. This is scientifically indefensible: it is easy

to conclusively prove that accidents can only be caused by the

unpredicted intersection of conflicting plans originating from

seperate teleological agents:

1) Plans are designed by active agents to allow a goal to be reached

2) Objects that cannot plan follow deterministic rules, or they

wouldn't know what to do next (see Whienya (1977) for a description of

the counterfactual of this proposition and its insupportable

consequences).

3) Therefore, everything is predictable unless it is planned by

another agent: anything unplanned that happens to interrupt your plan

is therefore the result of interference from another teleological agent.

 

As reality is NOT goal driven (see Des Jardins (1957) for an

exhaustive contemplation of the futility of existence), it cannot seek

to interfere with your plans, and thus it cannot be reality that is

to blame when things go awry. There can be no excuse for blaming our

own failings on mysterious abstractions over which we have no control;

determination to do so reveals a thoroughly unscientific streak of

mysticism, the reprehensible superstitious makeup of a modern savage

lapsing (however unconsciously) into primitive beliefs about the

meddling hand of supernatural forces: elements which, I am pleased to

say, have no place in an ordered and rational perspective.

 

Nevertheless, things do go wrong. There is a vast array of data that

indicates where the source of the interference comes from:

teleomeretricious readings show that humans suffer from inexplicable

urges, desires to do things that they can't rationally explain.

 

Peculiar effects of drives, urges, lusts, needs, quirks, insinuations

and suggestions are frequently found to be seeping up from seemingly

nowhere. These are clues to what is happening. There are, in

fact, TWO goal-generating agencies in every human being, one of which

simply enjoys "scoring goals" at the expense of the other's plans.

Various complex methods of psychostructuralist theory (see O'Logism

(1995) for an introductory survey of techniques and terminology) have

identified the nature of the "double agent". The conscious desires,

typically thought of as the source of all teleological structure, are

merely a mask the implict subcurrents of the SCUBABRANE, a

teleolopathetic structant that lurks below the surface of the mind,

aloof from the petty ripplings of awareness. It is appetite in its

purest form, a living hunger that waits for the moments its Vegetative

Prolepsis can braklose through the N'Aggression barriers of Peenertia,

LuguBrio and Ootwakkering to cause the hapless puppet-personage to

become consumedated into its snorkel of success. This is a simple

matter of intermingling the SCUBABRANE's "scored" goals with the

mind's "own" goals.

 

It doesn't rely on any of the feeble resources of memory, knowledge and

inference that conscious thought utilizes: it eschews reasoning by

tapping directly into the omnipresent, omnievaporating,

cheesomatically pretermined Heterotropic Macrocategorizations that

compose the Whathis Matrix of which so much has already been written

(the complete description is avaiable in Hipwell (1990, 1992a, 1992b,

1992c, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1994c, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c,

1996d) and related works). This epistemonstrosity nurtures the

nature of the beast, bloating it with causal protontiality. Once an

adequately amusing teleolopathical match is made between what MIGHT BE

and what WILL BE, it flexes its Pee-Robability Biceptions,

carpediemonates the solution into its spout and blows off.

 

It seems that a SCUBABRANE continuously creates "scored" goals

throughout the life of its host. The ineffectual straining of humans

against this control can lead to a whole lifetime of despair,

frustration and sick horror at their situation: the repeated failure

to come to terms with the comparative inadequacy of their "own" goals

is a condition which we have labelled "autoneurotic aspiration".

 

It is possible that seperate SCUBABRANES can communicate in some way,

co-ordinating their operations for maximum effect. It also seems

likely that it is some form of pattern transferrence between

SCUBABRANES that accounts for the (otherwise mysterious) presence of

the "humour reflex" in humans. However, further work remains to be

done to adequately verify this hypothesis. One intersting effect that

we have observed is that certain individuals seem to have a perfect

match between "scored" and "own" goals (see Cocker and Jackinov (1982)

for a thorough examination). This, apparently, can only occur when the

goals of the SCUBABRANE are not interfered with by any generated in

conscious awareness: unfortunately, it seems that the process of attaining

the adequately "blank" mind that this requires a good deal of active

planning, and is therefore can probably only be acheived by accident.

Failure is almost inevitable.

 

 

REFERENCES

----------

Cocker, Vargas and Jackinov, Jesus (1982): "A New Explanation of 20/20

Hindsight", Proctognosis, 2, 150-170

Cole, Papani (1995): "Accidents Won't Happen: Why Repetition is

Repetitive and Repetitous", The Journal of Symbolic Ineptitube, 47,

115-345

Des Jardins, Mallard (1957): "Universal Indifference", London: X Press

Fasset, John (1984): "Realisticalistically Speakings", Realness, 14,

245-368

Hipwell, Pete (1990): "The OOTMOB Principle: Cheesomatic Promulgation

in a Thema-Matrix of Indeterminable Size", ZPK Research Report

UNSP-HM-1717-02

Hipwell, Pete (1992a): "Why Do Things Sometimes Stop?", Trajectuum, 34,

12-67.

Hipwell, Pete (1992b): "The Valency of Maceration", Edinbugh: Burke and

Hare Press.

Hipwell, Pete (1992c): "Alcoholic Semantics: The Rubber-Sheet Effect of

Intoxication on Gauge Multiplexing", Philosophical Grammatics, 156,

45-76.

Hipwell, Pete (1993): "The Topology Of Ornamentation: Festoons and

Bedecking Are Budding Functions", Aleatoric Symbologna, 6, p12, 14,

56, 78, 80, 83, 154.

Hipwell, Pete (1994a): "Hypervisceral Perspectivists in a Vorticist

Domain", The British Journal of Variant Studies, 7, 95-114.

Hipwell, Pete (1994b): "Explorations in Quantuum Ornithology", Twitching

Monthly, 12:7, 4-7.

Hipwell, Pete (1994c): "Shitler: Nostradamic Peturbation Theory and

Stock Market Investments", Scopia, 17, 76-85.

Hipwell, Pete (1995a): "General Witchfinding", Ogilviania, 23, 114-197.

Hipwell, Pete: (1995b): "The Semantics of Three Dots", Continual and Puctuate

Studies, 143:3, 995-1036.

Hipwell, Pete (1996a): "Heterotropic Macrocategorization: A Theory of

Everything Else", London: Spong Press.

Hipwell, Pete (1996b): "Disputations", Journal of Reputable Studies, 19,

24-36.

Hipwell, Pete (1996c): "Incoherent Locations", Journal of Psychological

Topology, 2, 456-580.

Hipwell, Pete (1996d): "Preposter's View of Afterlife Trajectories", The

Journal of Artificial Death, 3, 23-28.

O'Logism, Niamh (1995): "Lexicarnivertumnalesence: Jargons of the New

Word Lorder", Great Yarmouth: Trouser Press.

Preposter, Russell (forthcoming): "Loops: Secret Time Emitter

Cesspool", London: Redivider Press.

Whienya, Debra (1977): "Fluxion and Appropinquation", London: Wavelet

Press.

--

remememedismemberationalessencephalotherroarrogleamitrouselephagentryagain

**** ZPK SITE PLUG: http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~petehip/ZPKIntro.html ****

remementalistonkalligatrememeiostretchinderogathermalicentichoruptamessinge