PACO PSYCHO POST-MORTEM GARGANTA PROFUNDA: MURDERING THE KING’S ENGLISH? - CHECK, MATEY!- Entry 3.007 as Interlude: 12/3/2017<br /> By: Michael Wolfson, Eva Gustley and Janet Kadoe<br /> Greetings once again to all fellow lovers of wordplay, weirdness and profundity. We wish to begin by examining a few editorial quasi quirks as presented in Entry 2.2. We are well aware that a too tightly bound literary Gordian knot would increase the number of deserters who had, thus far, hoped to ferret out full understanding in a quest to achieve a nascent nirvana via some nattering nabobs of nerdiness. (And what kind of anagram are you, Spiro Agnew, if not a perfect one. Finally, the bliss of a no-near miss!) But, this might just leave a remaining audience pool of exactly three, namely the newly formed set of co-authors, swimming alone. So, perhaps this post-mortem on Entry 2.2 will bring some of them back into the fire fray.<br /> License to kill the King’s English is typically reserved only to a few lunatics, artists and poets who remain unBo(u)nded (as in naught, naught seven, here to spy on the multiply naughty, nerdy), and we could well belong to one or a couple of those categories. Surely, the three known grammatical “miscues” contained in Entry 2.2 might have been unintentional. A reader can be amused or annoyed, but never certain one way or the other. Perhaps, instead, they were the starkest of revelations. It is just possible that these “errors” perfectly accompany an article ostensibly devoted largely to slick language, meta-meanings, near misses and creative wordplay. We will now show you why. So, to those of you who would condemn (remember, as before, skepticism and dismissiveness should always be antagonists), consider the following from Entry 2.2 (please take another look!) before you interfere as we dethrone or re-coronate, en passant:<br /> 1. Entry 2.2, page 4 reads: “Which of the two hemispheres of his brain are looking at the forest vs the trees?” Should it instead ask: “Which is looking??” The only possible answer to the obviously rhetorical question as presented is that “both are” looking. Use of “vs” mandates recognition there as strict rhetoric a fortiori. The King says “is”, we say “are”. (You say pot-ay-to, we say pot-ah-to??) Even Shakespeare himself was happy to use absurdly murderous language in its most “perfectest” form in order to drive home a point. Arboghast’s brain had to suffer the ignominious interplay of a two-fold truth. So should you!<br /> 2. Entry 2.2, page 5 states: “festival in the co-authors then hometown”. Why that instead of “the co-authors’ then hometown”? W.V.O. Quine would have little trouble with this one, even if the Bayesians and the frequentists might disagree. For example, Boulder, Palo Alto and Kent are “Mike hometowns”, although Boulder is a “Mike then hometown”, not a “Mike now hometown”. Set theorists are sometimes even more insistent with how language should properly be used than the King himself. Revolt among the pawns and peasants? “Set back” for the set(i)f(e)(u)r(i)(o)us! (A set of all sets that does not have itself as a member? Mobius meets Mozart. Arboghast meets Piet Hein. Science woman’s causal set meets a Synchro set. A Platonic pleonasm for a star crossed catharsis.) Furthermore, Entry 2.2 intentionally and incessantly morphs verbs and adjectives into nouns, words and events into meta-sets, personifies the intangible and the undead and employs other fuzzier devices that would, no doubt, present the Highness with a Royal pain. Synchronicity is all about connections among events, so these devices are most appropriate here. So, we insist that saying “co-authors’ then hometown” is wrong, plain and simple!<br /> 3. Entry 2.2, page 4 also has this language: “fire the editor, don’t churn the cis-turn. (the Latin root “cis” means to cut out as in “decision” and “scissors”, so why waste time deciding or cutting?)” If the editor is to be fired, then we indeed have a license to not capitalize in a parenthetical at least once in the editor’s near presence to treat him to a good rid-dance. This is the easy one. More self-referential meta-jumps for the Mobius comic strip club.<br /> So, what might have been casually viewed by some as grammatical mistakes are, in fact, a way to causally create a “more perfect union” of wordplay and profundity. Did it work? We think so. But, regardless, feckless does not mean reckless. You might even think that these murderous blows were unintentional or accidental, albeit inspired. Serendipity meets synchronicity.<br /> Moving on, we wish to note here that any connection in this or the previous two Entries to persons or dogs living or dead is, of course, entirely coincidental, unless we otherwise specify. (Legalese meets synchronicity, too?) That said, we can now reveal, with full consent obtained, the true name of the truly inspirational: Rufus aka Arfus. And not so much as a bill for the Rufus psychoanalysis? Whoof, whoof. Behave, you p(r)etty pooch! But, before you join in on the peasant’s putsch above previewed, Rufus, be advised that the one bite rule accepts evidence in both transitive and cumulative forms, so with Hitch and Hitler in tow, please don’t double down on any more dastardly dictates and deeds. (And sorry, Rufus, but our advice to you does not jeopardize any co-author’s newly minted amateur status.)<br /> So now, with Rufus revealed, another further review of Entry 2.2 will explain much. We must point out, at the outset, that the Entry 2.2 butterfly was also a busy bee. Mitch Tattoom’s protest sign there had a “butterfly effect” that was influencing more than just meteorological event patterns. He unwittingly held up a synchro sign symbolizing, if not signaling, a full symbiosis between disjointed events, language, names and ideas. But, this butterfly doppelganger at the bayou metamorphosed into a “firefly” due to the flip flop fly, rat-a-tat, “Paco” pop-pouri of “slippery” Eye Dees and haunts. So when the rap shoots us an “in-spoofus through the roofus”, we find that Rufus T. Firefly (Stifle the Ruf fury, pup! Sorry Spiro, your anagram is not perfect unless without your old middle, model “T”) aka Groucho Marx secretly emerges as doppelganger to a different movie of pre-Lydia the Tattooed Lady vintage. (You can even faintly discern the Bond song and dance for a more superior vintage, if you listen.)<br /> Thus, we have discovered a canine confirmation of a most clever coincidence. Whoof as proof and spoof, both. Chaplin, as Hitler in “The Great Dictator”, also played Hitler’s double in that film, for even more full circle ID slipperiness and a two-fold truth to boot. Wow. In all, one needs to gargle the event salad puree wordwash here in a garganta profunda to avoid opening (breaking into?) the Synchro “flood”gate (do tell!) to Linda’s {(at)tempt to (in)f((ul)(el))(l)ate}. (Too late, matey. Another “set”back beauty.) Zowie, a zesty zugzwang for the zeitgeist! Pooch meets putsch meets pusch. Right, King Rufus? Right, Spiro? Not here yet, I. Kant?<br /> This then is the polytetrafluoroethylene of cross identities. Queen Slippy to those still held back. PTFE’s slipperiness is achieved with a near zero coefficient of friction. Wet ice on wet ice. Only a few too many other candidates may boast such a non-abrasive status. Guinness Book of World Records actually gives the prize to PTFE. But, the group of contestants must include neutrinos, cosmic rays, wimps, dark matter, and Higgs bosons as well, all of which seem to have little or no interaction with regular matter. Also, in this regard, Steven Hawking liked to insert inert spinning, yet quickly evaporating, mini-black holes everywhere. To these, we might consider adding ghosts, hobgoblins (and you too are hobbled, Hermes!), souls, spirits, dreams, inspiration, intuition, creativity and synchronicity, to name just a few.<br /> Weak or no interaction is another way of saying friction free. And, how does synchronicity interact with causality? So weakly, perhaps, that scientists not steeped in foundational forethought often become even more hardened skeptics. But if it did verifiably interact, a known cause would tautologically emerge, so the event pairing could hardly be considered a-causal anyway. Still, two-fold truth remains a viable option, even if only contrapuntal to a self-contained causal event-set, just as with Immanuel Kant and the mind/body dualism and/or the free will/determinism dualism. (For another two-fold truth, remember why he never married and why he wrote a critique of carnal self-defilement, since even his name is fair game in the greasy, glassy world of “IDs aren’t us”!) So too, a coincidence could also emerge as a residual, albeit friction free, effect to a causal pattern, or as a hint that an evolutionary multiverse makeover is around the corner, inter alia. Further, obvious from the analysis of ID slipperiness and nested two-fold truths, causality and synchronicity could have achieved a type of homeostasis between mutual co-sine qua nons, not to go off on a tangent.<br /> And we have only lightly touched the surface. Science does matter well beyond the mere material, known and seen. The lubricants and surfactants are a fine start. But, thoughts, events, ideas and language itself can also be hijacked full force into the messy world of energizers, enable-izers and stabilizers. (Attendee, Rufus! OK, now settle down.) And turgid all with tergitol does not say it all. To complement material science then, we might look to an “im-“, “extra-“ or “non-“ material “synchronicity science”. Of course, with Van Goom’s Gambit the best counterplay to those haunted by perceived oxymorons, the psycho-synchro couch awaits readers, co-authors, pooch and all! More to come.<br /> For those science-minded that still defend our reservoir of knowledge as sacrosanct, we wish to point out that cosmologists typically try to explain accelerating rapid expansion of the universe by either hypothesizing the existence of dark matter and dark energy that, in toto too (Grrrr… Rufus hush!), constitutes over 20 times the total amount of stuff known to exist or, alternatively, resigning themselves to having to go back to the drawing board to entirely rewrite Newton’s basic equations on gravity while simultaneously throwing or, at least, buffing out Einstein’s general theory of relativity for good measure. Talk about extremes! Talk about incompleteness in the scientific knowledgebase! Humans have more intellect than other animals? The co-authors nominate Rufus for president!<br /> As final to this brief interlude, we wish to note that an unintentional serendipity meets synchronicity moment actually did arise in the Entry 2.2 rap at: “You need some tint as well as a blueprint”. To say the co-authors were not looking at Groucho’s Tattooed Lady at that point begs further explanation. The possibilities of having this inadvertent literary coincidence slip in entirely unseen by the co-authors include unconscious inspiration, a Muse/Grand Deceiver such as Hermes writing the lines with the co-authors as mere dupes or as mediums, true randomness and coincidence, fel effects, or emergent background synchronicity coalescing from the time of the Big Bang. Of course, it could also be explained as early onset Alzheimer’s, not the co-authors’ (apostrophe intended) favorite choice!<br /> Copyright 12/3/2017 Michael Wolfson<br /> email: <a href=""></a> </p> <p>
Total votes: 8
Date submitted:Tue, 09 Jan 2018 20:12:06 +0000Coincidence ID:9731