Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

PACO PSYCHO POST-MORTEM GARGANTA PROFUNDA: MURDERING THE KINGS ENGLISH?

- CHECK,
MATEY!- Entry 3.007 as Interlude: 12/3/2017

By: Michael Wolfson, Eva Gustley and Janet Kadoe

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.

License to kill the Kings 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:

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. Arboghasts brain had
to suffer the ignominious interplay of a two-fold truth. So should you!
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 womans 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!
3. Entry 2.2, page 4 also has this language: fire the editor, dont 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 editors 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.

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.

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 peasants 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 dont double down on any more dastardly dictates and deeds. (And
sorry, Rufus, but our advice to you does not jeopardize any co-authors newly minted amateur status.)

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 Tattooms 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.)

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 Hitlers 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
floodgate (do tell!) to Lindas {(at)tempt to (in)f((ul)(el))(l)ate}. (Too late, matey. Another setback
beauty.) Zowie, a zesty zugzwang for the zeitgeist! Pooch meets putsch meets pusch. Right, King
Rufus? Right, Spiro? Not here yet, I. Kant?

This then is the polytetrafluoroethylene of cross identities. Queen Slippy to those still held back.
PTFEs 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.

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 arent 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.

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 Gooms Gambit the best counterplay to those haunted by perceived
oxymorons, the psycho-synchro couch awaits readers, co-authors, pooch and all! More to come.

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 Newtons basic equations on gravity while
simultaneously throwing or, at least, buffing out Einsteins 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!

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 Grouchos 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 Alzheimers, not the co-authors (apostrophe intended) favorite
choice!

Copyright 12/3/2017 Michael Wolfson


email: mwolfson@stanfordalumni.org