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

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

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.


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,

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

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

Hipwell, Pete (1990): "The OOTMOB Principle: Cheesomatic Promulgation
in a Thema-Matrix of Indeterminable Size", ZPK Research Report

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

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,

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,

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

**** ZPK SITE PLUG: ****

Back to document index

Original file name: MOREPETE

This file was converted with TextToHTML - (c) Logic n.v.