Background: This was written(?) during some word-weary days in Frankfurt. Early on. I used The Bureau here as a hook, although it wasn’t meant to refer to my real Bureau (OBSR). I believe the following was the result of too many squandered evenings discussing everything with a friend -a volatile Pole and brilliant musician, and therefore prone to metaphysics and incapable of escaping symbolism, which I found exasperating. The gag is that it all makes sense once one gets the syntax. Other than that, I do like the image of two nuts riling the hell out of each other. -More like Lem than Witkaczy perhaps.
DEAD SIMPLE
c 1982 Tristan Winter
The whole point of the matter in general, and in particular, but for the present inquiry, particularly in general, is to find the absolute simplest answer -in the simplest time available, i.e., to wit : QUICK AND EASY- from the indisputably simplest source, and start one’s wild and possibly hairless pursuit from there. Now we can all think of somebody achieving exactly what we are aiming to ACHIEVE, or, at the very least, something generally analogous to it, but, I ask yourself, is it so bloody fucking simple to attain the right conditions (social, hedonistic, psycho-logical, etc.) within which we can simply BEGIN?
And that is precisely why, give or take a little leeway, merely to facilitate our indelectably important purpose, or aim, if you will, that everything has been established in such a way as to encourage, probe, prod and frankly record just exactly what we have been talking about (by way of cosmological predicate, first of all, and, secondly, necessitating the alleviation of further necessities per se -that is, without contributing directly and in the utmost general manner to our subject).
As you can plainly see, it is very simple. The epistemological ramifications of the word SIMPLE are, small wonder, so elementary that even the biological re-percussions of all this are not half as foolishly embarrassing in consideration. If only to codify this basic and, hence, organically integral precept of the non-preceptual principle (again, it is imperative to keep in mind what is evolving is not necessarily here, but, rather, where, in perfect spontaneous simultaneous synchronization with the actual ‘order’ of what is happening), for those of our general species who are not adverse to embarrassment and, in particular, utter debasing humiliation, far overreaching the ethnological (i.e., inculcated confinements of various types and classifications -exactly what we are so methodically exposing here) consciousness of such an extremity, we shall provide the following:
A SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE MEAN, at this point:
A man is not what he believes to be the totality of a chair, and consequently rationalizes nearly everything he does and encounters, i.e., his totality, in this way. Now suppose the chair were deprived of Man without any previous experience (total) to metabolize, or metaphorize, in general. The chair would then be completely erased from our system without mercy or anything else in the way of ontological reparation, while Man, always reacting to the situation in particular, whether he believes what it is not or is duped into being what he believes is not the total of whatever we goddamn well please, is automatically propelled into a maelstrom of allegorical subservience to his own and every other thing’s total, which is why the chair, by its natural spiritual capacity alone, is now dominant in the system. The existence, or simple possibility of any ontological system is the very predicate for any other ontological possibility. This is the basis of all reality perception, as we see it.
Fortunately for everything, and everybody (short for plural, in the sense of the singular), we, having gone so far, took it just the right degree further -not a millimeter or microcosm farther than that- and have now reached this point. So far, everything was totally simple, which is just how we are working to keep it. That is or hypothesis, our control group, and our total point, results being totally beneath the point of inquiry in our method.
The simplest approach to the method, which we have and continue to analyze, test, torture and idolize, if for no other reason than to verify the functional format of its unmitigated total success -both in its terms and in ours- is to learn as much as conceivably possible from the most laudably perfect orifice. The central point of all this, the true and only cynosure in this constellation of the totality in question, is The Bureau. That is why we started The Bureau in the first place. Again, simplicity wields an olympian hand in the system which started the systemization of the system in total. Destiny, or providence as the spiritually deficient are accustomed to calling it, could be said to have had little or nothing whatsoever to do with it. We are The Bureau and the only point as of now is to ask everyone: why not? Why not, indeed, you wormy generalities? Well, The Bureau is not very big in the spatial sense (although this can be expanded upon when we so please to do so), and there is simply no reason for anyone else but us. Now, us is what is really the point and so, youwhatyouam, there is simply no other possibility of anything else in any sense whatever.
My indescribably esteemed colleague is named, more or less, Leroy, despite the fact, unalterable and permanently coagulated as it all is, that he is Polish of conception. I, on the other side, am not, which is why, though Leroy is strong as a ham, I can do many more feats of unbelieving daring than he can, provided, of course, that I am so inclined. I don’t remember ever leaving The Bureau and I can swear that Leroy has never even though about anything outside of it. Without us The Bureau would be nonexistent, which would be a shame as none of this would ever have come to be so perfectly excellent as it is presumed to be. We have contributed innumerable contributions of exactly the quality necessary to The Bureau. Breakfast cereals are only one example of the miraculous final products of The Bureau; Chicken Heads, for example. -Hey, folks, kids just love the nutty, crunchy taste of Bureau-certified Chicken Heads! More or less, I can state with total impunity that The Bureau currently holds all private, state and molecular patents one every part of the public body, only to mention one. As a matter of Bureau-verified factuality, it would be particularly impossible to concretize even a simple fraction of The Bureau. The point is, however, simple: more or less we deal with systems.
These systems are the totality of the total inclusion (i.e., totality) of everything The Bureau is, does, and will forever always was. How this really occurs in the sense we necessarily implicate so masterfully completely is nothing but how can only will described.
leroy: i have reached the end, the conclusion, the answer.
me: but i ask you: what is the graphic shape, which, if you have one then we can say you are wrong -not in the moral sense- of the system from which we can say that you have accomplished?
leroy: humanity is, i tell you. there can be no other thingy, i say. no percentage of what you ask me, with that crap of yours for whatever it am. i say, and so it must will.
me: first, i must answer your point with what we shall define, for definitions benefit, i told you simply. i have an acquired taste -bigger than the universe, larger than you- perhaps like this, from whose saturnine vantage i notice that you have precisely according to how, truly overcome the so-called emotion which you often (now, for instance) scream uncontrollable pleasantries of conclusiveness. all of which i can say is not the truth as we no it without meaning.
leroy: the entire whole point what us should accept am i say, is, in general, the supremely hopeless predilection for hope what stinks from the whatitperhapsmight how is you. now me, to be fantastically expert in such a limited system of you know (and that’s only my first quality -more is not possible), is, to be very personally particular, how i say. again you kill me with your thing for the subjects why we make all of what so clear, do you hear me, so clear!
me: i think so two, but now you make all what is go wrongside all at once and you only have one line.
leroy: yes. and how is with you.
me: we are not criminals how you say. what it am how you is in the form -to establish a form for the point of filling it with what who am somehow because this i am it how i am- and i make my point for the insides (a thingy how you condomplate in no sequence whatsoever, at least how i know beyond question from the facts. Facts of your connection with it), and it can only perhaps so with my method that somehow can am some insides in the first place. and you give me again!
leroy: i do not understand what said you, will you please repeat those until such point how i will? to answer your question, i must always take the point about how, more than is it you make me like it, for simple and only is this possible no anything whatsoever way. i do not like what, i do not am what, the rest is simple to the point of everything i do not like anyways, so how are it that i am so what it all will that when i ask myself this simple am not exactly terminated? am i just what has happened to make all mypersonal so how? so am? you are the rest -what is how or simply not. i can am that somenot amazing.
me: it is how on mythingywhat not so complex. am it exactly where, at all points, in all measurements, smoothly with every ontological vacuum, and terminal crash. so how it to be what. perhumps the total is not an optimal concept, no? i be guilty of heroic proportions but so see what? it will no anysomeno absolute. absolute, i point you, but perfectly that. my answer i never smell; i no not what you eat when you puke up those ends. you pay your function more than your form, and i ask you specifically: is that make?
leroy: my entire biological relationship to how you say is very absent (i say for you total) commerce, pure and simple. it was pre-existentially new as from right now and this is what i be trying so (i despise my thingymacallit like a bloodbloated nasty who i myself would even enjoy to put in the point some resembling in essence squashed out of the system so into the floor, but i can only love so) methodically seasoned with my exact version what is correct to can. i am my new ontology from precisement this point.
me: time becomes why you do that, that’s all.
leroy: but the form is only how do call them those thingies?
me: when i make the words for my personal points you say me about something what i never hear, method. now how is possible when i end no allwhatis?
leroy: i understand perhaps more than, but the system has acquired all what is the only. and how feely you i don’t like?
me: is true and no other whatsome only for balance. i have here what somenot in the other. don’t bark me i have decision for any thingy how is to be destroy my personal expertise for not even zero.
leroy: balance you tell. so for true and complete telling what is it, me, in general hear no point where is how. if be the mechanation now then i be exactly howso too. i have only this simple. for total of absolute i can say so to be it how my point. you eat somedo how is very pus infected from the biggest wrong antibiotic. -are you not to be excused from eggs?
me: do a rat all deviant horrible, only to follow my mindcrushing possibleso for theory (and you, what are mayhap mere simulacrum to be so a construct!) -for it be minus no anything why we absolute have must to make allsovery with my hypotenssamus only to speed some farther- this not what is exactly the other miscreant of the total what you charge me for, do it like the total of itspersonalwhat better (a) a big turkey dinner with all the accessories (ie the optimal of the total) or (b) a specifically, verified by The Bureau itself, true as more not, baseball something upon its headpart? i eat not how the phantoms cook, nor make me specific for anyhowwhatmay for that who am not my personal largeness. i take no the medicine. how are can so what yourparts question my fetters? am i not exactly what the disease how is possible?
leroy: i understand now. maximal totality of the absolute minimal. exactly so simple!
___________________________________________________