The Logic of Interference

by Beauchamp Art

Unreliable Eye - 07

An Overview of Irrational Interfaces, and the Phenomenology of False Perception

It is the role of the individual to be responsible for their action, and thus it is necessary for them also to be responsible for their responses, to recognise the course of their actions, both in themselves, as they extend outwards unto others, and how their are perceived, both internally and externally by other parties.

If I reach forward with my hand, and grasp the arm of my chair, or make a fist, I expect to feel the resistance of that which I interface, or feel the pressure within my closed palm. With this reasonable certainty of the feedback that will be received, I can extend my arm knowing approximately the sensory outcome and the physical reaction of the space. However, if the response of my nerves is atypical, and instead of feeling clench, my hand feels open, perhaps cold in the open air, yet knowing my hand is closed, by observation and the certainty that my intent has been effectively acted upon by my musculature, there would be a discord between these contradictory states, and it would be reasonable to assume there is something wrong with either my hand or nerves, or even my mind.

My perception of cause and effect would be skewed by this anomaly, and it would be worth inquiring when some nervous disorder had afflicted me, or weather my mind was slipping into unusual patterns of behaviour, particularly if other actions had erroneous consequences, such as a foot not falling as one would expect, disrupting the rhythm of my walk.

Now, this discord could be scrutinised more effectively with the aid of third-party perspectives, for instance demonstrating to someone the closing of the outstretched hand in to a fist, and if they note that you hand has closed, or has not, then this can be taken into consideration along with the internal response. If it noted that the fist is successfully formed, but it feels as though the hand remains open, or that the converse is true, then it would be reasonable to assume that the is a problem with the body or brain, and so this must be amended, or behaviour altered so as the intention; to form a fist, conforms with the reality of the outcome, so intent and action respond appropriately with outcome and reaction.

This seems straightforward enough.

However, even understanding that there is a discord due to delirium or a malperformimg body, this in itself does not resolve the issue of the dissociation of action and consequence, and it is the duty of that individual so afflicted to take responsibility for their responses, regardless as to whether the cause of the discord was due to internal or external factors. A sick man must seek help so as not to afflict others or do harm to himself or those around him.

Now, a hand is extended, and endeavours to take hold of another’s grasp, to pull them close, they reach and feel their limb unfold and invite contact, they can be observed that they have successfully put their arm before them, to whom they reach also may confirm this, and they may feel one another pulled together, but when they turn to walk together, they go in opposite directions, and their hands break apart.

There appears to be, effectively, no clear reason as to why this may be so, unless one or both individuals not successfully aligned their perception of the exchange with the reality of the interface. Some interference must have occurred, for two hands pulling together should result in the crossing of paths, not the divergence of roads.

How then can such a situation be amended, particularly when one continues down their path, while the other remains in a state of uncertainty on the cross roads? He who makes a fist but whose hand remains open must attempt to resolve their irrationality, and the irrationality of the circumstance.

He who pushes away when he endeavours to draw near must understand their disparity, but must also have a means to resolve the issue at hand. It is little use realising that the body or mind have failed if nothing can be done to remedy the situation. Such a diagnosis is unhelpful. A cure must be had, or some sustainable treatment applied to render the situation either resolved or tolerable.

However, the response must be appropriate and not hyperbolic, amputating the misbehaving hand will cease the symptom by rendering the appendage totally inoperable, preventing it from both functioning properly and improperly with regards to the reactions as a consequence of individual’s actions, but due not treat the root cause, and if other limbs begin to perform undesirably, if the foot slips, the the other, removing the feet will not stop the condition from spreading, before rendering the whole body inoperable.

But a more moderate treatment may allow some use of the affected limb, sacrificing some positive response to nullify the more extreme of the negative. A half clenched fist, or a partner pulled some of the way nearer, may generally be perceived as being a more desirable outcome than the converse, to enable some greater correlation between action and consequence, by both the individual intending their actions to be acted out accordingly by their body, and by those directly affected and those who may observe such exchanges and interfaces.

Though even with this knowledge, and half a cure, for the man who wishes one thing of his actions, but knows another will become of him, this situation may still be an agony, and enduring it may still be intolerable, regardless of whether it is his mind, his body or another’s body, or for the matter the world that is irrational and in need of aid and resolution, for the ambiguity of internal and external realities is uncertain enough, even without the interference of imperfect interfaces, and even with a reasonable understanding of problematic situations or environments, with the potential for a cure, this does not necessarily alleviate the current circumstance, nor detract from the problem of the initial state.

The hand; as one’s actions, once rendered uncertain, will be forever subject to doubt. Though to doubt, in itself may not be problematic, rather it is necessary to further understanding, but to be forever burdened by doubt as to the reality of the consequence of one’s actions and thus the internal reactionary feedback, this is a truly cruel fate.



If it rains, it is the individual’s responsibility to wear a jacket, to save their self from becoming unwell and prevent him from the desire to complain about his circumstance, to acknowledge the impropriety of environment and to the appropriate course of action to remedy the situation, otherwise they are either a fool, irrational, or lacking a coat.