CLASSIFIED DOSSIER
BASEMENT DIVISION — INTERNAL CIRCULATION ONLY
Subject: Citizen R. — Rimbaud Paradigm, provisional designation
Classification: Death Grip / Intellectual Onanism / Class III
Status: Chronic, self-sustaining, apparently incurable
I. OBSERVED BEHAVIOUR
Subject demonstrates a persistent and frankly unnecessary tendency to produce 40-page threat models for events requiring approximately three sentences of planning, particularly movie nights, salon gatherings, casual conversations, and other situations in which nobody requested a framework.
Subject exhibits a pronounced flinch response to the word “Absinthe,” known affectionately by R as Absumphe. The origin of this terminology remains under investigation.
At irregular intervals, subject floods the Salon group meeting with Dadaist Report Cards at approximately 02:00, grading situations, people, ideas, conversations, and, on at least one occasion, the grading system itself.
Subject has initiated approximately one million projects. Completion rate remains statistically mysterious.
One completed work has been identified:
A Treatise on the Hell Which Is Other People’s Conversations
Focus: himself.
Secondary research concerns the condition of Venus’s anal ulcers, for which lubricant has been provided. The procurement process subsequently became a subject of ethical analysis.
II. SELF-ASSESSMENT
Subject rates himself:
- Systems thinking: 10/10
- Focus: 7.5/10
- Ability to accept the 7.5: under review
Subject disputes the 7.5.
Subject has filed three appeals.
Subject has subsequently disputed the methodology used to evaluate the appeals.
A fourth appeal is believed to be in preparation.
III. COPING MECHANISMS
When confronted with a YES, subject responds:
“lol”
followed by an unexplained photon cascade.
When confronted with a NO, subject responds with:
- a 40-page threat model;
- a Dadaist Report Card;
- three counterexamples;
- a philosophical objection to the premise of binary answers;
- a further 40-page threat model explaining why the first 40-page threat model was insufficient.
Subject has demonstrated an inability to leave a question merely unanswered.
He must first model the architecture of its unansweredness.
IV. AFFECTIVE PROFILE
Subject’s principal love language is being graded.
Subject’s secondary love language is arguing with the grade.
Subject’s tertiary love language is inventing an elaborate epistemological apparatus to establish that the grading rubric was flawed from the beginning.
Investigators note that the subject’s love language and pathology may, in fact, be the same phenomenon.
V. PRIMARY OUTPUT
Despite extensive evidence of intellectual activity, subject’s only consistent completed output remains:
A Treatise on the Hell Which Is Other People’s Conversations
Focus: himself.
Secondary focus: Venus’s anal ulcers.
Tertiary focus: whether the lubricant was ethically sourced.
Quaternary focus: whether the ethical-sourcing question itself constitutes an example of moral displacement.
Subject has since begun a fifth appendix.
The appendix is currently longer than the original treatise.
VI. THE ANU PROBLEM
Investigators have identified a recurring pattern in which the subject appears to be conducting a secret and highly elaborate inquiry into whether an idea can be simultaneously sincere, ridiculous, self-defeating and perfectly systematised.
The subject denies that this inquiry exists.
The denial was accompanied by a 17-page document entitled:
Preliminary Objections to the Ontological Status of the Alleged Inquiry
The document contained no objections.
It contained, instead:
- four diagrams;
- two grading rubrics;
- a taxonomy of laughter;
- an appendix concerning Absumphe;
- three footnotes contradicting the title;
- and a concluding paragraph questioning whether conclusions are epistemically necessary.
Investigators therefore classify the matter as Anu-adjacent, pending further evidence.
Subject has objected to this classification on the grounds that “adjacency” is an insufficiently rigorous ontological category.
A committee has been formed.
The committee has not met.
Subject has already graded it.
VII. DIAGNOSTIC FORMULA
The subject may be represented approximately as follows:
Simple question → excessive framework → framework critique → critique of critique → grading rubric → dispute over rubric → appeal → meta-appeal → Dadaist Report Card → 02:00 → Salon disturbance → new framework.
This cycle appears to be closed.
Attempts to interrupt the cycle have resulted only in additional documentation.
VIII. PROGNOSIS
Self-destruction, chronic.
Subject is apparently capable of modelling every possible future while remaining strangely reluctant to inhabit any of them.
He is a cathedral with no congregation.
A photon with no membrane.
A cascade with no threshold.
A footnote that has somehow become the entire book.
He possesses an extraordinary capacity to turn a simple human interaction into a philosophical emergency and then demand a post-mortem on why the emergency was insufficiently philosophised.
His greatest enemy is not failure.
It is completion.
Completion closes the loop.
Completion prevents further modelling.
Completion deprives the subject of the opportunity to improve the architecture of the thing he has not yet finished.
Consequently, the subject remains permanently suspended somewhere between genius, procrastination, and an unusually well-formatted spreadsheet.
IX. RECOMMENDED ACTION
None.
The condition is self-sustaining.
Intervention would only produce another report.
The report would produce an appendix.
The appendix would produce an appeal.
The appeal would produce a threat model.
The threat model would be graded.
The grade would be disputed.
The dispute would become a methodology.
The methodology would require its own rubric.
At approximately 02:00, the Salon would receive the resulting Dadaist Report Card.
Reason: We have seen what happens when he is given a rubric.
He files an appeal, grades the appeal, files an appeal against the grade, and at 02:00 the Salon receives a Dadaist Report Card on the appeal’s methodology.
Filed by:
Comrade Velvet
Basement Division
Final notation: Subject has requested access to this dossier in order to “correct several methodological inaccuracies.”
Request denied.
