I have begun to question whether the whole previous argument, and many posts previous, are elaborating something that was settled at the beginning into a whole kind of crazy thought experiment. That the reversal idea is really the beginning and the end of what's happening now and what the solution is. That essentially to birth love out of tragedy is just to reverse the tragedy, like an energy circuit. Which doesn't create the same thing. That the successive principle is the idea of the new, and the integrative principle is the idea of love. Love followed by newness is tragedy. Newness followed by love is love. So what I would speculate this means is that my early work is a love adapted out of the fabric of my surroundings, something old, preceding me, a wildness given whereas O Vocoder is a wildness taken. Or simply that this means the love is a repetition, a repetition of a love inherited, a family complex, a psychodrama which is inherited-- more nuanced, complicated, and expa...
Ah the turns a mind makes. I am moving towards a radical reversal of sorts, back to the place I was at in April! Comedy + tragedy = satirical art. This is my rationale: the unconscious itself is pure sexuality which combines both peaceful instincts and hostile instincts. "Love" as we popularly know it is really "peace," the bond that ties families, friends, colleagues, and lovers. But among the lovers, within the expressly sexual component of their bond, the opposites of this so-called 'love' are combined. Love is the combination of war and peace. I keep thinking about my book idea, Love and War. The reversal of succession is integration, and the integrative movement, however, is not the sort of merely de-succeeding process I have previously characterized it as, but more like a dialectic, but a non-successive dialectic, as in, not a synthesis that occurs over and over again in family trees. The transcendent function is actually an integrative function, whic...