Codebook Spectrum

           I would like to take up an idea I thought up elsewhere than this blog, the idea that both art and science are arts of persuasion, in light of the new emphasis I've placed on satire. (I'm not sure about that spectrosis idea, that has to be digested a bit more; that's crazy.) Both art and science orient us to the world, participants in our continuous process of orientation, which orients us with respect to both our sensory world, our memory, our criticism, and our creative actions. Basically I reached this idea by questioning the idea that science implies a de facto hierarchy over the arts, thinking as I did that the products of scientific research just as well as aesthetic innovation often go unnoticed. What science behaves like is our thinking mind, which offers theses that may be factually correct but which are no guarantee that our actions will follow them. This modified an earlier view of mine in which I realized the mind could not command us,...

           It would seem, if this artist-critic is a satirist, and the satirist establishes continuity and orientation, that there is need for a better understanding of what satire is. It has appealed to me as late as a way of merging comedy and tragedy, humor with a more compassionate poetic art. Comedy had also repulsed me for its being a form of negation, a representation of something psychologically inconceivable, the joke which condemns what it discusses as a joke. Satire seems a bigger, more hard-to-pin-down thing than merely a joke. Also, I have contrasted satire with capital, in that capital converts labor into itself like a parasite, and I have also linked this with psychological notion of authority, against which I have contrasted the "inspiration" provided by art, the indirect communication. Satire behaves like capital in that it can assimilate things to itself, through parody, it can take an advertisement and turn it into a warning sign. Both sa...

         A new idea has come to me as regards what I was saying before with respect to criticism. To recap, I was thinking that criticism is something we all have, something we all feel as we look at the image of the world, and that it reflected our continuity, our course, our position in time between memory and sensation. I also speculated that to convert our emotional judgment of our reality into criticism converts course into discourse, and that doing so makes what you say participate in the social order. The psychotherapy encounter establishes the dichotomy of analysand and analyst which is memory and sensation, autobiography and analysis. Between autobiography and analysis there is criticism, both personal and general, an expression of evaluative relatedness. But when evaluative relatedness is converted into discourse, it speaks for the social order; the metaphor I used was the idea that if one looks into the mirror, they become the world. "Aesthetic d...

         As regards yesterday's post where we struggled between autobiography and philosophy and tried to figure out what was the midpoint between them, and then struggled a bit between the two art forms we saw between them, in the feeling for the image of the world-- a new realization has come to me on this subject which is that criticism lives in between memory and sensation, between analysand and analyst, criticism is very honest to the nature of the perception of time. In a way it is the most honest, maybe. Because you're not analyzing the nature of what you see, or telling your life story, but being both subjective and objective in the form of offering an evaluation. But what we find realizing that is a sort of knot to unravel between criticism and influence, and focus and amplitude.          Criticism positions us in subjective position with regards to the objective, as the viewer and evaluator of our life, and all its component pa...

           Where does influence come from? How are we influenced by the world? I have thought, and possibly wrongly, that it comes down to two main sources: the pressures of contemporaneity, a la the appearance of relevance to mainstream and populist culture, and secondly, from the most positive associations in memory, what has been referred to earlier on this blog as "valuation." I believe if anything new is to come that is positively valued, it establishes continuity with what was earlier judged positive, because we would not even approach it to begin with. However it strikes me that it is very possible that one can value something at the expense of something else, from the past, which begins to be repressed as a consequence. I am undecided, a bit, as to whether this conflict is possible, or if it is the same conflict as that which exists between memory and contemporaneity. Memory has nothing to do with tradition, it is a personal memory. And it's much li...

           The mind turned against the mind in the previous post. My ideas grew wearisome to me and seemed out of touch with my private being, in a manner that was not at all therapeutic or helpful. The only thing it revealed was that the mind is too simplistic to offer any revolutions to personal issues which, on reflection, seem incomprehensible in logical terms, and purely emotional, or as we said many times before, the product of a dream-logic which can only developed through artistic means. The previous post completely kicked the shit out of me personally, and now I feel I've dusted myself off and am ready to ask some very challenging questions of myself, since apparently my mind cannot help but roam on. Or, rather, the challenging question was what the previous post asked, and now we are prepared to even make a stab at answering it.            The problem occurring to me now is the merger of science and religion foun...