Codebook Spectrum

         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...

           Well, after writing a post I've now deleted, in which I expressed my theory of artistic influence in such a baroque way that it resulted in an insane conclusion, what I have realized is that this is the end of this blog, for now, until I find myself moved to use it for a different purpose.           What I have realized -- what I have realized -- what I have realized --          I have realized that I listen to my mind too much. And by listening to my mind, which is extremely educated, I listen to your mind, too. The mind of civilization, of power-systems, of religions, of philosophies. And what I have realized is that much of what I have said here is fascinating to me, and which has perhaps taught me a degree of mental athleticism that will suit me in the future in ways I cannot foresee. But really "Cognition" or "Talking" is no kind of cure. As Schopenhauer put it, the art of mental reflect...

           To be honest, when I wrote "maybe this is the end," I was sitting in an uncomfortable place trying to do my thinking and writing, which I think influenced that gloomy ending; I've now changed locales and am ready to thwart even that conceptualization of negation. Onesidedness is a concept in Jung I really can't stand, because it enforces this idea of transcendence as neutrality, as sublime contradiction, and completely ignores what we have made a foundational principle of this blog, which is the equivalence of being and valuation. "The time of your life," "there is no comparison," these value-judgments of peak experience demonstrate how logic relates to emotion, how the detection of presence dissolves the barrier between quality and quantity, for absence can never show up to be counted.           What is now being demonstrated to my thinking is the componency relationship of part/whole, singularity/plurality, in the ...

          Okay. So where was I going before I got distracted by the stupid, ridiculous world. Where I was going was-- I encountered some psychological trouble, which went like this. "Connection" is existence, continuity, between perception and agency. And this is a fantastic thing to settle on, but then our trouble becomes-- we have gotten to this point through an image of the agency that acts upon perception as the plurality which is causality. Which then becomes an agency of the perception-connection, which exists again in a plural nexus. And connection is also coherent with valuation, because valuation is the connection between being and peak experience. But what dark thought entered my mind was that the causality that influences us is disconnection, and the causality it advises is disconnection. It was very strangely articulated, but it came out as this idea that the plurality causes plurality, that therefore the action is negation which is required, th...