Codebook Spectrum

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...

So I believe we've gotten to an exciting place, even if it's taken some time and detours, and a lot of rambling about my own work and the various stages (and there might be more forthcoming, since convincing myself of this depends on me making it cohere with my biographical evidence.) Essentially I am working with this new paradigm now, and rejecting Hypothesis #2, although that hypothesis did actually clarify what the problem was, and deepen our sense for my personal history and its primary motive forces. But there is still so much more to understand about this movement. Why does Phase A not move forward to comedy but Phase B does? Phase B is so dramatic, and yet espouses an anti-dramatic principle. It would seem now that Hypothesis #2 makes a great point about "Delusional Adam and the Garden of Irrelevance" as the dialectic, and Phase C as not the dialectic, not the negotiator between sides, but as the choice of the comedy side, and ultimately, the power of repressi...

 Here we are again, writing voluminously on a core philosophical problem as I find it by analyzing my musical career. In the previous post, the conflict re-emerged, seeming before to have been solved, between succession and integration.  Rather than one hypothesis we have been pursuing which reverses an early hypothesis like so-- I am always the soul that is learning how he is wrong. Wrongness is the learning of a soul who is always myself. --stablishing a tension between the self/love instinct (integration) and the birth/death instinct (succession) which are encountered in this order, we gave re-birth to the second (first) hypothesis, the soul always learning how he is wrong, the counter-self. We were able to challenge our entire hypothesis which was that our work essentially reversed the flow to solve the problem a dialectic provided, which was the "comic" principle, as the union of self-rejective and self-selective instincts. Phase A leading into Phase B was the real probl...