We can review our two experiments:
The imperfect experiment which draws upon information only
available to us in our present.
And the more perfect experiment which draws upon the
information ostensibly apparent to us in the past (or ostensibly available to
us but only using information available to us in the past and not information available
to us in the present). Now, of course, this is all ready a bit sketchy, because
we are not sure that we actually have available to us right now in the present
the information available to us in the past, because of the fallibility of our
memories. Needless to say, the perfect experiment doesn’t in fact WORK, doesn’t
produce results, or if does, it only produces them In Passing, and they cannot
be re-created. The first experiment ALL SO produced results, and to some degree
they can be re-created, but you don’t know whether or not this re-creation is
or is not simply a continuation of the same experiment, because it Feels
phenomenologically as though no time has passed at all between the original
sense of inspiration and the Current sense of inspiration.
So what does this tell us?
First of all it tells us that the whole Positivistic ideal
of ‘Re-creatable Results”, is really some sort of a Farce, especially if our
Creativity is concerned. So Re-creativity is somewhat the Enemy of Creativity,
it might be said. But there is something Else about this phenomenologically.
And that is: Is that you might say in theory that either experiment Could have
produced the same results. But because the results can only be produced ONCE
because they are Novel, it must be presumed that whichever one we did First was
the one that produced the results and therefore, if we’d done them in an
alternate order, the Perfect Experiment would have produced the results. And we’d
be happy. We’d go home happy.
But: Presuming upon this, we’d have to admit that either
experiment, either arrangement, could in fact create the same effect. And
therefore we might all so say that any arrangement, any different arrangement
of songs, any different experiment could all so create the same effect. And
therefore it can be said that any arrangement is not unique; it is “non-unique”.
So the arrangement we are working with right now, which we originally Intuited,
does in fact therefore have something to it that the other arrangements do not,
and it could only be arrived at through Intuition.
Furthermore: Let’s look at it pragmatically. We can Infer,
that since an imperfect experiment can still produce a result, there is something
we’re dealing with here which is Unconscious on our part. We are NOT trying to
re-create the past; we are trying to project the future, which would of course
USE, according to Common Sense, the information available to us at present, and
it would be building upon [what is from its point of reference] the Past.
So, what does this mean?
This means that just in the same way as you might say that
either of these two experiments is equal, you might say that it doesn’t make a
difference whether we are projecting these experiments upon the future, or
whether we are looking back on the past. We really cannot set foot in the same
river twice. And yet when we’re dealing with this unique instant, and the magic
that we have on this album, it is unique. Even the future cannot really
re-produce it; it can only challenge it or offer an alternative which would be
appropriate to say a live performance or something of that nature. The point is
that you could just as easily say that the Present comes out of the Future as
it comes out of Past. Because even in our analysis of the Past we are all ready
thinking about the Future. But theoretically…
Dm.A.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment