The Impossibility of Repetition.

The function of memory seems to be pre-
dominantly imprecise. It is much as William James had posited, citing Hera-
clitus: One can not step in to the same stream twice.

At any moment that a new thought is produced, there is an implicit sense of Assuredness that this thought is authentic and per chance un-precedented. Yet when Volitional Consciousness begins to interfere and meddle with the contents that affective Certainty becomes muddled. In truth, 'Certainty' is im-
possible. And yet at the moment that this becomes apparent Certainty all so becomes imperative, because Assuredness disappears. One can never 'think the same thing twice', per se, because even were one to stumble upon the same set of words twice the sense of Assuredness that had coloured the back-
ground of the initial Thought will have disappeared for ever; with the Attention directed back rather than forth, one can never be Assured that one hasteuly made a success full repetition. Only the illusion of such a success is possible, and that is triggered by any redundancy what so ever. To the degree that the new thought-forms are redundant In Reference to Their Selves,(and of course, eventually, Each Other,) the illusion of Repetition will be tempting, but scandalous to the attentive phenomenologist who spots this ruse that his mind is playing up on him.

dm.A.A.

... And you think: Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even tested our Chemistry yet.
I have to do a Chemistry experiment!

... And you think: Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even done a chemistry experiment yet.

How can I know if we even HAVE Chemistry?

Here 'I' creates a seductive repetition. Two 'I's' appear in each of the two permutations.
Like two lovers' eyes. The illusion that THIS was the initial set of seductive phrases appears to be never completion. But it is aesthetically atrocious, placing excessive strain, blame, and responsibility upon the Subject.
This uniformity, one-
sided because it excludes the 'we' and the 'is', comes close to suggesting a successful repetition, but only because its own internal uniformity mimmicks what such control on the part of Consciousness Would Look Like.

... And you think: Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even tested our Chemistry yet. There was no Chemistry experiment!

Better. Perhaps:

Oh, no. This is too soon. I have not even tested our Chemistry yet.
We have to do a Chemistry experiment!

Difference is the Soul of Love.

DM.A.A.

Adding to complications in Certainty is the fact that at every point the intellectual ascetic must omit the 'wrong phrase', definitionally, that he might hope to make a success full repetition. Yet this is impossible. The very focus of attention upon the task of repetition brings all so to light all the other permutations.
In speech, one has to choose From these per-
mutations in order that one can speak the proper one. To deny this choice is to Bad Faith. Yet to acknowledge this choice is to think All of the Permutations At Once, as options,
rendering what are physical possibilities as mental Actualities. In this sense, Every Thought is a Repetition (of the Same Possibilities), so to speak of a 'successful repetition' is again futile, for there can be no success with out the possibility of failure. It is purely affective, not logical; a la Kierkegaard, it is a passion that burns to its own destruction.

DM.A.A.