Circularity in DRAMA.

CIRCULAR REASONING is intrinsic to the work of an artist. The artist must juggle multiple variables and establish their constancy and interdependence through their inter-penetration, as in the tying of a knot or the assemblage of a house of cards. (Though of course in the latter example there is some sort of hierarchy.) Each causal reasoning is in fact a way of expressing a possibility or set of possibilities. All of these will be circular, for the system interpenetrates its self.

1.       A character does not have an epiphany by Act V.

2.       The character must therefore have an epiphany by Act IV.

3.       The character’s epiphany fails, resulting in bitterness.

4.       The bitterness ensures to us that no further epiphanies can succeed.

5.       [The] character does not have an epiphany by Act V.

This can be summed up:

1.       Because she does not have an epiphany she is bitter.

2.       Because she is bitter she does not have an epiphany.

a.       We know that the epiphany failed, resulting in bitterness.

b.      This means that the epiphany cannot happen in Act IV.

This can be reversed:

1.       A character is established as bitter by Act V.

2.       As the result of this bitterness we know that the character did NOT have an epiphany by Act IV.

3.       If the character did not have an epiphany by Act IV then the character must have an epiphany by Act V.

4.       The epiphany is known to clear away bitterness.

5.       The character must be bitter by Act V.

The second narrative under-scores the significance of the epiphany, as well as the character. The first narrative STRESSES the bitterness of the character by the fact that she was un-phased by the “epiphany”. Thus it DE-STRESSES the significance OF the “epiphany”. The second narrative, by contrast, refuses even to acknowledge the failed EPIPHANY *as* an epiphany, thus implicitly STRESSING the significance of what an Epiphany is SUPPOSED TO DO whilst DE-STRESSING the integrity of the character, whose bitterness is seen to be the result of a failed epiphany. The bitterness is only significant in that it DEFINES what the epiphany IS.

So it is that the Artist decides upon a constant: the bitterness, and must conclude which cycle of inter-dependence is most accommodating to both this constant and its corollary, the variable of the EPIPHANY that is supposed to eradicate it. And naturally the conclusion is to have the epiphany FOLLOW the bitterness. Yet in explaining this second-hand we stumble upon the problem that all descriptions of the inter-play of these two forces, just like the inter-play its self as the Artist juggles the ideas prior to writing them and after doing so in explaining them, will be circular.

Dm.A.A.

[Dedicated to A.L.McLeod.]

AND WHEN ONE:

AND WHEN ONE writes not to express but to IMPress:

One is an imp in excess. Dm.

The writer and the Filmer.

The screen writer's knowing when to stop
leaves open to the director's imagination
as cinematography what follows.

Why ought the writer to PRETEND
to know the placement of the remote when he is not
TRUSTED TO KnOW the placement of the
sentences???

Bureacracy is Satan.

Memories surface of childhood.
Not knowing yet how to write but knowing
how to KNOW.

Why ought the director to PRESUME upon
the artistic liberties irrespective of the
consultancy of the WRITER?

Implicit is the ethical egoism model.
My plan shall be subsumed by your plan.

what about THE PLAN?

that we are both involved in.

Dm.

As [Harold] bloom said: these are not just words
arranged neatly on a page (of Joyce).
this is literature!

III:

It stunned me to see how much the educational society cares about rape because I thought that they were interested in molesting all their students. And I do not mean the merely bodily. That one I might imagine could recover from with ease. The real trauma most people seem to internalize: To pretend it is not there. We were born into a paradise and watched it corrupted by the Nazis who told us that life ought NOT to be frivolity and magi[k] but drudgery and logic.

It is time that, if you will pardon the imperative, take back what is ours. (If you will pardon the cliché.)

Parents ought not to INSTRUCT their children. Their CHILDREN should take up the charge of cleaning up the PARENTS’ mess!

The Grade System is to be over-turned. Incentive is a myth of the past. Human beings by their nature possess the keys to paradise. Their very dreams SCREAM, some times their screams being heard in the day light waking world, and miss heard as psychosis, for salvation.

ForATTENTION.

For genius.

Ought the remote to rest upon the table or at the foot of the wall? Never again shall I endure an attack of panick over this question. I shall KNOW for no one would be able to tell me other wise. The Drama OF THE TEXT would inform me, if not its IRONY. But THAT must be allowed EXPRESSION. No more of this Structuralist Bull Shit. If one wants Classical Drama, one will have Classical Drama. But how IRONIC to write, as Joyce did, an entire block of dialogue without either quotation markers nor names as signifiers!

Deliver me from STUPIDITY. Only *I* shall know when I am finished. Internal Necessity [A]lone shall guide me. My only companion is the Unconscious Tao.

And so I shall never lose/my remote to this remote ruise.

But just join the Cruise.

So irony and drama shall both be available to me, to choose betwixt them.

A Roman arbiter whose victims still return from the dead time and time again to

Fight again.

VISION.

Unflattering. Raw. Beautifull.

(((Dm.A.A.)))

A Rape of Authenticity.

I.                    There can be no discernment betwixt form and structure.

II.                  The academics may not be trying to steal my work but they are trying to sabotage it from envy.

III.                Every thing new defies the old structures.

IV.                When a professor tells a student to alter the format of a piece he is compelling the student to change the piece its self. He is trying to subsume the student’s budding Order to the Will of the professor.

V.                  Ideas are the products of confluences of creatively random patterns.

a.       Each philosopher has a distinct model of thought.

                                                               i.      Hegel: Dialectic.

                                                             ii.      Nietzsche: Forms of the Will.

                                                            iii.      Plato: Forms.

                                                           iv.      Kant: Categories.

                                                             v.      Hume: Syntheses.

                                                           vi.      Sartre: Perspectives.

                                                          vii.      Heidegger: Circular reasonings and BACK GROUND.

                                                        viii.      Camus: Dynamic Tension.

b.      Each Artist has a distinct STYLE:

                                                               i.      Picasso: Cubism.

                                                             ii.      Coltrane: Jazz.

                                                            iii.      James Joyce: Stream of Consciousness.

c.       Each individual has a distinct YOGA:

                                                               i.      Hindu Chakra system.

                                                             ii.      Christian view.

                                                            iii.      Taoism.

d.      All of the Above are Structures that influence one an other. They are all so PATTERNS OF STRUCTURE.

VI.                Interference on the part of the Structuralist imposes an egoic model rather than an INSPIRED model.

a.       Ideas are created by language.

b.      By limiting language one restricts IDEAS.

c.       The Remote Control.

                                                               i.      Irony: It rests upon the desk. The protagonist picks it up randomly and turns on the television. What follows is a scene that relates synchronistically to the protagonist’s life.

1.       Richard Linklater.

                                                             ii.      Drama: It has to attract the viewer’s attention. It was tossed against a wall, suggesting a traumatic scene from the writer’s back-ground.

1.       Christopher Nolan.

VII.              All students should adopt a spirit of DEFIANCE in the face of all STRUCTURAL AUTHORITY. The alternative is the swiftest bridge to Fascism that I can imagine.

VIII.            Trauma: The young man or woman learns to distrust and defy all authority. Tries to escape society. Gets captured by Psychiatric Health Nazis. Living Hell.

IX.                Solidarity with class mates becomes impossible so long as there is a monarch they report to.

X.                  Authenticity is raped.

Dm.A.A.

Beyond the Post-Modern. I.

Beyond the Post-Modern. I.

Ali seemed to believe that TRUTH was a function of LANGUAGE. Yet as Wittgenstein said FEELING IS A FACT. What is conveyed by language is not only REASON but FEELING. REASON is but a CONSTRUCT OF Language. Now Reason would inform one that this is as of yet a fallacy; after all, there are other forms of LANGUAGE besides REASON; REASON is but one form of TRUTH. But to understand these other forms we must go beyond REASON. So we see that while TRUTH is CONSTRUCTED by Language AND Reason (which is in fact emotive), FEELING can be CONVEYED by language irrespective of this construct.

Dm.A.A.

On Error and Perfection.

Invitation towards Deliverance:

It must hurt for a perfectionist to admit that she has made a missed take. Especially to one who has not. Now, that claim towards perfection might appear absurd. But in truth perfection is easy to those who seek it. There are only a few temptations in life. All the minutia that usually pass for miss takes are just playings betwixt Order and Chaos.
But I suppose that a more liberal theory would be that you have made your first true error. And from this point forth you shall never err again. But only if you learn from the error. And that involves a paradox. You must accept that perfection is impossible. And so paradoxically your error was that you believed your self to be perfect. You thought that you were justified in your miss take because it might bring you towards the Perfection that you coveted.
And from this point forth you shall not hurt an other towards that end again. And what would have been miss takes will prove to be justified departures. All you do will be Perfect, for you made that error that concluded perfection. But to embrace this you have only to confront the paradox in one more form:
That you ADMIT that what I suffered was not necessary.

Dm.A.A.

So what follows dialectically is a perfection the likes of which you would accuse me of pretending towards.
For when you ask me to admit I too have erred I simply say: No. For even admitting my pursuit of perfection to have been an error I have failed to learn the lesson that one cannot err. And yet one does err. But there is no reason to believe that Life accords with the Law of Non-Contradiction. Rather it was as you had said: paradox is a sigh of relief. For in truth and in sooth you HAD erred by hurting me. That can be forgiven but not pardoned, and it was substantial enough to be called an Error. But I never committed such an error. I only pursuited per chance once the same Goal. But how came I here? I remember not. I maintain my initial claim.

Dm.A.A.