Thursday, 14 June 2012

Monocultures, Dopplegangers and Infighting:

Doppelgangers, fish looking at mirrors, genetically similar tribes: all of these things attack verisimilitudes/facsimilies of themselves. All things that are identical.. attack themselves (?) or pos/alternatively things that are similar to themselves: all things in creation strive to be difference (as an expression of individual will), or just attack that which is similar (for reasons I don’t know).  Why would A1 attack A2 just because they are alike?  It reminds me of infighting amongst herd beasts (& women & female primates - a news clip on Channel Four news (UK) about a herd of primates (gorillas possibly) that were bickering and squabbling amongst themselves until an Alpha male was inserted into the group, which established order and caused the females to stop infighting; humans are primates).  Though these groups are vying for supremacy, dominion over other things (its a primitive Empire: fighting over that which already exists).

Possibly striving for rule over exclusivity i.e. to be the only one of that kind.  Which means that fighting between A1 and A2 is inevitable.  Furthermore, if the cosmos is constructed through, or alternately out of a chaotic mass - but homogenous - mass, then infighting in this mass is also inevitable, which would, by necessity, give rise to difference: by forcing either A1 or A2 (pos the loser in the conflict) to become different, ie. transform from A2 to B.  This would demonstrate how difference is inevitably born from a monoculture, so long as the monoculture is composed of two or more elements (though similar in their attributes).

'I will take the stone that the mason has rejected and will use it as my foundation stone'

CGW is creative.  Therefore similarity between two elements will inevitably bring conflict because CGW is creative and if A1 and A2 coexisted then both would be going against their very nature, because they would remain the same as something else.

Monocultures are bland, thus evidencing their uncreativity.

Conflicts result in winners (retainers of territory) and losers (forced from territory).  Existing territory is not new, thus is, by its nature, uncreative.  Thus the act of defence is uncreative.  Moving into new territory, by either displacement or choice, is creative.  The element has moved into new territory which is untainted, barren and ready for new expression.

Possible Conflicts Between Elements:
Scenario 1:
A1 wins A2 loses.

A1 retains existing territory.
A2 loses existing territory is forced into new territory.

Scenario 2:
A2 wins A1 loses.

A2 retains existing territory.
A1 loses existing territory is forced into new territory.

Binary/dualistic characterisitic of this:
Winner holds turf, loser is forced into creativity.  This forcing into new territory is different to conscious willfull effort to move into new realms.  Though the results may, may, be the same.  I can’t tell.  This could mean that the dualistic/binary aspect is a default/contingent plan which ensures continuing creative action in the cosmos i.e. it’s a necessary underlining function.

No comments:

Post a Comment