Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 52

Thread: archetypal dyads

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    15,529

    Default

    theres a thing about partnerships that pushes each member towards being a kind of caricature of themselves, to emphasise certain aspects of themselves and to hive off other characteristics onto the other partner. you become one sided in relationships i think. you amplify what is 'yours' i.e. those characteristics of yous the other doesnt share, and you disavow those aspects of yourself that are manifested more strongly and perfectly in the other.

    dose that make sense? that's what ive found. it's a way to preserve distance and independence but it makes you a cardboard cut out.
    Last edited by luka; 15-06-2018 at 08:48 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    theres a thing about partnerships that pushes each member towards being a kind of caricature of themselves, to emphasise certain aspects for themselves
    Sorry, I know this is a repost but I think it's relevant here.

    581278438_189667f11a.jpg
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  3. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Mr. Tea For This Useful Post:


  4. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    15,529

    Default

    luka and droid lol i never thought of that before

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to luka For This Useful Post:


  6. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    theres a thing about partnerships that pushes each member towards being a kind of caricature of themselves, to emphasise certain aspects of themselves and to hive off other characteristics onto the other partner. you become one sided in relationships i think. you amplify what is 'yours' i.e. those characteristics of yous the other doesnt share, and you disavow those aspects of yourself that are manifested more strongly and perfectly in the other.

    dose that make sense? that's what ive found. it's a way to preserve distance and independence but it makes you a cardboard cut out.
    Unless you're Autechre who seem to be a single organism at this point.

  7. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    15,529

  8. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    luka and droid lol i never thought of that before
    Your respective takes on it the first time around were superb, something like "the mystic Jedi saviour and his malfunctioning butler-bot" vs. "a gormless incestuous meatsack who just gets in the way while the machine does all the real work".
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mr. Tea For This Useful Post:


  10. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luka View Post
    theres a thing about partnerships that pushes each member towards being a kind of caricature of themselves, to emphasise certain aspects of themselves and to hive off other characteristics onto the other partner. you become one sided in relationships i think. you amplify what is 'yours' i.e. those characteristics of yous the other doesnt share, and you disavow those aspects of yourself that are manifested more strongly and perfectly in the other.

    dose that make sense? that's what ive found. it's a way to preserve distance and independence but it makes you a cardboard cut out.
    that's what the audience wants too - a simple narrative - so some pairs get pushed in this direction by the media despite their best intentions. i think it's a human drive to simplify and to symbolise, but not a useful human drive.

  11. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    15,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by baboon2004 View Post
    that's what the audience wants too - a simple narrative - so some pairs get pushed in this direction by the media despite their best intentions. i think it's a human drive to simplify and to symbolise, but not a useful human drive.
    Not useful? I'd argue that it's absolutely vital. It's by symbolizing, simplifying and categorizing (which of course can add up to stereotyping, which isn't ideal but is probably to an extent unavoidable) that we make sense of the world and manage not to be paralyzed by information overload every waking second of our lives. The ability to recognize that each thing, although individual in itself, will have many properties in common with others of its class. And not that I'm any kind of expert on mental illness or neurological conditions, but it seems to me that schizophrenia might be the result of an inability, or a severely impaired ability, to do this. (Feel free to tell me this in nonsense, anyone with experience in this field.)

    Bit off-topic but I thought it was interesting.
    Doin' the Lambeth Warp New: DISSENSUS - THE NOVEL - PM me your email address and I'll add you

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Mr. Tea For This Useful Post:


  13. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,414

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    Not useful? I'd argue that it's absolutely vital. It's by symbolizing, simplifying and categorizing (which of course can add up to stereotyping, which isn't ideal but is probably to an extent unavoidable) that we make sense of the world and manage not to be paralyzed by information overload every waking second of our lives. The ability to recognize that each thing, although individual in itself, will have many properties in common with others of its class. And not that I'm any kind of expert on mental illness or neurological conditions, but it seems to me that schizophrenia might be the result of an inability, or a severely impaired ability, to do this. (Feel free to tell me this in nonsense, anyone with experience in this field.)

    Bit off-topic but I thought it was interesting.
    I wasn't very clear in the previous message (hungover)- I should have specified that I was talking about simplifying and symbolising not being useful in relationships with other people. I appreciate what you're saying about information overload re the world, and agree on the usefulness of symbolising and categorising in terms of getting through morally neutral situations on a day-to-day basis (though as discussed in other threads, problems arise oversimplify the causes of a morally charged situation such that they feel they need to choose a single truth - or 'side' - whereas two or three truths can simultaneously hold in reality)

    When the simplifying/symbolising tendencies are applied to other people however, it is often disastrous....categorisation is at the root of an awfully high percentage of the needless evil in the world, through for example projection of undesirable characteristics onto the Other. It's also totally useless in negotiating one's own relationships with others in general- for example ignoring the undesirable characteristics of the one person, while playing up those of the other - it gives a very basic view of the world. (I found the way James Baldwin approached racism from this angle in "The Fire Next Time" to be pretty amazing)
    Last edited by baboon2004; 16-06-2018 at 11:37 AM.

  14. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    8,414

    Default

    Re Schizophrenia - for that condition in particular, many people would say it doesn't have any secure evidential basis (in the sense that there no clear set of characteristics that alleged sufferers have in common), see the anti-psychiatry movement etc. I need to go back myself and read more about this though

    For those who do accept it's a useful classification, then schizophrenia has been linked to experiences of racism and discrimination. So on this view, rather than being an inability to symbolise/categorise on the part of the individual afflicted, it would be the experience of being the subject of overzealous categorisation/symbolisation by others.
    Last edited by baboon2004; 16-06-2018 at 11:36 AM.

  15. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Tea View Post
    And not that I'm any kind of expert on mental illness or neurological conditions, but it seems to me that schizophrenia might be the result of an inability, or a severely impaired ability, to do this. (Feel free to tell me this in nonsense, anyone with experience in this field.)

    Bit off-topic but I thought it was interesting.
    Pretty sure you're right on the money about that. Schizophrenia is associated with high openness (personality trait) and as such also high creativity/iq. Highly open people can and will navigate in uncategorizable domains, but if you're too high in openness you're have nothing to hold on to and are basically living in an ever shifting chaotic universe.

    https://www.edge.org/response-detail/10936

  16. #42
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    195

    Default

    lennon and mccartney (as mentioned upthread) must be the quintessential archetypal musical dyad.

    george martin used to say they were (as in the constituents of a good dressing) equivalent of lemon juice and olive oil

    no prizes for guessing who was the acidic and who the mellifluous...

  17. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    15,529

    Default

    I wasn't very clear in the previous message (hungover)- I should have specified that I was talking about simplifying and symbolising not being useful in relationships with other people.
    while i appreciate the points you're making and agree, in case it wasnt clear i was explaining how we do it to ourselves. i was referring to romantic relationships and friendships in particular. but of course we also project on to, to coin a phrase, archetypal dyads, in the public eye.

  18. #44
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    leigh on sea
    Posts
    1,652

    Default

    Eno/Bowie - The two apparently used to 'do' Pete and Dud riffs in between takes and Eno once described them as one being a 6H pencil while the the other was a 6B. hard lines v soft smudges. Clarity v drift. Sunshine v fog. The destination v the journey.

  19. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jenks For This Useful Post:


  20. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    15,529

    Default

    i often find i cant properly intergrate and make my own all the juicy stuff i've stolen from another person until i get some distance from them for instance.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •