archetypal dyads

luka

Well-known member
have a look at what corpsey has done where he has traced out the opposing qualities each half of the dyad represents for him.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Yeah I get that, and I still think it applies. Not so much to music in their case, granted ('Voodoo Ray' notwithstanding).
 

luka

Well-known member
Yeah I get that, and I still think it applies. Not so much to music in their case, granted ('Voodoo Ray' notwithstanding).

yeah that's fine but you need to do the next bit. youve not finished, Arthur Job.
 

version

Well-known member
Someone did this with Barca vs Chelsea a few years ago:
... the tension here is between the tendencies towards life and death drives (Eros and Thanatos) which are highlighted by football.

I’d posit two states, states of creative play on the side of Eros, and on the other hand, the desire to preserve or return to an earlier state on the side of Thanatos. Barca’s power seems to be in their standing for the former when they are in a position of fame and importance which makes most clubs turn towards the latter. Chelsea are pure death drive manifested as sport: a paranoid machine who’s parts only care about restoring themselves to a time when they were considered the greatest in the world. Sometimes watching someone like Ballack play he looks trapped under the weight of his need to re-become ‘Ballack’, the proper name for the player who dragged along Germany and Munich single-handedly at times, of whom he is now only a simulacrum.
 
Last edited:

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Todd Edwards vs Burial

Joy vs Melancholy
The voice as celebration Vs the voice as lament
Dancefloor Vs headphones
Religiosity Vs romanticism
Child of God Vs Sadboy of Britain
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
yeah that's fine but you need to do the next bit. youve not finished, Arthur Job.

Alright then:

Pete - intelligent, arrogant, probable one-time teacher's pet/bully-in-chief/bit of both, at times actually quite a nasty bully of Dud (more as Clive, really);
Dud - the lackey, the foil, the beta friend constantly in awe of his superior companion whose approbation he seeks (verging on full-on victim at times, as Derek).

Elements of Don Quixote/Sancho Panza, perhaps.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Joey: the punk rocker's punk rocker.
Johnny: the staunch Republican and patriot, a true rebel in a rebel's world.
 

Corpsey

bandz ahoy
Actually a lot of bands have a dyad, no matter how many other members they have - right?

Mick and Keef
Morrissey and Marr
Rotten and Vicious

Although not necessarily a study in contrasts. Just clearly that relationship is compelling to people in a way that a triad isn't.
 

luka

Well-known member
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:
  • Like
Reactions: sus

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
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
 

version

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
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".
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
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.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
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.
 

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
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:

baboon2004

Darned cockwombles.
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:
Top