The composition offered below in a spirit of sharing is on the integral topic of comprehension. The twin 'arms' of comprehension are also those of dynamic and of gender. One of these arms is that of monocular and existential visions (wherein an aspect of perspective is ignored, whilst that of the other arm of perspective is known as a function of ignoring the reciprocal aspect (or twin). Cognition and comprehension are unlike either of these schemes: cognition is not schematic (but rather, is thematic). Cognition is as a perspective and comprehensive composition that ignores neither of the 'twin' arms (with which we may embrace an integral, general, and beatific comprehension). Ignition, and all that is igneous, is representative of ignorance (as a function of schematic judgement . . . wherein one or the other 'twin' or arm is ignored, objected, or dispensed with). This is our common and modern mode (that of objective knowledge). In an objective sense, thought is exclusive (as, in trying the case, one of the 'twins' of perspective is excluded. This is also the scheme of light (and of all 'things,' but especially the light thing or verdindlight).

Light (the prime thing) is universally venerated (and darkness is consequently denigrated) in either of the schemes that ignore one or the other twins of dynamic gender. In cognition (and recognition) we do not omit one or the other gender; neither do we mix them in solution. Cognitive or musical thought (and comprehension) retains the integrity of gender, and sees through the twin 'ayes' of both genders. In cognition, we effectively place or set these twins such that they fit together in an engaging and enmeshed integrity (as a cog or tooth of one gear, is seated within a nook (or cranny) of its mate (in an engaging and solitary pair). All thought that is not cognitive is igneous, tautological, and exclusive.

We assume that ignorance is a condition lacking in knowledge: ignorance identifies a knowledge associated with the brilliance of fire and light. The ignorant scheme is that which weighs opposed postulates, judges or chooses between them, and dispenses with the case in a pensive solution. The igneous scheme is expensive, as it always exacts a toll (as it bisects perspective, integral, and indivisible visions; and the twins of dynamic). Regardless of sex, it is consistently the masculine 'eye' that dominates in syllogistic reasoning and planning. We tend to place an aspect of gender in opposition with its mate (and see all in bifurcated images of precedence and opposition). This is also the contextual associations of phonetic speech: the passive 'voice' is thought feminine: in all formal schemes, one of our dynamic 'arms' or terms is neglected (and it is always that thought more dark or less active). Music -- and all of the muses -- remain beatific and comprehensive (as they are composed and composite, the muses retain both aspects of each integral beat). 

I do not imply that reasoned thought is 'bad,' however I do lament its exclusiveness and its exhaustive conclusiveness. I suggest that it is time we began remembering the satisfaction and happiness of beatific comprehension and true perspective. This offering implies only that we begin by comprehending and remembering the twin and individual aspects of each integral beat (as it is not the syllables of each vision, each word or each beat that are discrete, but rather each beat, each word and each framed vision that is. As with solitaire, a solitary person is never alone (so long as he or she can sense the presence of their 'off-sider' of the alternate suit).

Thank you,
Bob Hoernel

I  assure  you,  just  because  you  know  the  code  does
not  mean  that  these  words  are  not  the  signs  and
symbols of a code.

Every  person  who  comprehends  their  integrity  will
know  no  fear,  and  sincerely  feel  throughout  the
symphonic and sympathetic chords of each dramatic
and  musical  production  (and  of  each  and  every
member of all crews, casts, and sensitive audiences)
. . . and we need only remember.
R.B.H.