John Cage, I am not -- not now, at least -- willing to eschew my ego.¹³ And, I am not convinced that you did either, choosing instead to manifest it in an alternative fashion. But, then, that is my perception. But, maybe,
that is what you intended.
Karlheinz Stockhausen wrote "Increasingly accelerate the current of your intuition."¹⁴ I have failed to do that for awhile, relying instead too heavily on methods instead of processes.¹⁵ Recently,^15.5 I completed a composition based on the results of a method,¹⁶ but adjusted and arranged the results of the method more or less intuitively.¹⁷ This method requires allowing oneself to be consumed¹⁸ by the work being done for the time that it takes to do the work. Now, new questions emerge: Does the work become the worker, or does the worker become the work? Is this some sort of symbiotic¹⁹ arrangement, or is it parasitic?²⁰ If the result of the work is music, does it matter what approach one takes to do the work?²¹ My perception is that the result is good work, and that the result is music. I wonder what
you will think.^****
I wonder if you will
feel.^*****
Now, perhaps, it is time to further consider the proposition of composing music using algorithms. How²² can a distinction be made between algorithms that are methods and algorithms that are processes? I think that, perhaps, the difference is how they deal with time. I feel that the difference is how they unfold in time, how they occupy time, how they consume time. Perhaps a method is reversible.²³ perhaps a process is nonreversible. ²⁴ Or, can methods and processes be either reversible or nonreversible?²⁵ Or, if the results of a method or the results of a process are used as found objects, perhaps the
distinction is irrelevant.
Mr. E. J. Gumby said, regarding flower arranging, "First, take some flowers. Then, arrange them." Do you think that this approach could be applied to the compositional process: First, take some sounds.

Then, arrange to arrange^****** them. Then, arrange^******* them.²⁶ Then, listen

 
¹³ Samkhya metaphysics is based on the distinction between prakriti and purusha, which may be rendered as the objective, or nature, and the subjective, or self. All objects in the world are essentially constituted by the combination of atoms, which emerge from the eternal and uncaused prakriti. Even the individual ego, or mind, is a result of the constant atomic flux of prakriti. Purusha, on the other hand, is not to be identified with the ego, or mind. It also is uncaused, eternal, and unchanging. It underlies the perceived ego. There is a plurality of such selves, which are the loci of consciousness and in conjunction with which prakriti evolves. The bondage to suffering that is the common starting point of all Indian philosophical thought arises from the involvement of purusha with prakriti. Release comes when ignorance is overcome; that the attachment of purusha to the changing empirical world is illusory becomes apparent. What do you think about that?

 ¹⁴ Intuition is the knowledge of a concept, truth, or solution to a problem, which is arrived at apparently spontaneously, without conscious steps of reasoning or inquiry. One explanation of intuition is that it is the result of a special faculty, or ability, or a special sympathy with the object known. Some philosophers and psychologists claim that human phenomena can be understood only by special intuition; many psychologists, however, attribute intuition to a thought process that occurs too fast for a person to be conscious of it. For instance, numerous minimal cues may be rapidly integrated, making possible identification of the present experience in relation to past experiences. What do you feel about that?

 ¹⁵ John Cage differentiated between these things in several writings.

 ^15.5 'Recently,' in this case, means 'not-so-recently;' it means 1995, to be precise.

 ¹⁶ The method was an algorithm so that pretty much covers arithmetic for now.

 ¹⁷ That is to say: if it feels good, do it. But, if it feels good to me, will it also feel good to you? And, what of too much of a good thing? That is one reason why the question "what do you do with the music" seems like a good question. But, what of too much of a good thing?

 ¹⁸ completely, utterly, wholly -- albeit temporarily...

 ¹⁹ Is one the symbiont? Is this an important question?

 ²⁰ Which will be the parasite? Which will be the host? Are these important questions?

 ²¹ Kurt Vonnegut said:

We do, doodley do, doodley do, doodley do,
What we must, muddily must, muddily must, muddily must,
Muddily do, muddily do, muddily do, muddily do,
Until we bust, bodily bust, bodily bust, bodily bust.

(Actually, these words are from Bokonon, but that is another story. And Kurt Vonnegut wrote it.)

 ²² ... now, brown cow?

 ²³ A process in reversible if the time-reversed process, which would occur if time could run backwards, may also occur in the system. The type of reversibility is called time reversal invariance. It holds for processes such as collisions of idealized billiard balls in an ideal and frictionless universe, where reversing time corresponds to reversing velocities so that the balls retrace their paths.

 ²⁴ That is, the chance of its opposite occuring if time were reversed is pretty slim.

 ²⁵ One thing is certain: Neither can be both.

 ²⁶ Which sounds, and how is the arrangement determined? (This might be the one important question.) And, how about arranging sounds and flowers together? Which flowers would sound good with which sounds? Which sounds would smell nice with which flowers?