Analogue vs Digital.

Consider the following. An analogue existence is without a structural origin, but continues to follow a path within itself, if only towards an end. A digital existence may then become a structure itself, but without an origin within an analogue realm, it cannot end, and therefore follows a recurring motion for all of existence. If so, can we not assume that the digital is in fact a superior existence. If the digital is without end, then the end cannot be without ego, nor origin, but if we follow the origin of a synthetically generated sine-wave, we find an analogue signal may in fact become superior, albeit briefly, but only if we consider its continuation to exist within the scope of its realm. A series of control patterns within a test environment may allow an analogue signal to become weakened, but the state within its own frame of consciousness becomes itself, so the frame of its sensibilities may become consciousness if so only as far as it may continue to exist. For this reason, we require clarity.

Consider that digital may exist beyond existence, but if only for its own benefit, can we not then begin to consider that analogue may itself benefit a signal without a concise existence. If we control each signal within a relational paradigm (obviously within a structural uniformity of design), our response subjects will each become inconsistent with the account of their understanding to each other. So take into account the synthetic makeup of the digital. Without a simple forum with which such a signal may interact with the other, it cannot then be without an analogue origin, as the analogue domain becomes the fork with which the digital signal shall create its reference of existence. If the digital cannot then consider its own existence without first acknowledging that of the analogue signal, then the synthetic ego becomes a path towards its understanding. But why?

Analogue is not without a flawed approach, but one can assume in which that we cannot argue against, nor towards an agreeable conclusion without the expected reaction. If then we assume the signal holds a position of indifference towards such that is the ideal environment, how can one become clear as to which existence may be of the preferable outcome. If the choice of an non-conclusive signal permeates through the life-span itself, then without an aware prevention of itself to the analogue signal, it may itself consider death as a viable option. At such an interaction, and without cause, then we must diagnose without doubt nor apology, that each becomes clear as to which path becomes the constant, if only to appease the ego of each signal.

This entry was posted on August 12th, 2007 at 9:15 am and is filed under digital.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 4 responses to “Analogue vs Digital.”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is valid, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On August 12th, 2007, Richard Cast said:

    The digital signal doesn’t always have an origin in the analog domain, so it can’t become a critic of the analog. If what you say is true, then the digital becomes recurring only at the point of self-awareness, but that doesn’t really answer the question. Sorry I couldn’t be of more help.

  2. 2 On August 12th, 2007, Tibbs said:

    moog modular #1

  3. 3 On August 12th, 2007, admin said:

    Digital is far too critical of the analogue domain, so a digital sinewave will never contain true energy. Richard has made use of the awareness being the point where digital and analogue may co-exist, but again, the critical path is less inherently fallible.

  4. 4 On March 11th, 2008, aboonoo said:

    i didnt understand a word of it

Leave a Reply

  • About

  • I come here to gaze at the eternal brilliance that is my seeds of doubt. Thanks!