I never liked "dance music" - I guess, it just seemed like "normal" music, just made with computers. What I wanted was always experimental stuff.

It comes from my poor understanding of abstraction, and why I was therefore frustrated for a long time as an artist, and in general. I thought the ideas in my head could work themselves out enough to the point where they were perfect, or nearly so, and that in doing so - getting these ideas "sharpened" and refined - well, "action" and "doing" would just come naturally; action would come from the ideas, if they were good enough.

But, I struggled constantly, and I thought it must be because my ideas are incorrect. I had an idea for a song, but sitting down to make it, it never worked out. So I would stop making things and return to thinking about making them. If only I formulate the correct idea, then I could create.

This is foolish - like the metaphor of learning to ride a bike from reading about the physics and mechanical design of bikes. This is no way to learn to ride, one has to get on and ride it, and then the body learns.

Abstractions and ideas are always retro-active explanations or justifications for a thing that has already happened. Thoughts do not compell action, but come as a result of actions. The act of thinking can then in itself generate thoughts, which is why we get confused and think that thoughts come "before" - thoughts can generate other thoughts, so we think they can generate action. We think thoughts must be the fundamental thing, because they are the only thing that self-reproduce.

Actions might lead to other actions, but they also might lead to thoughts. Thoughts, on the other hand, always lead to more thoughts. What, it is a one-way street, for one and not the other? It reminds me of these physicists looking for an elegant and symmetrical theory of everything - they get frustrated by the lack of symmetry, the irreversibility of entropy et cetera, and so come up with weird theories to explain how time can flow in reverse. Maybe it can, but not in any way that we will ever actually experience ourselves. Such things might lead to interesting technology, interesting ideas, and so on, but they don't "cause" actions.

Say, a new physical theory is developed. What compells action is not the idea of what it could be used for. The new physical theory is itself a result of actions that need an explanation. Technologies might be developed from this new theory, but those technologies are activity driven not by the theory necessarily, but by the desires and needs of people developing it.

Those desires and needs are very physical things - they aren't "ideas" or "thoughts" in the way a "theory" is. Those desires and needs are physical things, not ideas. We then come up with ideas to explain the desires and needs, to describe them, but once again here we see that the ideas emerge out of a situation that already exists, not out of some ethereal mind-space.