Created 1 year, 11 months ago.
I am not a musician or a professional DJ, however, I am a QBE academic, in that I have independently read over 100 books (mostly history) and I have wrote a 30k word essay titled primitive or archaic relativity (time 4 forgiveness). I have also conducted an independent investigation of T² or https://squareoftime.com, which is mathematical time or relativity. My DJ name primitive or archaic innocence is one half of https://judgeoftime.com. With DJing I make no effort to be fashionable as I am a 39 year old dinosaur and because I read and write a lot my DJ name and websites are more educational and in a ‘realist’ or ‘geek style’. When it comes to fashion think of me as more of a historian or an archaeologist DJ than a supercool DJ. Although I am neither, scientists and academics are not fashionable compared to DJs, however, what if scientists or academics were actually into trance music and did want to DJ? If you want a truly ‘Cosmic Gate’, ‘Solarstone’ or if you want the Ibizan club ‘Space’ to truly live up to its name, why not ask a physicist to DJ? The sound and light engineering of raves and clubs are just science, so why then rely on fashion or the spiritual and divine? What would a scientific club’s posters, flyers and graphic designs look like? They would probably consist of black holes, galaxies, supernovae and space and time etc, as opposed to psychedelic or spiritual trance designs. Hence, this determines there could be a ‘realist’, ‘geek’ or ‘square style’ of DJing? Hence, the ‘realist’ or ‘geek style‘ of my DJ name. DJing and music are, cool, beautiful and hip in a way that science and academia can never be, which are dry and ugly in comparison. However, can we not unite beauty with brains? To reiterate, my DJ name is never fashionable but is more in a ‘realist’, ‘geek’ or ‘square style’. My actual goal is to educate people about primitive or archaic relativity (time for forgiveness), hence, I use DJing to spread the word. I like trance and techno mainly. What does primitive or archaic innocence mean? Why and how is primitivism linked to innocence? The answer is that the further you go back in time the more primitive life was and animals (such as humans) were, therefore the more innocent they were relatively. Also the more advanced you are the more responsible you are and therefore the less innocent you are, therefore, the more primitive you are the less responsible you are and therefore the more innocent you are. For example in the 1980s we had no internet or mobile phones, we did not even have satellite TV, just 4 channel terrestrial TV and we still used the Yellow Pages, newspaper TV guides and coal fires etc therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than today. To reiterate in the 1980s we did not understand smart technologies such as FaceTime and Spotify, therefore we were much more primitive and innocent in the 1980s than the 2020s. If you cannot remember the days before the internet and mobile phones or FaceTime and Spotify then you are much more advanced and therefore less innocent. Therefore, imagine how primitive and innocent Victorian, medieval, ancient and prehistoric people were! Prehistoric people were so primitive and innocent they could literally get away with rape, murder and cannibalism etc. How is crime relative? Primitive relativity is time for forgiveness on two levels, first of all it is quite literally time for forgiveness and second of all it is definitely about time for forgiveness! Also remember, primitive relativity and primitive innocence are time and relativity for grown ups! Therefore, crimes and sins are relative in that for example cannibalism was relatively no issue with such as Homo antecessor because Homo antecessor was so primitive and innocent because they had no infrastructure, technology or medicine etc and because Homo antecessor came from such a distant time or epoch, therefore, killing and cannibalism were relatively less of an issue for them. However, therefore, murder and cannibalism today by such as Jeffrey Dahmer was so relatively evil compared with Homo antecessor because they are out of place and in the wrong time. Because Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal in the 20th century, therefore he was relatively evil because the only thing he can be or equate to is a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or an animal. To reiterate the only way I can understand a serial killer such as Jeffrey Dahmer with any lightness is if he were a prehistoric man such as Homo antecessor or Palaeolithic man. Therefore, if Jeffrey Dahmer did not try to be advanced, special or superior to animals and instead became, thought like, acted or accepted that he was primitive, prehistoric or even animal, would we forgive him? If Jeffrey Dahmer went back in time hundreds or tens of thousands of years to a more primitive period could he have “relative innocence”?