Random Thoughts on the Instincts and Synflow vs. Contraflow
I believe SP/SO is concerned with essential and ultimate truth in its own way, which I think explains exactly why SP/SO is notoriously considered the most flat/'boring' stacking, given that it is holding fast to the unadorned or untampered-with (pure) truth of nature—SP/SO being the most synflow of all stackings, since the natural order of development is SP > SO > SX—no matter how unfashionable because the point is to strip down to a level that endures despite having nothing added to it, to that monad-like (strictly essential) thing.
It is like the biblical saying: "The (unprepossessing) stone that the builder's rejected has become the cornerstone."
–
SP is of the earth—SP/SO as earth's surface, SP/SX as earth's bowels.
This quote from Robert Bresson, I think, gets at what SP/SO is about:
“It is necessary to show things from a single angle which evokes all the other angles, but not to show all the others (SP -> self-contained; containing all the other angles).
The effect of things must always come before their cause, as happens in life (SP/SO -> synflow).
Most of the events that we see happening, their cause is unknown. We see their effects and it is later that we discover their cause.”
SO/SP (contraflow aka going against natural order) feels like the opposite in that they put the cause first, i.e., evoke all the angles by parading the standard motifs of their theme/genre.
—
Synflow, from what I've observed, seems to funnel things through their firsthand concrete experience, whereas contraflow tries to fit or force things into a frame,
hence SP/SO being more literally about physiological needs than SP/SX;
SX/SP being more literally about sex (act of consummation) than SX/SO; and
SO/SX being more literally about 'rubbing elbows' than SO/SP.
Contraflow seems more symbolic and less practical.














