cage's relating 26 to each lesser int

to be playing John Cage (JC, Jesus Christ, as my teacher of Grapes Of Wrath pointed out) in a film I am thinking of being him, and uncovering similar decisions (that the second coming might laugh at the first coming, looking in on a superseded instantiation. (thought before current cage involvement, before remembering GoW) maybe as the relation of a zodiacal sign to its predecessor. limitations)
an examination of the decisions inherent to the tables in John Cage's Song Books
1;
1:1;
21:22:21;
1:1:1:1;
13:13:12:13:13;// 64/5=12+(4/5);(12*5)+(1*4)=64,
      five twelves, four of them increased by one.
10:11:11:11:11:10;// 64/6=10+(4/6);(10*6)+(1*4)=64,
      six tens, four of them increased by one.
9:9:9:10:9:9:9;// (9*7)+(1*1),
       seven nines, one of them increased by one...
1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1;
7:7:7:7:8:7:7:7:7;// (7*9)+(1*1)
7:7:6:6:6:6:6:6:7:7;// (6*10)+(1*4)
       // so why not 6:6:6:7:7:7:7:6:6:6 ?
5:6:6:6:6:6:6:6:6:6:5;// (5*11)+(1*9)
5:5:5:5:6:6:6:6:5:5:5:5;// (5*12)+(1*4)
5:5:5:5:5:5:4:5:5:5:5:5:5;// (4*13)+(1*12
       // in this case I can explain the bimodal distribution
4:4:4:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:5:4:4:4;// (4*14)+(1*8)
5:5:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:5:5;// (4*15)+(1*4)// and here also
1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1:1;
3:3:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:3:3;// (3*17)+(1*13)
4:4:4:4:4:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:4:4:4:4:4;// (3*18)+(1*10
        //  why not 3:3:3:3:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:3:3:3:3?
3:3:3:3:3:3:4:4:4:4:4:4:4:3:3:3:3:3:3;// (3*19)+(1*7)
4:4:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:4:4;// (3*20)+(1*4)
3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:4:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3;// (3*21)+(1*1)
2:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:2;// (2*22)+(1*20)
3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:2:2:2:2:2:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3;// (2*23)+(1*18
  // explained (4 cases: odd and even*quotients and remainders)
2:2:2:2:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:2:2:2:2;// (2*24)+(1*16)
3:3:3:3:3:3:3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3:3:3:3:3:3:3;//
       (2*25)+(1*14)// explained
2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2;//
        (2*26)+(1*12)
3:3:3:3:3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3:3:3:3:3;//
        (2*27)+(1*10)//explained
3:3:3:3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3:3:3:3;//
        (2*28)+(1*8)// why not {{10:8:10}}
3:3:3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3:3:3;//
        (2*29)+(1*6)// explained I suppose
3:3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3:3;//
        (2*30)+(1*4)// why not {{13:4:13}}
3:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3;//
        (2*31)+(1*2)
1:1.....1:1;//2
1:2:2:2:2...2:1;
1:1:2:2:...2:1:1;
...
1:1:1:1:1:1:1:2.....2:1:1:1:1:1:1:1;
...
1:1:1....1:2:1:1....1:1;
this as it was, as of last typing week.
======
and in the time since then, a simpler explaining abstraction of 'symmetry' (optimality theory taste), closer to what might inhere to the tables
?parallel to Schoenholtz' examination of the probabilities in yarrow stalk  method of I Ching cast.
'smoothness' [consider "moments" (of inertia, of distribution. I have not yet understood this verbal yūgen cloud in which some physics masters are smiling.)]
composed as music might be, ?smooth-modulations
...in progress