So far I have explained why the best form of creation is that which leaves most to the audience. But the underlying cause of this fact lies in the secret of inspiration, which is linked to human nature and the social instinct. In the modern world, we poor humans so frequently find ourselves having to combat the woes of society, the woes of our instinct to conform and be accepted by others (and the terrible affects this has on our individuality), that we are constantly coming up with desperate theories to provoke a change of course - often at the expense of inspiration and influence. There is an unfortunate knock-on effect from the social world to the creative one.
Anyway, the message that seems to have been used as the battering ram for the alternative movement (a movement as old as conformity itself, and always of equal strength) is 'don't go with the flow'. Express yourself. Be who you really are. Lots of other sad, meaningless gestures. But the overall tone is one which crushes inspiration. Other negative side-effects include the widely-noted phenomenon that originality is elevated to such an extent that it itself becomes a social force, a focus point of cults and social groups, and being an individual becomes the basis for society. Sometimes irony is a very sad thing.
But the important thing to note for our purposes is that going against the flow is all very well when it's going in the wrong direction, but is not a mantra to be followed in all situations. Thousands upon thousands of people in history have done very good things. These should be emulated. Creators should replicate the best bits of previous creation.
Ultimately, inspiration is the driving force for almost everything good, and, interestingly, for almost everything new.
Take Pure Reason Revolution, for example. PRR are one of the greatest users of inspiration that I've ever come across. They use stuff from Romantic poets, 70s proggers, 60s TV shows and tacky harmony singers. They are also an expression of the new-prog and electro movements of the current era, and use all the latest technology. The reason why their output is of such high quality is that they are able to use all the best bits from all these different sources, combining them in such a way as to make something entirely new and unparalleled. So ultimately (again), originality and use of inspiration are not mutually exclusive. Inspiration can be used in original ways. PRR are not the only example of course. Iliketrains and Terry Pratchett are other good ones. As well as hundreds of others (and to a certain extent, all creators ever).
The irony here is that everyone uses inspiration naturally. The conclusion of this treatise is that it is inspiration which drives both conventional and alternative society; it drives humanity. As humans and individuals, we are little more than products of what we absorb and emulate. As children, we are better able to absorb inspiration, but as adults we should try to keep our faculties of absorption in tact. For it is the inspirational force more than any other that pushes the progressive boundaries of mankind; it is our ability to be like those who came before that makes us able to show the way for those who will follow. Inspiration allows us to be intelligent, and it allows us to be original. The inspiration chain has been our mainstay since the conception of our species, and from this glorious game of trial and error, of continuing what is good and leaving behind what does not inspire us, we shall eventually build utopia.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Treatise on Inspiration (significance)
Meaning comes from the audience. So, the job of the creator is not to put across a message, since this message will normally be misconstrued by different audiences and end up meaning entirely different things to different people (just look at the Bible...) The really good creator will aim to create something from which the maximum number of meanings can be drawn. And the quality of these meanings is determined by how significant they feel to the audience which draws them.
As an example, I will take the Coopers again, because they demonstrate my point precisely. If you write a song called "the same mistakes", then, when a lover listens to it, he'll think about his romantic history; when a politician listens to it, he'll think grand thoughts about the democratic process he has conspired against; when a philosopher thinks about it, he'll draw conclusions about the nature of humankind. Whereas, if you write a song called "anarchy in the UK", a certain (small) percent of people will become fanatics, while the majority gets nothing from your work at all. In the first instance, you have been the causation for hundreds of excellent new ideas across every type of individual, while in the second, you've been the causation for one new idea in one type of person. For followers of inspiration, this is a very important lesson.
As audience, we should always strive to be inspired and emulate what inspires us.
As creator, we should always strive to inspire others.
Now for my suggestion that "the quality of these meanings is determined by how significant they feel to the audience which draws them". This is why ambiguity is such an important tool in the creator's toolbox. The best kind of writing is the writing which says very little, but suggests an awful lot. If you can conjure images and feelings, then the appropriate meanings will follow. And the more ambiguous and suggestive the writing is, the deeper these meanings will be.
As an example, I will take the Coopers again, because they demonstrate my point precisely. If you write a song called "the same mistakes", then, when a lover listens to it, he'll think about his romantic history; when a politician listens to it, he'll think grand thoughts about the democratic process he has conspired against; when a philosopher thinks about it, he'll draw conclusions about the nature of humankind. Whereas, if you write a song called "anarchy in the UK", a certain (small) percent of people will become fanatics, while the majority gets nothing from your work at all. In the first instance, you have been the causation for hundreds of excellent new ideas across every type of individual, while in the second, you've been the causation for one new idea in one type of person. For followers of inspiration, this is a very important lesson.
As audience, we should always strive to be inspired and emulate what inspires us.
As creator, we should always strive to inspire others.
Now for my suggestion that "the quality of these meanings is determined by how significant they feel to the audience which draws them". This is why ambiguity is such an important tool in the creator's toolbox. The best kind of writing is the writing which says very little, but suggests an awful lot. If you can conjure images and feelings, then the appropriate meanings will follow. And the more ambiguous and suggestive the writing is, the deeper these meanings will be.
Treatise on Inspiration (premise)
If you guessed that what they have in common is that they were all composed by the Cooper Temple Clause, then well done, you are correct. But the other correct answer, is that all three had the capacity to inspire.
I've used the Coopers here, because I think they illustrate particularly well the point I want to make. Read the passages. Do you have any idea what they mean? What are they trying to say? Do they have a message? What's glorious here, and absolutely essential, is that the answers to all these questions are entirely ambiguous.
Some people may find meaning here, others may not.
I know how we all love our French academics, so it's nice that it was one such individual, Roland Barthes, who first coined the phrase Death of the Author. Barthes thought that any creative output should be viewed by the reader/audience/listener/admirer in a completely detached way - i.e. it should be the work itself that puts across any meaning or significance to the audience, and not any biographical or contextual knowledge we may happen to have about the author/creator. What ole' Roly was saying was that we should strive for meaning in an objective and uninfluenced way.
Now, I disagree with some of this argument. Occasionally, the author's life, and in particular his influences, are very important. Huge amounts of meaning can be created through use of reference. But what I really like about the Death of the Author theory, is the idea that meaning comes from the audience.
I've used the Coopers here, because I think they illustrate particularly well the point I want to make. Read the passages. Do you have any idea what they mean? What are they trying to say? Do they have a message? What's glorious here, and absolutely essential, is that the answers to all these questions are entirely ambiguous.
Some people may find meaning here, others may not.
I know how we all love our French academics, so it's nice that it was one such individual, Roland Barthes, who first coined the phrase Death of the Author. Barthes thought that any creative output should be viewed by the reader/audience/listener/admirer in a completely detached way - i.e. it should be the work itself that puts across any meaning or significance to the audience, and not any biographical or contextual knowledge we may happen to have about the author/creator. What ole' Roly was saying was that we should strive for meaning in an objective and uninfluenced way.
Now, I disagree with some of this argument. Occasionally, the author's life, and in particular his influences, are very important. Huge amounts of meaning can be created through use of reference. But what I really like about the Death of the Author theory, is the idea that meaning comes from the audience.
Monday, 26 January 2009
Treatise on Inspiration (Introduction)
What do the following passages have in common?
You might wanna duck before you lose your head/It seems we're the ones who've got the guts to bleed/It's not numnber one who will come out alive/It's the freak in the corner with his eyes on fire
It's in the way that you look/It's in the books that won't read/It comes and goes like a friend/It's with me right til the end/It's in the memories I've lost/It's concentrating too much/It's breaking down of relations/And it's the beat of the clock/It's not being able to be explain/Or get your feelings across/It's in the pain that won't leave you/It's coming straight back for us/It's in a new lease of life/And a search that ends well/It's in finding that change/It's being happy again
And so it has to change/The notebook's now in pieces /Words we'll never sing/I know you'll say i've simply jumped the gun/And that they've won/But you can't keep making the same mistakes/You see i've had this thought/It took its time in coming /But now won't be denied/I'd always gone about these things all wrong/But not this song/Coz you can't keep making the same mistakes/No you can't keep making hte same mistakes/Can't jump ship just yet/There's no one at the wheel/Someone has to steer/Get a hold of yourself/Keep your head /there's no time to waste/You'll see it soon enough/But all is not forgotten/And now's no time for tears/Coz though that boy has died this one still lives/And now there's life/And a change to make up for all those mistakes/But please don't get me wrong/Coz everything was honest/True and from the heart/There's still the same old hang ups so don't fret/Its not safe yet/And who knows there's always time to screw up again/But maybe we'll be cool/Coz you were made an offer/You could not refuse/You made me come alive and see my face/See my grace/And we grow or do we just haul it around?
You might wanna duck before you lose your head/It seems we're the ones who've got the guts to bleed/It's not numnber one who will come out alive/It's the freak in the corner with his eyes on fire
It's in the way that you look/It's in the books that won't read/It comes and goes like a friend/It's with me right til the end/It's in the memories I've lost/It's concentrating too much/It's breaking down of relations/And it's the beat of the clock/It's not being able to be explain/Or get your feelings across/It's in the pain that won't leave you/It's coming straight back for us/It's in a new lease of life/And a search that ends well/It's in finding that change/It's being happy again
And so it has to change/The notebook's now in pieces /Words we'll never sing/I know you'll say i've simply jumped the gun/And that they've won/But you can't keep making the same mistakes/You see i've had this thought/It took its time in coming /But now won't be denied/I'd always gone about these things all wrong/But not this song/Coz you can't keep making the same mistakes/No you can't keep making hte same mistakes/Can't jump ship just yet/There's no one at the wheel/Someone has to steer/Get a hold of yourself/Keep your head /there's no time to waste/You'll see it soon enough/But all is not forgotten/And now's no time for tears/Coz though that boy has died this one still lives/And now there's life/And a change to make up for all those mistakes/But please don't get me wrong/Coz everything was honest/True and from the heart/There's still the same old hang ups so don't fret/Its not safe yet/And who knows there's always time to screw up again/But maybe we'll be cool/Coz you were made an offer/You could not refuse/You made me come alive and see my face/See my grace/And we grow or do we just haul it around?
Sunday, 25 January 2009
More AnnaSophinspiration (charity)
Thankfully, I haven't done any more stalking since the last post about Ms Robb. But one of the things that her site got me interested in was the idea of CHARITY.
AnnaSophia visited India to bring aid and Western generosity to the impoverished and hopelessly poorly treated Dalits of India. Read her account here (pdf). No really, read it. It's very good and thought provoking, and even manages, just about, to transcend the blandness of the normal "Westener visits [3rd world country] to bring aid and comes away realising that poor people are a lot nicer than rich people" idea (even though this is the theme).
So thats all well and good. The Indians have a joyous few days and AnnaSophia and pals come away spiritually fortified. Many of the poor kids might even, as a result of the visit, manage to break out of their horrific caste. But empirically, even if every kid she visits is able to have a decent quality of life from then on, you've still only helped less than o.1% of all the affected people.
Charity to me seems futile. But there's always a nasty conflict in my mind, revolving round the issue of what is the best thing to do if you want to get rid of misery in the world. Part of me knows that simple giving can never eliminate poverty while we live in this robustly capitalistic (i.e. animalistic) world. If you give to one poor person, you achieve nothing, because wealth is relative. Someone else will merely slip beneathe the average poverty line. The poor will always exist, even if they have millions, because they will be relatively worse off than those with more. So your stuck with having to change the system, which is famously impossible. I personally believe that given enough time, mankid will naturally evolve to be genuinely egalitarian, but certainly not for a few thousand years.
Then there's the other part of me that says, "fuck off, these people are DYING ON THE STREETS, don't you social theorise at me! Any help they can get should be administered immediately, and conventional charities, preferably on a much larger scale, are the best means of doing this, even if it achieves very little overall."
No, says the first part of me, we need political action, starting with leaders who aren't handicapped by caring about only their own electorate.
What? says the second, How can you say that when you know that this is extremely unlikely to happen, and while you're prancing around with your revolution, people are dying on the streets?
Who should I listen to?
The other conundrum is whether, if I chose to give money to charity, I should seek to be personally successful in order to give more, if I know that being personally successful involves, at least to start with, keeping as much money (and time) as I can for myself. I just don't know. More thought required.
AnnaSophia visited India to bring aid and Western generosity to the impoverished and hopelessly poorly treated Dalits of India. Read her account here (pdf). No really, read it. It's very good and thought provoking, and even manages, just about, to transcend the blandness of the normal "Westener visits [3rd world country] to bring aid and comes away realising that poor people are a lot nicer than rich people" idea (even though this is the theme).
So thats all well and good. The Indians have a joyous few days and AnnaSophia and pals come away spiritually fortified. Many of the poor kids might even, as a result of the visit, manage to break out of their horrific caste. But empirically, even if every kid she visits is able to have a decent quality of life from then on, you've still only helped less than o.1% of all the affected people.
Charity to me seems futile. But there's always a nasty conflict in my mind, revolving round the issue of what is the best thing to do if you want to get rid of misery in the world. Part of me knows that simple giving can never eliminate poverty while we live in this robustly capitalistic (i.e. animalistic) world. If you give to one poor person, you achieve nothing, because wealth is relative. Someone else will merely slip beneathe the average poverty line. The poor will always exist, even if they have millions, because they will be relatively worse off than those with more. So your stuck with having to change the system, which is famously impossible. I personally believe that given enough time, mankid will naturally evolve to be genuinely egalitarian, but certainly not for a few thousand years.
Then there's the other part of me that says, "fuck off, these people are DYING ON THE STREETS, don't you social theorise at me! Any help they can get should be administered immediately, and conventional charities, preferably on a much larger scale, are the best means of doing this, even if it achieves very little overall."
No, says the first part of me, we need political action, starting with leaders who aren't handicapped by caring about only their own electorate.
What? says the second, How can you say that when you know that this is extremely unlikely to happen, and while you're prancing around with your revolution, people are dying on the streets?
Who should I listen to?
The other conundrum is whether, if I chose to give money to charity, I should seek to be personally successful in order to give more, if I know that being personally successful involves, at least to start with, keeping as much money (and time) as I can for myself. I just don't know. More thought required.
Top ten albums of all time
I am occasionally given to stuip list-making. One day I'll see a psychiatrist about it. As for now, I've got the impulse to order my favourite albums of all time. Thus, in order, after much shuffling:
1. The Dark Third - Pure Reason Revolution
2. Worlds Apart - ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead
3. The Great Destroyer - Low
4. Everyone into Position - Oceansize
5. Building an Empire - Demians
6. Kick Up The Fire and Let the Flames Break Loose - The Cooper Temple Clause
7. Finelines - My Vitriol
8. One time for all time - 65daysofstatic
9. Abbey Road - The Beatles
10. De Stijl - The White Stripes
Honourable mention (no order):
And The Glass Handed Kites - Mew
Frengers - Mew
Dear Science - TV on the Radio
Kill Your Own - Hundred Reasons
Saturnalia - The Gutter Twins
Surf's Up - The Beach Boys
Paradisiac - Millionaire
Frames - Oceansize
See This Through and Leave - The Cooper Temple Clause
Sleep Is For the Week - Frank Turner
Thirteenth Step - A Perfect Circle
Mer de Noms - A Perfect Circle
Loveless - My Bloody Valentine
--Almost Certain to make the top Ten when released in March--
Amor Vincit Omnia - Pure Reason Revolution
1. The Dark Third - Pure Reason Revolution
2. Worlds Apart - ...And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead
3. The Great Destroyer - Low
4. Everyone into Position - Oceansize
5. Building an Empire - Demians
6. Kick Up The Fire and Let the Flames Break Loose - The Cooper Temple Clause
7. Finelines - My Vitriol
8. One time for all time - 65daysofstatic
9. Abbey Road - The Beatles
10. De Stijl - The White Stripes
Honourable mention (no order):
And The Glass Handed Kites - Mew
Frengers - Mew
Dear Science - TV on the Radio
Kill Your Own - Hundred Reasons
Saturnalia - The Gutter Twins
Surf's Up - The Beach Boys
Paradisiac - Millionaire
Frames - Oceansize
See This Through and Leave - The Cooper Temple Clause
Sleep Is For the Week - Frank Turner
Thirteenth Step - A Perfect Circle
Mer de Noms - A Perfect Circle
Loveless - My Bloody Valentine
--Almost Certain to make the top Ten when released in March--
Amor Vincit Omnia - Pure Reason Revolution
Old Cool Band #2
Low
Really got back into this slowcore project recently. Fronted by a husband and wife, with all the songs written by the husband who is slightly mentally ill (and deteriorating), Low speaks to me with a poignancy and beauty that is only rarely achieved but can illuminate the world and the significance of life. Their 2005 album The Great Destroyer is probably among my top five or ten of all time.
Really got back into this slowcore project recently. Fronted by a husband and wife, with all the songs written by the husband who is slightly mentally ill (and deteriorating), Low speaks to me with a poignancy and beauty that is only rarely achieved but can illuminate the world and the significance of life. Their 2005 album The Great Destroyer is probably among my top five or ten of all time.
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Annasophia Robb = S.E.Hinton = Social theory
Confession time.
Dear blog,
My first confession is that I'm writing a stupid message to a blog. My second confession is that I'm going to use a personal story in this blog, which I out not to do. Bad dark fourth.
My third confession is that...there's a girl. About a year and a half ago, I saw a movie called The Bridge to Terabithia. I was on a plane at the time, sat between two strangers. This movie, if you haven't seen it, is a soppy kids' adventure/love thing, an adaptation of a book by the same name. It was in most respects cringeworthy and silly, but the ending is soooo sad. I have only cried about three times when watching films in my whole life, and this was one of them. Or rather, I would have cried if I hadn't been wedged between people I didn't know, so instead I gulped and grimaced to stop any embarrassing sobs emerging. I got off the plane, and after about a week I never thought of the film again.
Until today. When I happened to glance at it in Borders. Whatever the hell I was doing wasting my time in there. Damn fate. I picked it up, looked at the back, found the actress' name, and have just spent a very guilty hour googling her. It's not that I think she's particularly beautiful, though any straight male would be pressed to deny it (she's a bit too close to the horrific Hillary Duffish perfect-American-teenager-adored-by-10-year-old-girls model for me), it's just her character in the film is so....charming. And innocent. And everything a nice girl should be. And she has amazing clothes.
Anyway, her name is AnnaSophia Robb, and if her website is anything to go by, she's just as charming in real life. She likes Slumdog Millionaire and The Dark Knight and the Beatles. And she helps poor people in India.
But most important for me, she likes S.E.Hinton, author of The Outsiders and That Was Then This Is Now. These are brilliant, brilliant, brilliant books that I read ages ago but are still really powerful for me and have given me huge swathes of inspiration in the past (including Robert Frost....I think that'll be a blog post soon). So I spent the next hour thinking about S.E.Hinton, a writer who wrote startlingly empathetic stories of delinquent youths (almost all men) from broken homes in unnamed US city-ghettos, and who is in fact a woman. I will now explain one of the guiding theories of my life, which I first rationalised in reading her books.
We are destroyed by societies, everyone knows it. Gangs fighting in Chicago are just another expression of countries fighting in Europe, or religions fighting in the Middle East. It's all just society. Of course, society is what allows humans to achieve anything at all as a species, but it is the same constructive instinct that compels our obsession with being wanted and forming a group that causes its opposite: the ultra-destructive instinct to at best distrust and at worst obliterate all other societies. Social conflict binds and neutralises our capacity for empathy, which is chief among human virtues. We cannot relate to others or even recognise them as humans if they are not one of us, i.e. part of our society. It's worse if they're a society that is in long-standing conflict with our own. (To add another dimension to this: every individual is a member of dozens of societies; the more societies any given pair of individuals share, the more they will be able to empathise with each other's point of view. This is why if a WASP sees black Hindus dying in India, they care far less than if white Christians are dying in a neighboring state.)
So.
As responsible and progressive humans who are always striving to drag humanity from its animal roots, we have to remember to be empathetic, even when this does not come at all naturally. What strikes me most in this respect, as a Brit, is the willingness of otherwise very nice and normal people to talk deridingly of "chavs". Don't they see that being dismissive of a social group of which they have formed a negative image, even if this group is - for the vast majority of cases - deserving of such an image, is to reject any form of empathy with those individuals who suffer in the generalisation, in being unfairly lumped together with people with whom they have nothing in common except for living among them. This is what S.E.Hinton taught me. In her books, one or two protagonists, who are lovely, thoughtful people, happen to live in amongst the horror of gang warfare, and suffer from massive amounts of prejudice because of the gangs to which they are forced to belong. Thankfully there's no cheesy Romeo and Juliet love story rip off (unlike some similar musical adaptations of gang stories....), but the suffering is the same. If you want to hate someone, say "I hate people who act in x fashion", not "I hate people who are part of the society that, on average/in general, acts in x fashion." Or more specifically: "I hate that guy who swore at us and keyed our car last night (although his friend seemed alright, stupid hair/fashion sense though he may have)" rather than "I hate chavs - like that guy last night".
All this leads on to my grand theory of Empathy And Human Evolution, but fortunately for sanity, I will end these overlong scrawlings here - for today. I'd like to dedicate this post to AnnaSophia.
Dear blog,
My first confession is that I'm writing a stupid message to a blog. My second confession is that I'm going to use a personal story in this blog, which I out not to do. Bad dark fourth.
My third confession is that...there's a girl. About a year and a half ago, I saw a movie called The Bridge to Terabithia. I was on a plane at the time, sat between two strangers. This movie, if you haven't seen it, is a soppy kids' adventure/love thing, an adaptation of a book by the same name. It was in most respects cringeworthy and silly, but the ending is soooo sad. I have only cried about three times when watching films in my whole life, and this was one of them. Or rather, I would have cried if I hadn't been wedged between people I didn't know, so instead I gulped and grimaced to stop any embarrassing sobs emerging. I got off the plane, and after about a week I never thought of the film again.
Until today. When I happened to glance at it in Borders. Whatever the hell I was doing wasting my time in there. Damn fate. I picked it up, looked at the back, found the actress' name, and have just spent a very guilty hour googling her. It's not that I think she's particularly beautiful, though any straight male would be pressed to deny it (she's a bit too close to the horrific Hillary Duffish perfect-American-teenager-adored-by-10-year-old-girls model for me), it's just her character in the film is so....charming. And innocent. And everything a nice girl should be. And she has amazing clothes.
Anyway, her name is AnnaSophia Robb, and if her website is anything to go by, she's just as charming in real life. She likes Slumdog Millionaire and The Dark Knight and the Beatles. And she helps poor people in India.
But most important for me, she likes S.E.Hinton, author of The Outsiders and That Was Then This Is Now. These are brilliant, brilliant, brilliant books that I read ages ago but are still really powerful for me and have given me huge swathes of inspiration in the past (including Robert Frost....I think that'll be a blog post soon). So I spent the next hour thinking about S.E.Hinton, a writer who wrote startlingly empathetic stories of delinquent youths (almost all men) from broken homes in unnamed US city-ghettos, and who is in fact a woman. I will now explain one of the guiding theories of my life, which I first rationalised in reading her books.
We are destroyed by societies, everyone knows it. Gangs fighting in Chicago are just another expression of countries fighting in Europe, or religions fighting in the Middle East. It's all just society. Of course, society is what allows humans to achieve anything at all as a species, but it is the same constructive instinct that compels our obsession with being wanted and forming a group that causes its opposite: the ultra-destructive instinct to at best distrust and at worst obliterate all other societies. Social conflict binds and neutralises our capacity for empathy, which is chief among human virtues. We cannot relate to others or even recognise them as humans if they are not one of us, i.e. part of our society. It's worse if they're a society that is in long-standing conflict with our own. (To add another dimension to this: every individual is a member of dozens of societies; the more societies any given pair of individuals share, the more they will be able to empathise with each other's point of view. This is why if a WASP sees black Hindus dying in India, they care far less than if white Christians are dying in a neighboring state.)
So.
As responsible and progressive humans who are always striving to drag humanity from its animal roots, we have to remember to be empathetic, even when this does not come at all naturally. What strikes me most in this respect, as a Brit, is the willingness of otherwise very nice and normal people to talk deridingly of "chavs". Don't they see that being dismissive of a social group of which they have formed a negative image, even if this group is - for the vast majority of cases - deserving of such an image, is to reject any form of empathy with those individuals who suffer in the generalisation, in being unfairly lumped together with people with whom they have nothing in common except for living among them. This is what S.E.Hinton taught me. In her books, one or two protagonists, who are lovely, thoughtful people, happen to live in amongst the horror of gang warfare, and suffer from massive amounts of prejudice because of the gangs to which they are forced to belong. Thankfully there's no cheesy Romeo and Juliet love story rip off (unlike some similar musical adaptations of gang stories....), but the suffering is the same. If you want to hate someone, say "I hate people who act in x fashion", not "I hate people who are part of the society that, on average/in general, acts in x fashion." Or more specifically: "I hate that guy who swore at us and keyed our car last night (although his friend seemed alright, stupid hair/fashion sense though he may have)" rather than "I hate chavs - like that guy last night".
All this leads on to my grand theory of Empathy And Human Evolution, but fortunately for sanity, I will end these overlong scrawlings here - for today. I'd like to dedicate this post to AnnaSophia.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Quote #4, and associated thoughts on deity and Metaphor
"[God] made us clever enough to work out that He does not exist."
-Terry Pratchett, 'Nation'
I like this quote, and the previous one from García Márquez, because it sums up exactly how I think we should feel about God. We know he doesn't exist, but we can believe in him and allow him to help us. Another brilliant quote that is related is Jack White's incomprehension at people who feel clever because they're atheists: if you disbelieve in God on the grounds of logic or science (or anything else for that matter) then you are only losing out: "I have God and they don't". Why would you chose to give up God? To rationalise something like God is to eliminate the fabric of humanity: we operate according to the terms of truth-through-lies, of logical double-standards. We have the ability to apply logic when it comes to things like growing food and inventing machines, but reject it when it comes to nationality, "good" or God. Why should God be any different to justice, freedom or virtue? They are nothing more than inventions of deluded minds that are necessary to express things that we know to exist, but don't actually exist. We are the creatures of Metaphor, and it's a beautiful thing. If you don't use God to express all that God expresses, either you condemn yourself to an empty existence, or you will end up finding something which is virtually synonymous.
-Terry Pratchett, 'Nation'
I like this quote, and the previous one from García Márquez, because it sums up exactly how I think we should feel about God. We know he doesn't exist, but we can believe in him and allow him to help us. Another brilliant quote that is related is Jack White's incomprehension at people who feel clever because they're atheists: if you disbelieve in God on the grounds of logic or science (or anything else for that matter) then you are only losing out: "I have God and they don't". Why would you chose to give up God? To rationalise something like God is to eliminate the fabric of humanity: we operate according to the terms of truth-through-lies, of logical double-standards. We have the ability to apply logic when it comes to things like growing food and inventing machines, but reject it when it comes to nationality, "good" or God. Why should God be any different to justice, freedom or virtue? They are nothing more than inventions of deluded minds that are necessary to express things that we know to exist, but don't actually exist. We are the creatures of Metaphor, and it's a beautiful thing. If you don't use God to express all that God expresses, either you condemn yourself to an empty existence, or you will end up finding something which is virtually synonymous.
Sunday, 11 January 2009
Musical idea #3
A circular album. Where the last track builds up into the first.
Probably already been done by some progger or summat.....
Probably already been done by some progger or summat.....
Friday, 9 January 2009
More meaningless stuff from the archives
Seriously, where the hell does this stuff come from? Was it my insane phase that has been editted from my memory? This was a little notebook file entitled 'wisdoms'. All I know is that the tctc thing stands for the cooper temple clause, an awesome band (my obsession from a few years ago). Costello is presumably Elvis, 80s punk wannabe.
to paint the perfect painting: make yourself perfect, then paint naturally.cat/toast tied and droppedall it takes is one itchy trigger (Costello)write more letters!we dare you to mean a single word you say. (tctc)Achilles/tortoise
to paint the perfect painting: make yourself perfect, then paint naturally.cat/toast tied and droppedall it takes is one itchy trigger (Costello)write more letters!we dare you to mean a single word you say. (tctc)Achilles/tortoise
Deep thoughts...maybe
I just found this in an ancient thing on my computer. No idea what it means. It's from a book I read ages and ages ago by Michael Frayn, about the physicists who almost created the A-bomb, Niel Borhs and the one beginning with H:
By the final core of uncertainty at the heart of things.
Settled among all the dust we raised.
-Copenhagen
Michael Frayn
By the final core of uncertainty at the heart of things.
Settled among all the dust we raised.
-Copenhagen
Michael Frayn
Thursday, 8 January 2009
The downward spiral of poitless academia, Standing on the brink of
I have a confession. I applied to Cambridge university. Twice.
Though I try to blot out the moral ramifications of this fact, the bastards have, on my second year through the system, put me in the infamous 'pool', where they are watching me drown mercilessly. In two days I will have my THIRD interview date of the saga.
However, there are positive side-effects to this miserable trilogy. Preparing for a Cambridge interview is a remarkably soul-enhancing experience. I'm a big fan of inspiration in all its forms, so I suppose I shouldn't complain. Because of Cambridge, I've introduced myself to the likes of Durkhiem, Habbermas, Rouseau, and Goffman. I've become a pseudo expert on world affairs. And it's fascinating.
And so my second confession - I don't care if it rips any kind of integrity I might once have had to shreds - is that I want to get into Cambridge. I want to study how society causes all human ills, how politicians are a product of their own political culture, and how the human brain makes all this possible.
This time through the grater, I've been particularly struck by how angry I get when I read the umteenth article about suffering multitudes in Bombay. HOW THE HELL DID WE LET THIS HAPPEN???
WHY ARE WE NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CLIMATE???
WHY DO ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS BEHAVE IN INCOMPREHENSIBLE WAYS?
WHY DOESN'T THE US MILITARY AND THE TALIBAN COME TO A PEACEABLE AGREEMENT, AND GROW FRUIT INSTEAD OF POPPIES???
DOES NO ONE WANT THE SUFFERING TO END?
And why do we think of people as objects, still?
Though I try to blot out the moral ramifications of this fact, the bastards have, on my second year through the system, put me in the infamous 'pool', where they are watching me drown mercilessly. In two days I will have my THIRD interview date of the saga.
However, there are positive side-effects to this miserable trilogy. Preparing for a Cambridge interview is a remarkably soul-enhancing experience. I'm a big fan of inspiration in all its forms, so I suppose I shouldn't complain. Because of Cambridge, I've introduced myself to the likes of Durkhiem, Habbermas, Rouseau, and Goffman. I've become a pseudo expert on world affairs. And it's fascinating.
And so my second confession - I don't care if it rips any kind of integrity I might once have had to shreds - is that I want to get into Cambridge. I want to study how society causes all human ills, how politicians are a product of their own political culture, and how the human brain makes all this possible.
This time through the grater, I've been particularly struck by how angry I get when I read the umteenth article about suffering multitudes in Bombay. HOW THE HELL DID WE LET THIS HAPPEN???
WHY ARE WE NOT DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THE CLIMATE???
WHY DO ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS BEHAVE IN INCOMPREHENSIBLE WAYS?
WHY DOESN'T THE US MILITARY AND THE TALIBAN COME TO A PEACEABLE AGREEMENT, AND GROW FRUIT INSTEAD OF POPPIES???
DOES NO ONE WANT THE SUFFERING TO END?
And why do we think of people as objects, still?
Monday, 5 January 2009
New Cool Band #3
Millionaire
This psycho alternative outfit from LA (I think) is really cool. They manage to make really exciting sounds while exploring the depths of metal, grunge and psychadelia (sic). Try to imagine Incubus meets Porcupine Tree.
This psycho alternative outfit from LA (I think) is really cool. They manage to make really exciting sounds while exploring the depths of metal, grunge and psychadelia (sic). Try to imagine Incubus meets Porcupine Tree.
Sunday, 4 January 2009
Quote #3
"I do not believe in God, but I am afraid of Him."
-Gabriel García Márquez (Love In The Time Of Cholera)
-Gabriel García Márquez (Love In The Time Of Cholera)
Thursday, 1 January 2009
New comedy
Tim Minchin
There's a new comedian in my life. Best singer-funnyman since Flanders and Swann.
See: http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=tim+minchin&search_type=&aq=f
There's a new comedian in my life. Best singer-funnyman since Flanders and Swann.
See: http://uk.youtube.com/results?search_query=tim+minchin&search_type=&aq=f
In praise of Iceland
From Slate magazine:
"When people talk about Iceland, they talk about numbers, distance, and the awesome lack of human imprint on the landscape. The Vikings settled the harbor. It is 2,600 miles from New York. The island's footprint is 103,000 square kilometers, an area larger than South Carolina but smaller than Virginia, and 79 percent of the terrain is what the U.S. government calls "wasteland." Nine-tenths of the country's heat is geothermally produced. Renewable sources provide all electricity. The population has grown to 313,000—this is slightly less than the residency of Manhattan's Upper West Side, up to 155th Street—and the temperature of the Blue Lagoon, because I know you were wondering, averages 100 degrees, even in winter. What else? Iceland's culture today is a model of North European savoir-vivre. Almost two-thirds of its university students are women; the literacy rate has been estimated at 99.9 percent; and the annual publishing output is, per capita, the largest in the world."
I also happen to know that Iceland has the oldest parliament in the world. And some damn good music.
"When people talk about Iceland, they talk about numbers, distance, and the awesome lack of human imprint on the landscape. The Vikings settled the harbor. It is 2,600 miles from New York. The island's footprint is 103,000 square kilometers, an area larger than South Carolina but smaller than Virginia, and 79 percent of the terrain is what the U.S. government calls "wasteland." Nine-tenths of the country's heat is geothermally produced. Renewable sources provide all electricity. The population has grown to 313,000—this is slightly less than the residency of Manhattan's Upper West Side, up to 155th Street—and the temperature of the Blue Lagoon, because I know you were wondering, averages 100 degrees, even in winter. What else? Iceland's culture today is a model of North European savoir-vivre. Almost two-thirds of its university students are women; the literacy rate has been estimated at 99.9 percent; and the annual publishing output is, per capita, the largest in the world."
I also happen to know that Iceland has the oldest parliament in the world. And some damn good music.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
