In recent news, fun daughter of former vice president suggesting Cheney as next president while in the upper right corner of the tv screen we are supposed to think "progress"....
yes because Cheney sending in assassins without congressional knowledge carrying permission to kill high profile criminals on the steps of foreign capitals doesn't remind me of Archduke Franz Ferdinand at all. (and we all know how that ended up......)
Stop worshiping Leo Strauss's version of Plato's Republic and start finding ways to fix problems without pissing everyone off. Your foreign policy is tactless. Sit down and be quiet. Obama is trying to save face.
We bombed the living bejezuz out of that country before they even knew what they were up against and we aren't allowed to give them the courtesy of showing at least showing respect for a forgotten way of life? (yes I am fully aware that Japan under the emperor completely raped and pillaged Nanjing and that's why Chinese and Japanese are still uneasy with each other)
To the conservative religious right wingers who are still kicking and screaming: Why so xeno-religiophobic?
I just don't get it.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Saturday, November 14, 2009
a brief bit about myself
First a hint before I begin to wax eloquent concerning the apathy of my former existence:
the only constant in life is change
Now onto the main course.
Introduction:
My recent aberration from the music world is mostly due to music theorists, and here's why.
They look at music that has already been written, come up with some fancy mathematical formula that accurately reflects the notes on a page of one specific piece that are mere vague representations of what is actually in a composers head, then they secretly pretend to be a music critic and say "oh this piece is the new cool". Then, composers start magically popping up that sort-of fit the theories expounded by the instrumentally inept, then said inept persons write another treatise explaining how those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Wtf.
It's called trend setting. They mathematically romanticized one of the most organic mediums of art and suddenly it just seemed like a good idea to the other composers who were perhaps a bit self-conscious about their own writings.
Now there's these musical historians that have taken the time to try and replicate the "true baroque sound", which is an admiral feat, albeit it will be impossible to ever find out unless Einstein magically re-appears in his time machine ship boasting a host of 13 mildly confused musicians from the 1600's. Teachers in the classical world then get caught up in the pedagogy of music historians and try to tell students, "no, it goes this way." when, in fact, they have no ****ing clue how it actually went and forgot how to interpret things from an individualistic perspective eon's ago.
(there are contradictions hidden in there. cookie to whoever finds them.)
Then there's Beethoven:
Having been blessed by the irony of fate, he went deaf and began banging notes with his skull glued to the side of a broken keyboard.
No longer was his mind polluted by the scratchings of mediocre musicians. His ears were thrust into alienation and isolation, empirically removed from the real world and forced to muse with the notes in his head. Thus what popped out later in his life was less a reflection of the real world and more a compilation of himself (in the form of sheet-music of course), proving Plato to be less "correct" and Nietzsche to me more "correct".
Thus, no one can logically tell musicians how the late Beethoven string quartets "should" have sounded unless they claim to be able to read the minds of the dead composers.
.....[break in thought]
I think the agony of modern music is that it is stuck in a world that doesn't really give two ****s about it and the sounds fall on deaf ears. The composers have alienated themselves from the people with their 12-tone rows and complicated textures. Heck, even highly trained classical instrumentalists are having trouble keeping up, but that's the way it's been for quite some time now.
As for the Nietzsche vs Plato reference, it was brought to my attention that i should explain that a bit more.
According to Plato, man is a political beast: meaning that a city-state is his natural environment rather than the ironically named "state-of-nature" which describes what man would be like if raised in the environment of animals of the wild (depending upon which philosopher you might be reading this definition might vary). For further thinking, imagine a baby born in a box. When removed from the box after 10 years of somehow surviving in said box, what would it know?
Nietzsche is an example of the reverse. Raised in a city-state, he alienated his mind from the immediate world surrounding him and wrote the inner musings of himself. (and in the process the popular western concept of God became meaningless to him) it relates to an old dada trick: verbal repetition strikes up a barrier somewhere in the brain which prevents it from attaching thought to said word.
Thus: Nietzsche perhaps thought the concept God so much to himself that he was unable to attach any emotional meaning to the idea.
This relates to Machiavelli: Machiavelli argued that the quickest cure for a public uprising is the concept of God.
In a Nietzscheian society this would not be true.
Beethoven is the Nietzsche of music. He studied at the feet of his masters, broke the pre-established norms, then was forced into audio-isolation and.....out came the music.
.....[going back now to the thought that came first]
the only constant in life is change
Now onto the main course.
The Ontological Beauty of Beethoven's Later Works
Introduction:
My recent aberration from the music world is mostly due to music theorists, and here's why.
They look at music that has already been written, come up with some fancy mathematical formula that accurately reflects the notes on a page of one specific piece that are mere vague representations of what is actually in a composers head, then they secretly pretend to be a music critic and say "oh this piece is the new cool". Then, composers start magically popping up that sort-of fit the theories expounded by the instrumentally inept, then said inept persons write another treatise explaining how those are the exceptions that prove the rule.
Wtf.
It's called trend setting. They mathematically romanticized one of the most organic mediums of art and suddenly it just seemed like a good idea to the other composers who were perhaps a bit self-conscious about their own writings.
Now there's these musical historians that have taken the time to try and replicate the "true baroque sound", which is an admiral feat, albeit it will be impossible to ever find out unless Einstein magically re-appears in his time machine ship boasting a host of 13 mildly confused musicians from the 1600's. Teachers in the classical world then get caught up in the pedagogy of music historians and try to tell students, "no, it goes this way." when, in fact, they have no ****ing clue how it actually went and forgot how to interpret things from an individualistic perspective eon's ago.
(there are contradictions hidden in there. cookie to whoever finds them.)
Then there's Beethoven:
Having been blessed by the irony of fate, he went deaf and began banging notes with his skull glued to the side of a broken keyboard.
No longer was his mind polluted by the scratchings of mediocre musicians. His ears were thrust into alienation and isolation, empirically removed from the real world and forced to muse with the notes in his head. Thus what popped out later in his life was less a reflection of the real world and more a compilation of himself (in the form of sheet-music of course), proving Plato to be less "correct" and Nietzsche to me more "correct".
Thus, no one can logically tell musicians how the late Beethoven string quartets "should" have sounded unless they claim to be able to read the minds of the dead composers.
.....[break in thought]
I think the agony of modern music is that it is stuck in a world that doesn't really give two ****s about it and the sounds fall on deaf ears. The composers have alienated themselves from the people with their 12-tone rows and complicated textures. Heck, even highly trained classical instrumentalists are having trouble keeping up, but that's the way it's been for quite some time now.
As for the Nietzsche vs Plato reference, it was brought to my attention that i should explain that a bit more.
According to Plato, man is a political beast: meaning that a city-state is his natural environment rather than the ironically named "state-of-nature" which describes what man would be like if raised in the environment of animals of the wild (depending upon which philosopher you might be reading this definition might vary). For further thinking, imagine a baby born in a box. When removed from the box after 10 years of somehow surviving in said box, what would it know?
Nietzsche is an example of the reverse. Raised in a city-state, he alienated his mind from the immediate world surrounding him and wrote the inner musings of himself. (and in the process the popular western concept of God became meaningless to him) it relates to an old dada trick: verbal repetition strikes up a barrier somewhere in the brain which prevents it from attaching thought to said word.
Thus: Nietzsche perhaps thought the concept God so much to himself that he was unable to attach any emotional meaning to the idea.
This relates to Machiavelli: Machiavelli argued that the quickest cure for a public uprising is the concept of God.
In a Nietzscheian society this would not be true.
Beethoven is the Nietzsche of music. He studied at the feet of his masters, broke the pre-established norms, then was forced into audio-isolation and.....out came the music.
.....[going back now to the thought that came first]
Western Society, Nuclear Arms, CCTV, and other fun stuff
Not sure how this will really end up but whatever.
CCTV is an interesting thing. It psychologically replicates in a society that is noticeably more agnostic/atheistic than it's predominantly religious counterpart the idea of being watched and punishment for "wrong" actions.
Last time I checked, Dallas has this system publicly implemented as well as London.
Major department stores of course have been using them for some time.
Now, lets say this western society thing continues to work.
Great.
Lest say it doesn't.
Not so great.
China is becoming increasingly westernized which can be observed in the major cities of Shenghei, Beijing, and Honk Kong.
Lets say this system becomes less "effective" both at either preventing and/or discouraging crime in a largely atheistic society.
Anarchists begin popping up everywhere who not only want to see the system fail but decide that they need to make it go away for a bit.
The only trick here is: oops the government has nuclear arms.
Kind of hard to rebel against the threat of that, both psychologically and physically. There might be a bluff stand-off, but what happens when the bluff is called?
or is there no bluff?
This scenario would probably only be applicable after the cold war ripple effect wears out and if open rebellion becomes geographically concentrated (like for example, the succession of states from the union.....)
Notice how "smaller" countries are still eager to gain WMD's and people are still flipping ♥♥♥♥ about it. (mostly in the west it seems.)
This is probably why my political psychology text book argues that the global political spectrum can currently be described as being in a Hobbesian state as is described in the Leviathan.
Anyway, I was going to ramble further but that's basically the gist of it.
Rebellion seems like it will never come in the west so long as the powers that be have nuclear arms at their disposal.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. =B
What are your guy's thoughts.
Once the fear of foreign attack (relative to the reader's perspective of course) dies down, shouldn't the world powers be obligated to get rid of them in order to preserve the balance of power between the people and their governments?
....and....one last thought on this post will probably me as much as I can push the proverbial envelope....
CCTV is an interesting thing. It psychologically replicates in a society that is noticeably more agnostic/atheistic than it's predominantly religious counterpart the idea of being watched and punishment for "wrong" actions.
Last time I checked, Dallas has this system publicly implemented as well as London.
Major department stores of course have been using them for some time.
Now, lets say this western society thing continues to work.
Great.
Lest say it doesn't.
Not so great.
China is becoming increasingly westernized which can be observed in the major cities of Shenghei, Beijing, and Honk Kong.
Lets say this system becomes less "effective" both at either preventing and/or discouraging crime in a largely atheistic society.
Anarchists begin popping up everywhere who not only want to see the system fail but decide that they need to make it go away for a bit.
The only trick here is: oops the government has nuclear arms.
Kind of hard to rebel against the threat of that, both psychologically and physically. There might be a bluff stand-off, but what happens when the bluff is called?
or is there no bluff?
This scenario would probably only be applicable after the cold war ripple effect wears out and if open rebellion becomes geographically concentrated (like for example, the succession of states from the union.....)
Notice how "smaller" countries are still eager to gain WMD's and people are still flipping ♥♥♥♥ about it. (mostly in the west it seems.)
This is probably why my political psychology text book argues that the global political spectrum can currently be described as being in a Hobbesian state as is described in the Leviathan.
Anyway, I was going to ramble further but that's basically the gist of it.
Rebellion seems like it will never come in the west so long as the powers that be have nuclear arms at their disposal.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. =B
What are your guy's thoughts.
Once the fear of foreign attack (relative to the reader's perspective of course) dies down, shouldn't the world powers be obligated to get rid of them in order to preserve the balance of power between the people and their governments?
....and....one last thought on this post will probably me as much as I can push the proverbial envelope....
Capitalism vs Socialism in the U.S.
They are not mutually exclusive.
China is making controlled capitalism work, albeit with an iron grip that is suffocating human rights, freedom of speech, and at the destruction of their ecosystem.
They need not be forced to work together either since they don't seem to be mutually inclusive just yet due to the constantly changing variables known as human nature, moral strife, conquest, war, neighborly conflict, and fear of mutually assured destruction.
Either people will be willing to let go of their outdated views on economic philosophy and realize that the problem is not in-fact the economic infrastructure but rather the people hiding in the shadows of unchecked power (i.e goldman sachs).
Having said that, it seems that the easiest quick fix would be to embrace a more socialized system in the "real word" while leaving the internet economy an unchecked lasses-fair system.
That's not going to happen over night however. Obama is doing the most that he can with the power that has been granted to him, but internet economy regulation seems to be left to individual states if my observations are correct (which is appropriate in a nation that still seems to harbor anti-federalist sentiments).
Having said all that: I'm hopeful that the two systems will learn to live together without unnecessary force from either easily antagonized anarchists or a strong armed political machine.
What to you guys think will happen?
[here's a response from this person]
"The argument of whether or not capitalism and socialism can coexist aside, I must first note that China is now capitalist in all but name; government control over the economy - especially trade and foreign investments - is not at all a trait that is exclusive to socialism. Red China does not actually practice much socialism now. Only a few traces of its lingering mentality can be seen in the northeastern cities (such as Beijing and Dalian), and they've pretty much been forgotten in the southeastern cities (such as Shanghai and Shenzhen). ^_^; "
that's probably all for today.
might be back later. who knows what will happen when everybody is trying to be as M. A. D. as they possibly can be.
China is making controlled capitalism work, albeit with an iron grip that is suffocating human rights, freedom of speech, and at the destruction of their ecosystem.
They need not be forced to work together either since they don't seem to be mutually inclusive just yet due to the constantly changing variables known as human nature, moral strife, conquest, war, neighborly conflict, and fear of mutually assured destruction.
Either people will be willing to let go of their outdated views on economic philosophy and realize that the problem is not in-fact the economic infrastructure but rather the people hiding in the shadows of unchecked power (i.e goldman sachs).
Having said that, it seems that the easiest quick fix would be to embrace a more socialized system in the "real word" while leaving the internet economy an unchecked lasses-fair system.
That's not going to happen over night however. Obama is doing the most that he can with the power that has been granted to him, but internet economy regulation seems to be left to individual states if my observations are correct (which is appropriate in a nation that still seems to harbor anti-federalist sentiments).
Having said all that: I'm hopeful that the two systems will learn to live together without unnecessary force from either easily antagonized anarchists or a strong armed political machine.
What to you guys think will happen?
[here's a response from this person]
"The argument of whether or not capitalism and socialism can coexist aside, I must first note that China is now capitalist in all but name; government control over the economy - especially trade and foreign investments - is not at all a trait that is exclusive to socialism. Red China does not actually practice much socialism now. Only a few traces of its lingering mentality can be seen in the northeastern cities (such as Beijing and Dalian), and they've pretty much been forgotten in the southeastern cities (such as Shanghai and Shenzhen). ^_^; "
that's probably all for today.
might be back later. who knows what will happen when everybody is trying to be as M. A. D. as they possibly can be.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)