Friends, Canadians,
Like you, I am troubled by the recent political kerfuffle. I wish it didn't have to come to this. It is certainly a sign our political system is in need of much improvement. But in order to make improvements, we must focus our cognitive abilities on making improvements, not making derisive and pejorative comments. Though I find both the coalition and the Conservative party guilty of such actions, my aim here is to address comments made by Mr. Harper in a constructive manner.
1) It is deeply troubling to hear ad hominems tossed around so easily. Calling people socialists or conservatives achieves the same thing as using racial, ethnic, or homophobic slurs: it creates stereotypes that divide us and push us apart. We are human beings first, Canadians second. Please, no more mudslinging. It does not help solve the situation.
2) Many people say that the coalition is undemocratic, but I have yet to hear anyone explain exactly why it is undemocratic. Our constitution allows for such a coalition to replace Mr. Harper's government. A constitution--especially one that contains checks and balances--is integral to a democracy. Having checks and balances in a political system, which allow an unsuitable government to be replaced, to me, seems very democratic. I concede that the Conservative Party received the most votes out of any other party in the last election, but I also understand that a coalition represents the majority of Canadians who voted in the last election. Thus, a coalition-operated government seems very democratic.
3) Mr. Harper refers to the coalition as "socialist-separatist driven." This is rather inaccurate. The coalition is between the Liberal and NDP party with support from the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc are only supporting the coalition for eighteen months, and can choose to vote against the coalition on matters that are not confidence votes.
4) In a free market economy, I fail to see how any government can have a significant impact--negative or positive--on the economy. It is the mandate of the Conservative party to intervene minimally or not at all in the economy. The North American free market is in recession. So how is the Conservative party the better choice when it comes to addressing economic problems as opposed to the NDP, who want to give financial assistance to workers near retirement who have lost their jobs and aim to protect workers' pensions?
5) There is one thing I certainly agree with Mr. Harper on, and that "[i]t is time for Canadians to stand up against backroom deals that would usurp the elected government without the people’s consent." Mr. Harper and his government continue to foster and develop the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), an initiative that seeks to rob Canada of its sovereignty, and merge Canada, the United States, and Mexico into a single state (i.e., North American Union) much like the European Union.
More information on the SPP can be found in this short video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9P6VkjI6QK8&feature=related
More information on the North American Union can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
It is my hope that Mr. Layton's influence can halt the progression of the SPP, as well as the formation of the North American Union, so that Canada's sovereignty may be retained.
Thank you for reading. I look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
Michael Horvath
December 2, 2008
September 18, 2008
Beauty is not an ideal
It isn't. And it's a shame that so many people think it is, because they will never possess it. They'll feel deflated and find ways to compensate for their self-induced lack. Yes, I'm being vague intentionally, but not to worry. I'm no Scientologist; there are no hollow, unelucidated ramblings here.
What makes a person beautiful? To whom? Who decides? These questions can't be answered by citing superficial distinctions (assuming they CAN be answered that is), such as saying brunettes are hotter than blondes. Instead one must look to the estranged step-uncle that is philosophy.
Many may not realize it, but beauty is often thought of as a form, a blueprint of perfection. It is an idea or ideal that one should strive to achieve or use to guide one's goals. A Platonic Form is the essence of an object that exists in a transcendental realm. Every object in the realm we experience, which we like to call reality, is a shadow of some Platonic Form. For example, if I drew a triangle it would be an emulation of its form--the essential/perfect triangle. Even if I used a ruler and a protractor, I could not draw a perfect triangle. If one zoomed in to the microscopic level they would see that there were still imperfections in the triangle that I had drawn. The important thing to recognize here is that the world we experience is imperfect, which includes ourselves and our actions. We can never achieve the perfection of a form.
However, that truth doesn't deter people from trying to achieve perfect beauty, and it is why people diet; why they wear makeup; why they go to the gym; why they drink protein shakes; why they tan; why they get plastic surgery; why they develop eating disorders. Goals are set constantly, but there is never an endpoint. Because humans are imperfect, achieving perfection is impossible, yet people still deny the reality of their existence and give it a burl anyway. Pursuing that goal creates a dissonance between what one is and what one would like to be. The dissonance created by trying to achieve perfect beauty can be very debilitating, physically and mentally. It's a futile pursuit, but there are so many runners in the race.
But where's the finish line? Sure everyone wants to be beautiful, but what does it mean to be beautiful? I bet few people could give a specific definition that encompasses both sexes. The ideal of beauty is often vague and undefined. Sure there are fashion magazines and billboards and clothing stores and movies and TV shows that tell us and show us what perfect beauty is, but little is defined and consistency is sparse. There tend to be common threads--bigger boobs, less fat, more muscle, etc.--though such ideals are not quantified. There are no limits to how big one's boobs should be; how skinny one should be; or how jacked one should be--and there are several websites that show just how far people are willing to go to obtain their idea, or the one they've assimilated, of perfect beauty. But there are several well-renowned people who are considered beautiful, yet the qualities that make them beautiful are never exactly alike. You can make up your own examples. It seems that not only does perfect beauty not exist in human experience, but the ideal or form of perfect beauty does not exist either. In fact, and I believe this is fairly obvious, what is beautiful is entirely contingent upon the person making such a judgment.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to be a fairly common colloquialism, and I assume most people are familiar with it, but why does no one take heed of it? We're shovel-fed superficiality every day of our lives and we don't even need a glass of water to swallow it. Does it occur to anyone that beauty can go beyond surface features? Perhaps what makes one beautiful is one's actions or beliefs or values. Beauty ought not be limited to solely physical traits.
Whatever idea of beauty you behold, make sure you use your own eyes.
What makes a person beautiful? To whom? Who decides? These questions can't be answered by citing superficial distinctions (assuming they CAN be answered that is), such as saying brunettes are hotter than blondes. Instead one must look to the estranged step-uncle that is philosophy.
Many may not realize it, but beauty is often thought of as a form, a blueprint of perfection. It is an idea or ideal that one should strive to achieve or use to guide one's goals. A Platonic Form is the essence of an object that exists in a transcendental realm. Every object in the realm we experience, which we like to call reality, is a shadow of some Platonic Form. For example, if I drew a triangle it would be an emulation of its form--the essential/perfect triangle. Even if I used a ruler and a protractor, I could not draw a perfect triangle. If one zoomed in to the microscopic level they would see that there were still imperfections in the triangle that I had drawn. The important thing to recognize here is that the world we experience is imperfect, which includes ourselves and our actions. We can never achieve the perfection of a form.
However, that truth doesn't deter people from trying to achieve perfect beauty, and it is why people diet; why they wear makeup; why they go to the gym; why they drink protein shakes; why they tan; why they get plastic surgery; why they develop eating disorders. Goals are set constantly, but there is never an endpoint. Because humans are imperfect, achieving perfection is impossible, yet people still deny the reality of their existence and give it a burl anyway. Pursuing that goal creates a dissonance between what one is and what one would like to be. The dissonance created by trying to achieve perfect beauty can be very debilitating, physically and mentally. It's a futile pursuit, but there are so many runners in the race.
But where's the finish line? Sure everyone wants to be beautiful, but what does it mean to be beautiful? I bet few people could give a specific definition that encompasses both sexes. The ideal of beauty is often vague and undefined. Sure there are fashion magazines and billboards and clothing stores and movies and TV shows that tell us and show us what perfect beauty is, but little is defined and consistency is sparse. There tend to be common threads--bigger boobs, less fat, more muscle, etc.--though such ideals are not quantified. There are no limits to how big one's boobs should be; how skinny one should be; or how jacked one should be--and there are several websites that show just how far people are willing to go to obtain their idea, or the one they've assimilated, of perfect beauty. But there are several well-renowned people who are considered beautiful, yet the qualities that make them beautiful are never exactly alike. You can make up your own examples. It seems that not only does perfect beauty not exist in human experience, but the ideal or form of perfect beauty does not exist either. In fact, and I believe this is fairly obvious, what is beautiful is entirely contingent upon the person making such a judgment.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" seems to be a fairly common colloquialism, and I assume most people are familiar with it, but why does no one take heed of it? We're shovel-fed superficiality every day of our lives and we don't even need a glass of water to swallow it. Does it occur to anyone that beauty can go beyond surface features? Perhaps what makes one beautiful is one's actions or beliefs or values. Beauty ought not be limited to solely physical traits.
Whatever idea of beauty you behold, make sure you use your own eyes.
August 13, 2008
Unreality
On a rather lonely night I decided to have some naked strangers keep me company. Yes, I watched some porn. But, like any other time I've searched for virtual vignettes of sins of the flesh, I had trouble finding something suitable--it was only this time, though, that I understood why.
Porn is just so damn contrived. Even the supposedly amateur work is premeditated and artificial. I understand that full-length pornos with "plots" don't have anything to hide: they're fake and they aren't shy about it. But somehow the fantastical twist in feature-lengths (rather, spectacular-lengths) has seeped into thirty-second clips on YouPorn. The pleasure is so forced. The people on screen knowingly put on a performance, with a director behind the camera to obtain the biggest spectacle, so their video can get the most hits or downloads.
You might ask, what's the big deal? People don't watch porn for sincerity; they watch it for entertainment. What happens, though, is that people start to buy into what they see on screen. They'll believe that that's how a girl fingerslays her two-lip; that that's how a 155cm Asian with double-Ds rides a black guy; that the amount of women who like a dildo in their asshole is ASTONISHGINLY higher than one would think. Especially for the unexperienced, such videos/pictures present a very skewed view of how sweet play ought to be done. Once people assimilate porno performaces, the reality portrayed in the pornos becomes one's own. They try to recreate what they've seen in their own experiences. The result: unreality becomes reality. And if unreality becomes reality, then reality is, really, unreality.
Chuck Klosterman talks about the same thing in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, albeit in relation to non-pornographic media. He says the same thing about love that I've said about sweet play: television and film present an idea of love that most people buy into, to some extent, and inspire to achieve. When people believe they've found true love, all they've found is the idea of love that they were told to find; they've found fake love.
The problem is, how does one escape the influence of unreality? Is it possible? Does it matter if it isn't? People seem pretty content trying to emulate Goslings' love for McAdams, or clothing themsleves like the gangstas they see in music videos, or even aspiring to be like the heroes they see on the news. Perhaps unreality is just far more entertaining than reality.
For anyone who consumes mass media, the influence of unreality is impossible to avoid. In fact, mass media seems to be the authority on reality. What's presented to the public ends up becoming reality for a lot of people. Though the creation of mass media is largely ingenuine and fabricated, its acceptance by the public validates it, MAKES it genuine. It's twisted, but it's true. Anyone who has seen the film Network (and if you haven't, you NEED to) will know exactly what I'm talking about.
It seems quite obvious where that leaves us. I'm not saying I like it, but it's a vicious circle that seems difficult to cease, and impossible to escape.
There is no reality.
Porn is just so damn contrived. Even the supposedly amateur work is premeditated and artificial. I understand that full-length pornos with "plots" don't have anything to hide: they're fake and they aren't shy about it. But somehow the fantastical twist in feature-lengths (rather, spectacular-lengths) has seeped into thirty-second clips on YouPorn. The pleasure is so forced. The people on screen knowingly put on a performance, with a director behind the camera to obtain the biggest spectacle, so their video can get the most hits or downloads.
You might ask, what's the big deal? People don't watch porn for sincerity; they watch it for entertainment. What happens, though, is that people start to buy into what they see on screen. They'll believe that that's how a girl fingerslays her two-lip; that that's how a 155cm Asian with double-Ds rides a black guy; that the amount of women who like a dildo in their asshole is ASTONISHGINLY higher than one would think. Especially for the unexperienced, such videos/pictures present a very skewed view of how sweet play ought to be done. Once people assimilate porno performaces, the reality portrayed in the pornos becomes one's own. They try to recreate what they've seen in their own experiences. The result: unreality becomes reality. And if unreality becomes reality, then reality is, really, unreality.
Chuck Klosterman talks about the same thing in Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs, albeit in relation to non-pornographic media. He says the same thing about love that I've said about sweet play: television and film present an idea of love that most people buy into, to some extent, and inspire to achieve. When people believe they've found true love, all they've found is the idea of love that they were told to find; they've found fake love.
The problem is, how does one escape the influence of unreality? Is it possible? Does it matter if it isn't? People seem pretty content trying to emulate Goslings' love for McAdams, or clothing themsleves like the gangstas they see in music videos, or even aspiring to be like the heroes they see on the news. Perhaps unreality is just far more entertaining than reality.
For anyone who consumes mass media, the influence of unreality is impossible to avoid. In fact, mass media seems to be the authority on reality. What's presented to the public ends up becoming reality for a lot of people. Though the creation of mass media is largely ingenuine and fabricated, its acceptance by the public validates it, MAKES it genuine. It's twisted, but it's true. Anyone who has seen the film Network (and if you haven't, you NEED to) will know exactly what I'm talking about.
It seems quite obvious where that leaves us. I'm not saying I like it, but it's a vicious circle that seems difficult to cease, and impossible to escape.
There is no reality.
July 9, 2008
Doppelganger
The problem with being a mutual friend is that one occasionally operates as a double-goer, a double-agent. Of course it's easy to be sympathetic to both sides, but it can be tough to avoid making it apparent that's the case. It certainly is not double-dealing to get the dirt--they're your friends. Why would you want to do that? But you do deal with privileged information--the kind of stuff combustible commanders would keep classified. But goddammit, you're sympathetic to both sides. Is it really ratting someone out when you're looking out for their best interests?
It's a passive role. The keeper, a gateway. Physical mediation can sometimes be necessary, but often one is wise to let the others play their cards--you aren't dealt many anyway. The question is how much one shuffles others' hands. As one who is sympathetic to both sides, you won't slide in the jokers. Misinterpretations, fabrications, and exaggerations are not going to help anyone, including yourself. No, you shoot it straight, Sam. Exactly what you saw, exactly what you heard. It's prosaically pious. Sympathy isn't sympathy without honesty.
It's not always a good feeling filling in the holes for one side or another. Here's why. You're a secondary source. If someone is getting the full story from you, and might ONLY get the full story from you, they might not appreciate the continence of the person on the other side of the battlefield. Primary sources ought to be trusted more than their subsidiaries. But that isn't your problem. You aren't responsible for the actions of another, nor their incomplete explanations for them. Sympathy doesn't entail approval. It sucks, but dammit, it's not your problem.
If you're a meddling messenger, well then you deserve to be shot. But it's certainly unfair to condemn a pair of unbiased eyes and ears.
It's a passive role. The keeper, a gateway. Physical mediation can sometimes be necessary, but often one is wise to let the others play their cards--you aren't dealt many anyway. The question is how much one shuffles others' hands. As one who is sympathetic to both sides, you won't slide in the jokers. Misinterpretations, fabrications, and exaggerations are not going to help anyone, including yourself. No, you shoot it straight, Sam. Exactly what you saw, exactly what you heard. It's prosaically pious. Sympathy isn't sympathy without honesty.
It's not always a good feeling filling in the holes for one side or another. Here's why. You're a secondary source. If someone is getting the full story from you, and might ONLY get the full story from you, they might not appreciate the continence of the person on the other side of the battlefield. Primary sources ought to be trusted more than their subsidiaries. But that isn't your problem. You aren't responsible for the actions of another, nor their incomplete explanations for them. Sympathy doesn't entail approval. It sucks, but dammit, it's not your problem.
If you're a meddling messenger, well then you deserve to be shot. But it's certainly unfair to condemn a pair of unbiased eyes and ears.
June 27, 2008
The Shape Of Punk To Come: An Homage
“Ah, in such an ugly time the real protest is beauty.” – Refused
Is music still politically motivating? Can it be? While I would like to believe that it is still possible, it also seems that it is very difficult. A certain Sparta drummer (Tony Hajjar) confessed that one cannot force another to do something; one must act entirely out of one’s own volition. Omar Rodriguez-Lopez of The Mars Volta attested that the majority of North Americans are too pacified to care about the big picture; there is little reason to be politically active because everyone enjoys their life of leisure and material possessions. One might ask, then, why bother making political music if its message will fall on deaf ears?
The trick to making partisan music is keeping one’s message salient, while simultaneously strengthening it with one’s music; riot-inciting lyrics cannot end up playing second fiddle. Rage Against The Machine were extremely politically active in the nineties—and perhaps one of the most influential acts during the decade—yet it still seemed their messages became overshadowed by the accessibility and popularity of their music. This has been a recurring malady for many musicians, even Bob Dylan and Neil Young. But where others have been afflicted, Refused have found immunity, The Shape Of Punk To Come being case-in-point.
Refused, not unlike Rage, met an untimely end. But before the Swedish five disbanded, they released the most politically poignant album of the past two decades. Refused’s magnum opus failed to be significantly influential, though, because it received little commercial success, especially compared to something like The Battle Of Los Angeles. But vast dissemination or not, The Shape Of Punk To Come is one of the most important albums of the twentieth century, politically and musically.
Words mean nothing without complementary delivery. Sincerity is paramount, and Refused’s lividity is unquestionably genuine. Refused are overtly angry, almost stereotypically so—it would be easy to pigeonhole the band’s sound as angsty screamo upon a cursory listen; though one need only pay attention to the very first line of “Worms of the Senses/Faculties of the Skull”—“I’ve got a bone to pick with capitalism/And a few to break”—to know that Refused are completely beyond the hollow and immense cesspool that defines twenty-first century hardcore.
Musically, Refused went beyond any rational expectation of what a hardcore band could do in the late 90s. Even though all of the songs are in 4/4 time, the band uses so much syncopation there is rarely a symmetrical groove, though they’re hardly arrhythmic. Drummer David Sandstrom is to thank for the band’s insuperable rhythmic intuition. The man is the bloody embodiment of an avalanche, tempest, or any other natural tumult one can think of. Sampling—a rarity for hardcore—is choreographed masterfully, and is never overused. The strings—another genre unknown—are minimal but beautifully arranged, especially on the ominous, and EPIC “Tannhauser/Derive”. Never have I heard such a beautiful, evocative, gripping, immaculate arrangement on a single instrument (a violin in this case) as I have in the first minute thirty of this song. Ever.
Because the songwriting is so impeccable, it can be easy to lose oneself in the cadence; but there is always some vocal tag to remind the listener what those kids are so damn pissed off about, be it “We want the airwaves back” in “Liberation Frequency”, or “There is no prestige in your title/We are after your head” in “The Apollo Programme Was A Hoax”. The deeper you dig, the more nerves you’ll ignite. “The Deadly Rhythm” asks many unabashedly poignant (and rhetorical) questions meant to enrage, rather than be answered: “Is it our duty to die for governments and for gods?/Is it our privelege to slave for market and industry?/Is it our right to follow laws set to scare and to oppress?/Is it our gift to stay in line and will it take away the blame?” The manifesto in the album liner is an essential read that elaborates on the topics of each song.
Perhaps Refused’s demise was timelier than originally perceived. It’s hard to imagine the band being able to surpass the sublime execution of The Shape Of Punk To Come. Setting the standard for punk music and then failing to meet it would have been tragic, and possibly mitigate the importance of this album.
The last line of the album goes, “Sabotage will set us free/Throw a rock in the machine.” Refused’s last performance was sabotaged mid-set by police officers. If that doesn’t blow your mind, then this album is not for you. If it does, know that The Shape Of Punk To Come is only as important as the person who listens to it.
Is music still politically motivating? Can it be? While I would like to believe that it is still possible, it also seems that it is very difficult. A certain Sparta drummer (Tony Hajjar) confessed that one cannot force another to do something; one must act entirely out of one’s own volition. Omar Rodriguez-Lopez of The Mars Volta attested that the majority of North Americans are too pacified to care about the big picture; there is little reason to be politically active because everyone enjoys their life of leisure and material possessions. One might ask, then, why bother making political music if its message will fall on deaf ears?
The trick to making partisan music is keeping one’s message salient, while simultaneously strengthening it with one’s music; riot-inciting lyrics cannot end up playing second fiddle. Rage Against The Machine were extremely politically active in the nineties—and perhaps one of the most influential acts during the decade—yet it still seemed their messages became overshadowed by the accessibility and popularity of their music. This has been a recurring malady for many musicians, even Bob Dylan and Neil Young. But where others have been afflicted, Refused have found immunity, The Shape Of Punk To Come being case-in-point.
Refused, not unlike Rage, met an untimely end. But before the Swedish five disbanded, they released the most politically poignant album of the past two decades. Refused’s magnum opus failed to be significantly influential, though, because it received little commercial success, especially compared to something like The Battle Of Los Angeles. But vast dissemination or not, The Shape Of Punk To Come is one of the most important albums of the twentieth century, politically and musically.
Words mean nothing without complementary delivery. Sincerity is paramount, and Refused’s lividity is unquestionably genuine. Refused are overtly angry, almost stereotypically so—it would be easy to pigeonhole the band’s sound as angsty screamo upon a cursory listen; though one need only pay attention to the very first line of “Worms of the Senses/Faculties of the Skull”—“I’ve got a bone to pick with capitalism/And a few to break”—to know that Refused are completely beyond the hollow and immense cesspool that defines twenty-first century hardcore.
Musically, Refused went beyond any rational expectation of what a hardcore band could do in the late 90s. Even though all of the songs are in 4/4 time, the band uses so much syncopation there is rarely a symmetrical groove, though they’re hardly arrhythmic. Drummer David Sandstrom is to thank for the band’s insuperable rhythmic intuition. The man is the bloody embodiment of an avalanche, tempest, or any other natural tumult one can think of. Sampling—a rarity for hardcore—is choreographed masterfully, and is never overused. The strings—another genre unknown—are minimal but beautifully arranged, especially on the ominous, and EPIC “Tannhauser/Derive”. Never have I heard such a beautiful, evocative, gripping, immaculate arrangement on a single instrument (a violin in this case) as I have in the first minute thirty of this song. Ever.
Because the songwriting is so impeccable, it can be easy to lose oneself in the cadence; but there is always some vocal tag to remind the listener what those kids are so damn pissed off about, be it “We want the airwaves back” in “Liberation Frequency”, or “There is no prestige in your title/We are after your head” in “The Apollo Programme Was A Hoax”. The deeper you dig, the more nerves you’ll ignite. “The Deadly Rhythm” asks many unabashedly poignant (and rhetorical) questions meant to enrage, rather than be answered: “Is it our duty to die for governments and for gods?/Is it our privelege to slave for market and industry?/Is it our right to follow laws set to scare and to oppress?/Is it our gift to stay in line and will it take away the blame?” The manifesto in the album liner is an essential read that elaborates on the topics of each song.
Perhaps Refused’s demise was timelier than originally perceived. It’s hard to imagine the band being able to surpass the sublime execution of The Shape Of Punk To Come. Setting the standard for punk music and then failing to meet it would have been tragic, and possibly mitigate the importance of this album.
The last line of the album goes, “Sabotage will set us free/Throw a rock in the machine.” Refused’s last performance was sabotaged mid-set by police officers. If that doesn’t blow your mind, then this album is not for you. If it does, know that The Shape Of Punk To Come is only as important as the person who listens to it.
June 15, 2008
Nocturnal penile tumescence
Why do I get boners in my sleep? Why? It doesn't make sense. What is the evolutionary advantage of getting boners in my sleep?
June 2, 2008
An interview with Omar Rodriguez-Lopez
I was late. Any semi-serious journalist knows you should NEVER be late. A time miscalculation coupled with a twenty-minute goose chase at the venue did not sit well with The Mars Volta’s tour manager. Extremely disgruntled, he told me I would not be interviewing Omar Rodriguez-Lopez, the band's lead guitarist and composer--and one of the most brilliant men in music. Swallowing my chagrin, I decided to find the Universal Music label rep (my main contact that I should have found first) to see if I could still squeeze something in. Instead, I found Omar. I pled my case and expressed my frustration with jumping through the tour staff’s hoops. Reluctantly, he acquiesced and led me to the backstage bathroom. (No, he didn’t want me to hold it for him.)
I was grateful for his benevolence and made it quick. Though the interview lasted less than ten minutes, I learned a lot about Omar. I wasn’t dazzled after I had left—I still felt like a supreme asshole for being late and inconveniencing Omar—but when I listen to the tape now, I can’t help but feel extremely satisfied with our conversation. It feels different than any other interview I've done--mystical, perhaps. It feels like a subtle, gripping aura glows from that magnetic strip. It's inexplicable.
Five and a half hours in an uncomfortable block of steel for a few, equally uncomfortable, minutes in a tiny bathroom with a short, skinny thirty-something: a fair trade.
The transcript can be found here: http://www.puregrainaudio.com/interviews/the_mars_volta.htm
Some notes that you won't read in the above link:
Omar is a fidgety person. Even if we weren't in an 8 x 6 bathroom, I could not imagine him keeping still. He constantly paced back and forth (two steps to his left, and two steps back). The thing I found the most strange was that he RARELY looked at me. Most of the time he had his head down. Occasionally he stopped to pick up his head and look directly at my eyes, but would quickly return to his shoe-gazing shuffle. Yet, there was not a tremble in his voice. He spoke candidly, and sometimes heatedly.
After The Mars Volta finished their set, Cedric and Omar lingered for a few seconds while their collaborators left the stage. It was quite obvious they had found me in the crowd. I was too shy to meet their gaze for more than a tenth of a second, so I wasn't sure if they were giving me the stink-eye, or if they were trying to get my attention. Perhaps they wanted to berate me for doing an interview I wasn't supposed to do, or maybe they just wanted to talk. Perhaps I'll never know; perhaps someday I'll find out.
In case you missed it, the link to the interview is http://www.puregrainaudio.com/interviews/the_mars_volta.htm
I was grateful for his benevolence and made it quick. Though the interview lasted less than ten minutes, I learned a lot about Omar. I wasn’t dazzled after I had left—I still felt like a supreme asshole for being late and inconveniencing Omar—but when I listen to the tape now, I can’t help but feel extremely satisfied with our conversation. It feels different than any other interview I've done--mystical, perhaps. It feels like a subtle, gripping aura glows from that magnetic strip. It's inexplicable.
Five and a half hours in an uncomfortable block of steel for a few, equally uncomfortable, minutes in a tiny bathroom with a short, skinny thirty-something: a fair trade.
The transcript can be found here: http://www.puregrainaudio.com/interviews/the_mars_volta.htm
Some notes that you won't read in the above link:
Omar is a fidgety person. Even if we weren't in an 8 x 6 bathroom, I could not imagine him keeping still. He constantly paced back and forth (two steps to his left, and two steps back). The thing I found the most strange was that he RARELY looked at me. Most of the time he had his head down. Occasionally he stopped to pick up his head and look directly at my eyes, but would quickly return to his shoe-gazing shuffle. Yet, there was not a tremble in his voice. He spoke candidly, and sometimes heatedly.
After The Mars Volta finished their set, Cedric and Omar lingered for a few seconds while their collaborators left the stage. It was quite obvious they had found me in the crowd. I was too shy to meet their gaze for more than a tenth of a second, so I wasn't sure if they were giving me the stink-eye, or if they were trying to get my attention. Perhaps they wanted to berate me for doing an interview I wasn't supposed to do, or maybe they just wanted to talk. Perhaps I'll never know; perhaps someday I'll find out.
In case you missed it, the link to the interview is http://www.puregrainaudio.com/interviews/the_mars_volta.htm
May 25, 2008
You're only beautiful when your mouth is closed
I don't understand why some (probably a lot of) people have an aversion to relationship-related communication. Is it taboo? Is it because people are insecure or afraid? Are they trying to avoid embarrassing/infuriating/insulting their partner? It just doesn't make sense. Wouldn't you rather KNOW exactly how your partner feels, rather than steep and stew and guess? Manifesting a metaphorical iron curtain is a lose-lose situation. Essentially you choose to be ignorant of your partner; you would rather not know their feelings/thoughts in a given situation, and you prevent them from knowing yours. Granted, if you've been with your partner for a long time, chances are you can make a fairly educated guess about what's going through their brain. But even if your partner is well-read, remaining incommunicado is not going to alleviate any tension or stress.
Example. Suppose you're at the bar, it's shortly after one, the crowd is beginning to dwindle, and you're liberally past half-cut. You haven't had any luck with the sex(es) of preference, and you're growing weary, ready to call it a night. Suddenly a familiar acquaintance spots you as they're exiting the bar. They tell their friends to leave without them. You spend the next twenty minutes catching up over gin and tonics. Your acquaintance suddenly becomes extremely flirtatious, and tells you they've always had a bit of a thing for you (which may or may not be true). You tell them the same (which is true). They take you back to their place, and after twenty-four minutes of awkward, but eventually rewarding sex, you both fall asleep.
In the morning you are left with a selection of scenarios that fall generally into these two categories:
A) Wake up, fool around a little more, and tell your acquaintance it was nice seeing them again while nervously trying to gauge whether they're interested in a sequel. Unable to observe any subtle or overt hints, you leave, scolding yourself for somehow losing your spine and scrotum between the bedroom door and your shoes. Future encounters with the acquaintance are awkward, and you wonder whether you could have had something more meaningful.
B) Wake up, fool around a little more, and ask your acquaintance what their intentions are, or were. Depending on their response you tell them you just wanted to fool around too, or are interested in something a little more. In either case, you leave content knowing where they stand.
Because this is a familiar acquaintance you can't just leave while they're sleeping. You actually like and respect this person as a friend, so there is no C). But I want you to think about option A) for a second. You had the confidence, though it was alcohol-induced, to have sex with a person with whom you're familiar--though certainly not familiar enough to read their romantic intentions--yet know little about, and NOT have the confidence (or some other lack) to exchange a few words. If you don't realize how RIDICULOUS that sounds, then you're destined to become a divorce statistic. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if poor communication is the primary reason why the divorce rate in North America is above fifty percent.
A quote from an existing female:
"Even if a guy hooks up with me because we're both drunk, I would rather know that he just wanted to hook up with me than be misled, or have him not say anything at all. Maybe I just wanted sex too. It makes things less awkward. You'll know if he ever wanted to pursue you, or if you can pursue him."
Obviously there are some people out there who value clear communication, even when it comes to one-night stands.
An example of effective communication in a casual relationship:
A friend of mine hooked up with an acquaintance a few times before she went traveling. When she returned, she eventually saw and hooked up with him again. Instead of looking for a romantic or dating relationship, she made it clear to the fellow that she wasn't looking for a boyfriend. She just wanted something casual--for the innocent, a casual relationship involves generous quantities of sexual activity and an aversion to emotional attachment. The fellow said he was fine with a casual relationship, too. Eventually she decided she was ready for a boyfriend and broke things off with the fuck buddy. Of course, he wasn't too pleased, but they both knew it would end and she made that clear to him.
This is a great example because she didn't leave the guy guessing. She knew what she wanted and in order to make things work between them she needed to tell him what her intentions were. Instead of pulling the cheap slut card and breaking off all contact with him, she talked to him like an adult when she decided it was over. Simple.
Communication is important in all relationships. If someone rubs your clit too hard, you NEED to tell them, because they'll just keep doing it. If someone bites your dick too hard, you NEED to tell them, because they'll just keep doing it. If you don't like someone's pretentiousness, assholeness, untidiness, sarcasm, excessive flatulence, etc., you NEED to tell them. Of course this doesn't mean you should be an asshole yourself. When you want to talk about something that bothers you, do it in a respectful way. Tell the other person why you dislike their irking action(s) and that you'd appreciate it if they'd stop, or at least change. If you come off as confrontational, you aren't going to get satisfying results. Of course, being explicit isn't ALWAYS necessary; one can get one's point across in other ways, usually via subtle cues. Though, explicitly stating your thoughts/feelings is usually the most effective and efficient form of communication.
Fear leads to ignorance. If you're going to let it dictate your political and existential self, at least don't let it determine your social life.
Example. Suppose you're at the bar, it's shortly after one, the crowd is beginning to dwindle, and you're liberally past half-cut. You haven't had any luck with the sex(es) of preference, and you're growing weary, ready to call it a night. Suddenly a familiar acquaintance spots you as they're exiting the bar. They tell their friends to leave without them. You spend the next twenty minutes catching up over gin and tonics. Your acquaintance suddenly becomes extremely flirtatious, and tells you they've always had a bit of a thing for you (which may or may not be true). You tell them the same (which is true). They take you back to their place, and after twenty-four minutes of awkward, but eventually rewarding sex, you both fall asleep.
In the morning you are left with a selection of scenarios that fall generally into these two categories:
A) Wake up, fool around a little more, and tell your acquaintance it was nice seeing them again while nervously trying to gauge whether they're interested in a sequel. Unable to observe any subtle or overt hints, you leave, scolding yourself for somehow losing your spine and scrotum between the bedroom door and your shoes. Future encounters with the acquaintance are awkward, and you wonder whether you could have had something more meaningful.
B) Wake up, fool around a little more, and ask your acquaintance what their intentions are, or were. Depending on their response you tell them you just wanted to fool around too, or are interested in something a little more. In either case, you leave content knowing where they stand.
Because this is a familiar acquaintance you can't just leave while they're sleeping. You actually like and respect this person as a friend, so there is no C). But I want you to think about option A) for a second. You had the confidence, though it was alcohol-induced, to have sex with a person with whom you're familiar--though certainly not familiar enough to read their romantic intentions--yet know little about, and NOT have the confidence (or some other lack) to exchange a few words. If you don't realize how RIDICULOUS that sounds, then you're destined to become a divorce statistic. Really, I wouldn't be surprised if poor communication is the primary reason why the divorce rate in North America is above fifty percent.
A quote from an existing female:
"Even if a guy hooks up with me because we're both drunk, I would rather know that he just wanted to hook up with me than be misled, or have him not say anything at all. Maybe I just wanted sex too. It makes things less awkward. You'll know if he ever wanted to pursue you, or if you can pursue him."
Obviously there are some people out there who value clear communication, even when it comes to one-night stands.
An example of effective communication in a casual relationship:
A friend of mine hooked up with an acquaintance a few times before she went traveling. When she returned, she eventually saw and hooked up with him again. Instead of looking for a romantic or dating relationship, she made it clear to the fellow that she wasn't looking for a boyfriend. She just wanted something casual--for the innocent, a casual relationship involves generous quantities of sexual activity and an aversion to emotional attachment. The fellow said he was fine with a casual relationship, too. Eventually she decided she was ready for a boyfriend and broke things off with the fuck buddy. Of course, he wasn't too pleased, but they both knew it would end and she made that clear to him.
This is a great example because she didn't leave the guy guessing. She knew what she wanted and in order to make things work between them she needed to tell him what her intentions were. Instead of pulling the cheap slut card and breaking off all contact with him, she talked to him like an adult when she decided it was over. Simple.
Communication is important in all relationships. If someone rubs your clit too hard, you NEED to tell them, because they'll just keep doing it. If someone bites your dick too hard, you NEED to tell them, because they'll just keep doing it. If you don't like someone's pretentiousness, assholeness, untidiness, sarcasm, excessive flatulence, etc., you NEED to tell them. Of course this doesn't mean you should be an asshole yourself. When you want to talk about something that bothers you, do it in a respectful way. Tell the other person why you dislike their irking action(s) and that you'd appreciate it if they'd stop, or at least change. If you come off as confrontational, you aren't going to get satisfying results. Of course, being explicit isn't ALWAYS necessary; one can get one's point across in other ways, usually via subtle cues. Though, explicitly stating your thoughts/feelings is usually the most effective and efficient form of communication.
Fear leads to ignorance. If you're going to let it dictate your political and existential self, at least don't let it determine your social life.
May 19, 2008
We can and we must do better
"An unexamined life is not worth living." -- Socrates, motherfucker
Wonder is one the greatest capacities of a human being. In infancy it is ubiquitous. Everything is novel. Everything must be understood. Wonder wanes as one gets older. A new drive becomes constant near the beginning of adolescence: ignorance. One doesn't want to know about the Holocaust; one doesn't want to know how to solve inverse functions; one doesn't want to learn about Shakespeare; one just wants to suck and gorge on every instantly gratifying consumable one can get one's hands on. Wonder doesn't disappear completely; there is always some interest that provokes one to ask questions, even if it's as banal as, "I wonder what's on." For some, there is a resurgence of wonder once they complete high school. The complexities of life begin to open up, and many unknown unknowns become apparent.
I was talking with a friend on MSN the other night. She was comparing our thought processes. She said I'm 'all about knowing facts' (single quotes designate near 100% accuracy, but not quite), while she liked 'to figure stuff out for [her]self.' Before I had a chance to interject and defend that her assessment wasn't entirely accurate, she added that doesn't 'want to know all the facts and reasons.'
The other day I also chanced upon a clip of a radio talk show, with comedian Jim Gaffigan as a guest. Apparently Gaffigan had made some jokes about religion on the air and a Christian woman called in to express her disdain. The quote of interest here is, "You don't talk about religion or politics."
Reflecting on both of these statements I became very disheartened. How could a person WILLFULLY CHOOOSE to be ignorant? I'm familiar with the phrase ignorance is bliss, but do people really follow it? It would seem so. What's even more discouraging is that the friend I'm referring to attends post-secondary education. I just can't wrap my head around it. I want to grab them and shake them and yell, "What is wrong with you!" When you forfeit wonder you forfeit knowledge, reason. When you willfully surrender those things, you surrender what distinguishes you from all other life on this planet. When you choose to be ignorant...you reduce yourself to an animal, one who consumes to preserve oneself and nothing more. I'm not talking about particular cases (although choosing to be ignorant in isolated incidences can hardly be deemed admirable, either), I'm talking about large scale things. You don't talk about religion or politics? What the fuck! Should I volunteer myself to be an inmate of the Bamboo Gulag, too? The rage I get when I think that someone could be so complacent in their sheepish stupor.....
The powers that be have done a magnificent job if they have convinced people that choosing to be ignorant is a desirable option. How do you beat that? How do you convince someone to stop swallowing what they're being fed? It just seems so futile. How do you spark wonder in people who have willfully given it up?
How do you convince someone to be human?
P.S. Related viewing: "Network". This film touches on some of the ideas I talked about, and apart from being a great film, its message is still extremely relevant and accurate.
Wonder is one the greatest capacities of a human being. In infancy it is ubiquitous. Everything is novel. Everything must be understood. Wonder wanes as one gets older. A new drive becomes constant near the beginning of adolescence: ignorance. One doesn't want to know about the Holocaust; one doesn't want to know how to solve inverse functions; one doesn't want to learn about Shakespeare; one just wants to suck and gorge on every instantly gratifying consumable one can get one's hands on. Wonder doesn't disappear completely; there is always some interest that provokes one to ask questions, even if it's as banal as, "I wonder what's on." For some, there is a resurgence of wonder once they complete high school. The complexities of life begin to open up, and many unknown unknowns become apparent.
I was talking with a friend on MSN the other night. She was comparing our thought processes. She said I'm 'all about knowing facts' (single quotes designate near 100% accuracy, but not quite), while she liked 'to figure stuff out for [her]self.' Before I had a chance to interject and defend that her assessment wasn't entirely accurate, she added that doesn't 'want to know all the facts and reasons.'
The other day I also chanced upon a clip of a radio talk show, with comedian Jim Gaffigan as a guest. Apparently Gaffigan had made some jokes about religion on the air and a Christian woman called in to express her disdain. The quote of interest here is, "You don't talk about religion or politics."
Reflecting on both of these statements I became very disheartened. How could a person WILLFULLY CHOOOSE to be ignorant? I'm familiar with the phrase ignorance is bliss, but do people really follow it? It would seem so. What's even more discouraging is that the friend I'm referring to attends post-secondary education. I just can't wrap my head around it. I want to grab them and shake them and yell, "What is wrong with you!" When you forfeit wonder you forfeit knowledge, reason. When you willfully surrender those things, you surrender what distinguishes you from all other life on this planet. When you choose to be ignorant...you reduce yourself to an animal, one who consumes to preserve oneself and nothing more. I'm not talking about particular cases (although choosing to be ignorant in isolated incidences can hardly be deemed admirable, either), I'm talking about large scale things. You don't talk about religion or politics? What the fuck! Should I volunteer myself to be an inmate of the Bamboo Gulag, too? The rage I get when I think that someone could be so complacent in their sheepish stupor.....
The powers that be have done a magnificent job if they have convinced people that choosing to be ignorant is a desirable option. How do you beat that? How do you convince someone to stop swallowing what they're being fed? It just seems so futile. How do you spark wonder in people who have willfully given it up?
How do you convince someone to be human?
P.S. Related viewing: "Network". This film touches on some of the ideas I talked about, and apart from being a great film, its message is still extremely relevant and accurate.
May 14, 2008
Flowers on a first date
A girl I used to date (we'll call her "PowerLips28"), but now with whom I am just friends, recently went on a date with a male human (as far as I know) and received flowers. This was the first date she went on with the fellow. My discovery of this piquing morsel got me into a heated debate with her about the follies of giving someone flowers on a first date. Her, as well of a good friend of hers, thought was that such a gesture was sweet, and nice because it was unexpected. Apart from validating the ease with which certain women (not all) are pleased, as well as their capricious valuation of material things that serve little to no practical function, it prompted me to poll other female friends of mine to see if there was a consensus, or whether they would agree with the true and virtuous side (i.e., my side).
Two said their feelings are tentative: if it was a modest bouquet then they would be pleased, but if the suitor went overboard then they would be freaked out.
One said it would be a nice gesture, but felt the person who gave them would be clingy and easily whippable.
One said she would not be pleased because such a gesture is too cliched and formal.
Admittedly, not a lot of responses (yet), but enough to balance the field with the two lovelorn saps. An interesting note about this question, the girls who I polled gave relatively lengthy and detailed answers, and I didn't even ask for thorough justification. Just goes to show how certain women read into trivial acts.
My argument sides with the latter two girls.
Giving flowers on a first date is certainly cliched, especially if they are roses. It shows one's inexperience in the world of dating. The person who gives flowers is the person who believes in soulmates, fate, destiny, and a bevy of other stereotypical, quixotic bullshit that they've gorged from TV, film, literature, and Cosmo (societal poison), instead of from actual lived experience. As such, the person will be looking for a serious relationship, and will insist on becoming serious sooner rather than later. They also have dependency issues, and need a romantic partner to feel complete.
This misguided gesture also broadcasts to the receiver, "I don't have enough game/charm to win you over on my own merits, so I will augment my shortcomings with a trite gift that will be discarded within a week." Spending more money than is required on someone you know little about is NOT thoughtful. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your personal wealth in order to make someone like you.
The most telling part of PowerLips28's episode is that she won't be going on a second date with the fellow who gave her flowers because there was no connection. They didn't click, mesh, coagulate, fuck, anything. The flowers did nothing. Yes she thought that they were "nice", but it did not affect her perception of the guy. Mike's point is proven.
Two said their feelings are tentative: if it was a modest bouquet then they would be pleased, but if the suitor went overboard then they would be freaked out.
One said it would be a nice gesture, but felt the person who gave them would be clingy and easily whippable.
One said she would not be pleased because such a gesture is too cliched and formal.
Admittedly, not a lot of responses (yet), but enough to balance the field with the two lovelorn saps. An interesting note about this question, the girls who I polled gave relatively lengthy and detailed answers, and I didn't even ask for thorough justification. Just goes to show how certain women read into trivial acts.
My argument sides with the latter two girls.
Giving flowers on a first date is certainly cliched, especially if they are roses. It shows one's inexperience in the world of dating. The person who gives flowers is the person who believes in soulmates, fate, destiny, and a bevy of other stereotypical, quixotic bullshit that they've gorged from TV, film, literature, and Cosmo (societal poison), instead of from actual lived experience. As such, the person will be looking for a serious relationship, and will insist on becoming serious sooner rather than later. They also have dependency issues, and need a romantic partner to feel complete.
This misguided gesture also broadcasts to the receiver, "I don't have enough game/charm to win you over on my own merits, so I will augment my shortcomings with a trite gift that will be discarded within a week." Spending more money than is required on someone you know little about is NOT thoughtful. You shouldn't have to sacrifice your personal wealth in order to make someone like you.
The most telling part of PowerLips28's episode is that she won't be going on a second date with the fellow who gave her flowers because there was no connection. They didn't click, mesh, coagulate, fuck, anything. The flowers did nothing. Yes she thought that they were "nice", but it did not affect her perception of the guy. Mike's point is proven.
May 6, 2008
Are we bad scientists?
It's funny how humans assert their knowledge of the world. We seamlessly use subjective terms such as "like" and "dislike" alongside objective designators such as "good" and "bad". To help those a little wet behind the ears, something that is subjective is something that is experienced or expressed by an agent (a person, or other rational being). Subjective things include thoughts, feelings, emotions, sense perceptions, and so on. Objective things are those that would exist regardless of whether an agent would be there to perceive them. [Edit: According to my own definitions, it would seem "good" and "bad" would also be classified as subjective things. My original intent was to make a note of how the words "good" and "bad" are used in an objective manner; i.e., that something is objectively "good" or "bad", which is of course ridiculous.] This would include things such as gravity, time, matter, and so on. The problem for humans is that there seems to be an incompatibility between subjectivity and objectivity: we evaluate our lives from both perspectives, but how can some things be simply opinion, and others brute fact? Would the necessity of the former not undermine the latter? Let me explain.
Because we are humans, our experience of life is inherently subjective: all information gathered about our experience is interpreted, consciously or unconsciously. It is not possible to have pure sense perceptions (except, perhaps, in infancy). When one looks at a painting, one is aware that it is a painting, what the forms in the painting are. Touch is linked to knowledge of the stimulus or perceived stimulus. Because all sense perceptions are interpreted, they cannot be objective. Interpretations form associations with objects that would not exist if there were no agents to form them. This is a fact. But wait a minute: how am I able to posit this statement as fact? Would that not preclude its objectivity? And as a I human am I not limited to a subjective perspective?
Before I try to answer those questions, I want to make it clear that just because humans are trapped in a subjective perspective, that does not mean there is no objective reality. Gravity would exist if there were no agents to perceive it. It is a force. It influences mass, animate or inanimate. Astronomical observations of distant galaxies, stars, etc. show that those bodies have mass have been interacting with each other for several millions, if not billions, of years. Such an interaction does not require human perception. It could be argued that other rational beings in different parts of the universe could have witnessed these interactions, but since the existence of extraterrestrial life is not known (or at least acknowledged. Read: The Disclosure Project) I cannot make that assumption.
It is easy to question the validity or truthfulness of any of the statements I have made, given that I have admitted a subjective perspective; however, subjectivity does not completely undermine truth. I can say that I exist because I have permanence through time. When I sleep in my bedroom by myself, no other agent is perceiving me (that I am aware of), and yet I will still exist when I regain consciousness. Thus, I exist regardless of whether I am being perceived, and this statement is therefore true.
I can say that human experience is inherently subjective for the same reason. Interpretation adds meaning to an object that would not exist without the agent that gives it. There is just no way of avoiding it.
So perhaps subjectivity and objectivity are compatible. We are unable to escape interpretation, but that doesn't mean our interpretations can't be truthful.
Because we are humans, our experience of life is inherently subjective: all information gathered about our experience is interpreted, consciously or unconsciously. It is not possible to have pure sense perceptions (except, perhaps, in infancy). When one looks at a painting, one is aware that it is a painting, what the forms in the painting are. Touch is linked to knowledge of the stimulus or perceived stimulus. Because all sense perceptions are interpreted, they cannot be objective. Interpretations form associations with objects that would not exist if there were no agents to form them. This is a fact. But wait a minute: how am I able to posit this statement as fact? Would that not preclude its objectivity? And as a I human am I not limited to a subjective perspective?
Before I try to answer those questions, I want to make it clear that just because humans are trapped in a subjective perspective, that does not mean there is no objective reality. Gravity would exist if there were no agents to perceive it. It is a force. It influences mass, animate or inanimate. Astronomical observations of distant galaxies, stars, etc. show that those bodies have mass have been interacting with each other for several millions, if not billions, of years. Such an interaction does not require human perception. It could be argued that other rational beings in different parts of the universe could have witnessed these interactions, but since the existence of extraterrestrial life is not known (or at least acknowledged. Read: The Disclosure Project) I cannot make that assumption.
It is easy to question the validity or truthfulness of any of the statements I have made, given that I have admitted a subjective perspective; however, subjectivity does not completely undermine truth. I can say that I exist because I have permanence through time. When I sleep in my bedroom by myself, no other agent is perceiving me (that I am aware of), and yet I will still exist when I regain consciousness. Thus, I exist regardless of whether I am being perceived, and this statement is therefore true.
I can say that human experience is inherently subjective for the same reason. Interpretation adds meaning to an object that would not exist without the agent that gives it. There is just no way of avoiding it.
So perhaps subjectivity and objectivity are compatible. We are unable to escape interpretation, but that doesn't mean our interpretations can't be truthful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)