Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The way things are - The way things ought to be

One reason I so rarely listen to music is the brainwashing aspect of subjecting myself to both the often terrible lyrics, and the automatic-machine-beat of the rhythm. I observe people bopping around to some invisible beat, and the common repetition of lyrics as meaningful cliches.
You have to consider that most modern 'musicians' are what they are because they can do nothing else, have no experience, no intellect, and no lives. They are probably - as a group - the least likely people to be authoring words of wisdom, which is exactly what many listeners consider their words to be.

She loves you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah...



I have a keen eye for ambiguity. I also know the dangers inherent in assumption.
I try never to assume intent from writing I see as ambiguous.
Most writing is ambiguous.

Really? Really?

You basically told me that my entire premise on the limitations of human perception is flawed based on a completely ambiguous self-conception as one of histories great men, standing head over shoulders above everyone else. I was going to completely ignore that poppycock too.

Feel free.
Do we know what 'ambiguous' means, in this context?
It means unclear, having more than one possible interpretation.
Being me, I prefer to have a clear understanding of what I intend to respond to, rather than simply responding to whatever I think it means.
You seem to view 'ambiguity' as meaning 'rubbish'.

While I inform of my not-yet-understanding of intent, others gloss over that bit, and shoot off at a tangent, down a completely random path. Happens a lot on this very forum, and upon every other I have experienced.

You and I have had a lot in common. We have been allies in a common cause. That we may not (be), now, can be traced back to a misunderstanding of intent. You can almost certainly see this, and that there is nothing personal to become irked at.


I think that "historically great person" was unclear, meaningless even. You could have told me you are John Lennon without a loss or gain in clarity.

You'll have to forgive my frustration. I'm legitimately interested in the question of objectivity. Further, I feel I gave you the world in defense against your objections. I took the time to clear everything up as best I could and tie my beliefs about human perception to some hard limits imposed on it by the reality of the human condition. It's a bit of a kick in the balls to be told I am wrong because you happen to be John Lennon and that's the crux of your objections. Da fuq?

Not that I think John Lennon was a great person or anything, just the first name that came to mind.

I may, or may not, be one of the world's great people. Who cares? I don't. What I do know is how very unusual I am, in my way of seeing reality. This is the one point I consistently attempt to communicate.
If I can do it, so can others. It's like discovering radio. Or life on Mars. It's important enough to communicate to other members of my species. Somebody has to know what others don't, or where would we be?

Yet, for all my efforts, I am consistently judged as egotistical, for thinking I know something other people don't.
That I could not possibly know whatever it is, because nobody else does.
Ergo, whatever it is must be rubbish.

You see my problem?

Remove whatever you may think about me, or my motivations, and what is left?
Whatever it is, is still there, unless it has been dismissed as lunacy but those who dismiss anything they, themselves, do not know, as lunacy.

I say I am probably one of those all-time-greats, because that is probably what I am.
I didn't set out to be. That was never my aim. I still could care less what anyone else may consider me to be.
The only important thing here, is what I have to say.
If it is true, mankind takes a leap towards the stars.
If it isn't, then so what?

Read the comments of Tree. He has an attitude worthy of study.
He doesn't know if I know WTF I am talking about. How could he?
But what I have to say interests him sufficiently, and he has enough respect, to probe and question, without letting himself get in the way.
I like him. Of course I do. He is functional, reasonable, and open to things he doesn't know.
Whether or not I know what he wants to know is immaterial.
His attitude is that I might.

And he's going to do his best to find out.


Whether you are or are not a great person was and is of no significance to me, Capiche? I never wanted to actually discuss the matter.

With that in mind: The thing that chapped my ass is that the ambiguous self characterization is all you gave me as reasons why my view was incorrect. Honestly I'm not inclined at this point to believe there is any substance to what you have to say about objectivity or human perception strictly based on your responses to me. For all the talk about reality, I don't think it's a terrible task to correspond your perceptions with reality as I made attempts to do.

For the record, I still value what you have to say from a spiritual and metaphysical point of view.

Right outta the gate tree's been a copy-crow. I can't get anything from him that didn't originate from you or the unintentional cult of personality that's developed. Key word being unintentional.

People's fear of appearing to be a 'copy-crow' seems to be at the root of all that plagues me, here.
Interesting.
I didn't see any of that in Tree's comments. I still don't.
All I really see is an open-mindedness that the self-identifying 'Open-Minded' people never seem able to manifest.
Along with a dash of respect, good manners, and genuine friendliness.
He's one to watch, as is 03-04, wherever the hell he is.


Thanks for your honesty Vigilance. Outright honesty is better than behind-the-back gossip and passive-aggressive shenanigans, and I am glad that you - and basically all of the people here, for that matter - possess that level of chivalry. I am a bit perplexed by your classification of me, and I would like to avoid living in the shadow of others (no offense crow :P). I know that I am no copy-crow, but at the same time, I read my own posts and I can imagine your perspective. Perhaps my messages portray me as such. If I have nothing to offer you, then so be it! Frankly, I am not surprised (not in a condescending way). I shall continue to go about my business, and you about yours.

Apologies for the detour. This forum is about ideas, not the people behind them, so back to the discussions at hand eh?

I often think to myself that there really is no point in listening to music. It's totally unnecessary. I should probably stop altogether.

Don't be silly. I'd like to get some insight into this mentality though; what made you arrive at this conclusion? (genuinely curious)

I am glad that you are interested. One of the main reasons is that fatalism has seeped into my nihilism recently, and the "what is the point?" mentality has been plaguing me. Doing my best to fight that beast though. There is a host of other reasons that are more directly related to music; perhaps I will feel motivated to write about this topic one day, because I muse upon it often and I might benefit from discussing it with others.

Ah, bad times. Well I'd be lying if I said I hadn't felt feelings like that (and I still do to some degree). Not much one can do but work their way through it - a tough mental slog indeed. Based on your posts, you seem quite adept enough to succeed. Best of fortunes to you while you fight.

One reason I so rarely listen to music is the brainwashing aspect of subjecting myself to both the often terrible lyrics, and the automatic-machine-beat of the rhythm. I observe people bopping around to some invisible beat, and the common repetition of lyrics as meaningful cliches.
You have to consider that most modern 'musicians' are what they are because they can do nothing else, have no experience, no intellect, and no lives. They are probably - as a group - the least likely people to be authoring words of wisdom, which is exactly what many listeners consider their words to be.

She loves you.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah...


Agreed on your points here. Most popular musicians don't have much truly meaningful to say. The exceptions are extremely rare in this case (I'd personally nominate Frank Zappa as one of the brighter ones). Most of what musicians say is inconsequential.

Your example of the Beatles (a group I have never enjoyed but that's besides the point) illustrates why I - and many others here - eventually sought out music that broke the repetitive verse-chorus-verse chorus pap of the majority of pop music. I wanted something different, something brainier, something with some fuckin' BALLS to it. Most pop music just sounds so lazy. At least with some good metal you know there was coherent and deliberate thought put into how the music is presented/written/played.

I realize you don't enjoy the music on this site, but it makes a LOT of sense to me as to why you're here now.



Your example of the Beatles (a group I have never enjoyed but that's besides the point) illustrates why I - and many others here - eventually sought out music that broke the repetitive verse-chorus-verse chorus pap of the majority of pop music.

Interestingly, Beatles were one of the 'prime movers' here - in later albums than 'yeah yeah'. Sgt Peppers was massively influential on the impending english prog movement. Masses of layering, more thematic structures, classical aesthetics. This was not a live album. In fact, they stopped playing life just before this (apparently because girls would just stand there screaming to such a extent the show was disrupted).

I realize you don't enjoy the music on this site, but it makes a LOT of sense to me as to why you're here now.

I can understand the (unfortunate) need for a moderator, and Crow seems like a nice soul. But the incessant insistence, on his part, of special access to knowledge inaccessible (isn't that just irrefutable as well) to others is a little insulting. You can't refute it, you can't argue with it, because if you don't get it, well that's BECAUSE YOU CAN'T - which is totally self contained and shut off from other people. No wonder this sort of position is a strong one - because by its very nature disagreeing with it in effect validates it.

Anyone they like can disagree with me, if they are willing to make a bit of effort (or not, if I'm just wrong). I will not tell them that my knowledge is of a different sort, and inaccessible to them, if they happen to present a good consideration against a position I advocate.

This is not a Tao forum, let's all keep that in mind. It is a metal forum. People might be fearless, a little feral in spirit, noble, but willing to make the kill when the opportunity arises for the greater good. Concerned with the timeless, the ancient, but also the modernist (metal is not just traditional in spirit - remember the distortion, the amplification, the 'confronting' nature of the art). Most importantly, there is no 'people should'. At least, there is dialectic and agon - i.e. contest - to determine who 'should'. It doesn't matter if we 'don't get Tao, for example.

I'd say the good parts of your Crow's philosophy, from a utilitarian perspective, come in when you smooth out conflict and disagreement and contest, so things don't descend into anarchy and mudslinging. A warmer touch.

Fair enough. This is not a tao forum. Of that I am aware.
Here's something for you to be aware of:
None of you are inconsiderate, boorish, insane, dickheads any more.
Those who were, are well aware of what I mean.
So in a way, this is a tao forum, only one that doesn't flaunt it, and where the taoism is practical enough to work.
You may take issue with my methods, but you'll probably sort-of admire the results.

Hell, I even have a soft spot for Trystero now.
We've all covered a lot of ground, no?



I had often been told that walking the spiritual, introspective path completely alone and completely without reference was dangerous. That there were pitfalls that one could encounter that would render any gains meaningless. I never really understood this, or at least did not accept it because there did not seem to me to be any reason why one could not persevere despite dangers. Now I understand that I was both right and wrong, it is in theory possible to develop in this way, but human nature means that it is practically impossible. I am sure there are exceptions, at least considering the scale of human history, and perhaps we have one such exception here. From what I have seen I am unable to accept it, hubris is thrown around a lot (as Imposition has mentioned elsewhere), sometimes it is a reactionary defense, sometimes it is inapplicable. On the other hand some things speak for themselves, so see for yourself and decide for yourself.

Quote
I can understand the (unfortunate) need for a moderator, and Crow seems like a nice soul. But the incessant insistence, on his part, of special access to knowledge inaccessible (isn't that just irrefutable as well) to others is a little insulting. You can't refute it, you can't argue with it, because if you don't get it, well that's BECAUSE YOU CAN'T - which is totally self contained and shut off from other people. No wonder this sort of position is a strong one - because by its very nature disagreeing with it in effect validates it.

Is this true, though? If it was inaccessible, there would be no point explaining it to other critters. The point seems to be that it can be made more accessible through x ways, but it can never have full knowledge of it given through language to another. And it evidently isn't self-contained, as numerous references are made to those who had similar experiences and taught about it (particularly Lao-tse). It seems more accurate to say it is an "objective" [used carefully] "experience of becoming" which undergoes a subjective interpretation that is colored by the individual's predisposition/experiences. And as a non-egalitarian, he recognizes that not all people will achieve this, just as some are incapable of understanding quantum physics/etc.

[Insert copy-crow charge here]

Yeah, there's no future for you here, now.
You've just made the one argument that the crow could not.
You are right. Nice one.