Thursday, February 11, 2010

The Sleep of Reason Produces One-Eyed Monsters

Yes, we laugh at the provincialism and naivete of the global warmists and ideological Darwinians, but there will always be temporocentric mediocrities who are "trapped into seeing in the science of the day its ultimate phase of development" (Jaki).

Which is a puzzling trap to be in for a person who supposedly believes in evolution, for if evolution is occurring, there is no reason to believe that our current scientific understanding is anything like what it will be in 100 or 1000 years. Not only does the content of science change, but so too do entire paradigms, i.e., the frameworks within which science perceives and contextualizes its facts.

In contrast, traditional metaphysics does not change. For example, no scientific finding will ever overturn the principle that the world is uniquely intelligible to man's intelligence. For if this principle were not true, the practice of science would be impossible. Likewise, it is only because truth and being converge that we may know the truth of being.

I realize that my own racket of psychology is not a science in the materialistic sense. But that's the whole point. It can never be a science in the way that physics or chemistry are, because the mind is not a material object, precisely.

Yes, there are still many hard scientists who believe that mind is reducible to brain, but what can you say to them except that they need to get out more often? Seriously, the only "cure" for them is a deep experience of the undeniable reality of the soul. But if one is defended against such an experience, it is much less likely to occur. True, with spirit all things are possible, but it helps if one cooperates rather than fights with it.

The traditional view has always been that there are different degrees of reality, and that one cannot apply the same method to study them. One cannot understand the mind in the same way one does the body. To imagine otherwise is to commit a category error so fundamental, that there is no possibility of pulling yourself out of your philosophical death spiral. But I suppose it's not really a death spiral at all, for the truth is, such an earthbound philosophy never really achieves flight.

I guess I first realized this after reading Ken Wilber's Eye to Eye, in which he distinguishes between the physical eye (which knows sensory/empirical reality), the rational eye (which knows math and logic), and the eye of contemplation or intellection (which sees the higher realms of consciousness and deeper truths of being). Each of these is separate and distinct, and not reducible to the other.

It's painfully obvious once you think about it, for how can one possibly understand, say, the square root of negative one in empirical terms? Nor can you use empirical measurements to explain why the tone of Stevie Ray Vaughan's guitar is so perfect. And although the Trinity is a "number," to imagine that it can be understood mathematically is the height of folly.

Regarding my own field, psychology, I've witnessed its evolution (and devolution!) on a first hand basis. One thing you will have noticed is that the higher up one ventures into the great chain of being (i.e., matter, life, mind, spirit), the greater the potential for fragmentation, schism, and competing theories.

Now, I don't happen to believe that this fragmentation is necessary, and that most of it is due to sloppy, undisciplined, and unsystematic thinking (in fact, it's not really "thinking," more like fantasy). But one of the primary reasons contemporary thinking is so sloppy is the pervasive reductionism and materialism that prevent people from ever acquiring the proper skills and methods to explore, map, and colonize the higher realms.

For the essence of science -- at any level of reality -- is the reduction of multiplicity to unity. As such, there is clearly an appropriate kind of reduction, so long as it confines itself to its own domain, and doesn't try to pull all of the other ones down with it. Even if the material realm operated under completely mechanistic principles, that would have no relevance to the manner in which the mind operates. Your Dreamer, for example, couldn't care less about linear causation or Aristotelian logic.

When psychoanalysis was invented by Freud in the 19th century, he tried to make it completely consonant with the naively mechanistic and positivistic scientific paradigm of the day, which is why some of his ideas are absurdly outdated. America had its own version of a mechanistic and "scientific" psychology with the development of behaviorism. Here again you see how otherwise intelligent people can be "trapped into seeing in the science of the day its ultimate phase of development."

In my view, we should begin our philosophizing with those things that will never change, or with the eye of Spirit. Nothing that occurs in science has any relevance to these truths, since they are timeless. And although they have no direct relevance to the practice of science, they certainly have an indirect relevance.

For example, if a scientist insists that Darwinism proves that there is no objective distinction between good and evil, or that beauty is entirely subjective, we know that he is a fool. And there is no reason to try to argue him out of his delusion, any more than one can explain to a blind man why he shouldn't wear brown shoes with a tux. In both cases, the eyes must be open (the eye of flesh in the case of the blind man, the eye of spirit in the case of the blind Darwinian).

There is another absolute prerequisite for the practice of science, and that is freedom. The scientist must be free to put forth hypotheses and arrive at conclusions, and be unhindered by authorities who insist that only certain truths are acceptable. Which has immediate political implications, for it means that the most free societies will have the most robust scientific activity. Which makes it all the more ironic that there are scientists who are passionate men of the left, when the very purpose of the left is to limit freedom at every level, from having to devote four months per year working for the state, to campus speech codes and other constraints on thought and inquiry.

Even worse, there are scientists who deny free will! Again, if a scientist denies free will, there is absolutely no reason to regard him as anything other than a crank, for it is as if he is salting the soil - the very spiritual conditions -- in which science flourishes. There are obvious religious reasons why science only developed in the West, one of which is our metaphysical certitude of the reality of human freedom: Where the Creator is, there is liberty. Conversely, where liberty isn't -- e.g., Iran, the Soviet Union, liberal humanities departments -- those shriveled and desiccated souls have sequestered themselves from the ultimate reality that is their source and destiny.

53 Comments:

Blogger mushroom said...

Seriously, the only "cure" for them is a deep experience of the undeniable reality of the soul.

I watched "Fire Ball" with Barbara Stanwyck and Gary Cooper last night. The plot is exactly in keeping with this idea. The encyclopedists have labored so long in the dusty confines of their books that they have lost touch with culture, if not reality. One ventures out and by chance encounters the hottest woman who has ever lived. Hilarity and romance ensue.

But I suppose it's not really a death spiral at all, for the truth is, such an earthbound philosophy never really achieves flight.

Wormrunners have all the answers. It's just that only worms are asking that set of questions.

2/11/2010 09:15:00 AM  
Blogger john said...

Yahoo! has joined the fray:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599196229400 Bryan Walsh ´TIME?´ parrots CC alarmists.

2/11/2010 09:22:00 AM  
Blogger ge said...

-speaking of guitar tones, i studied up recently re the making of this ol' beaut:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bplEcbzjME

Norman plays an old Tele w/ a built-in fuzz, Dashiell handles the lead & outer space sounds which Hendrix pioneeered....and those gospel girls add the perfect touch, they were suggested by a Sopwith Camel guy [Wm Truckaway] to the producer E. Jacobsen

2/11/2010 09:58:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Conversely, where liberty isn't -- e.g., Iran, the Soviet Union, liberal humanities departments -- those shriveled and desiccated souls have sequestered themselves from the ultimate reality that is their source and destiny.

Speaking of which, if you have time today this documentary on North Korea is absolutely worth your while. (The rest of the documentary is here.)

2/11/2010 10:05:00 AM  
Blogger Jack said...

As a musician and guitarist it is amazing to me how little time most electrified musicians actually spend on tone. Sure they spend a lot of time and money on *effects* which may or may not manifest as an improved tone (it usually doesn't).

There is hardly an aspect of music that can so powerfully communicate to the "average" listener the unspoken depths as tone. They may not know why, but they know *something* is grabbing them at a deeper level.

Witness the guitar tone of say, Bill Frisell and what depths he conveys even his most basic gestures. A lot of that is tone.

Also phrasing, another mis- or non-understood aspect of music. Both often get lost in tricks of dexterity and flash.

Master tone and phrasing and the rest of it is relatively mere detail. IMHO.

2/11/2010 10:24:00 AM  
Blogger John said...

Virginia´s culture shaped my Youth. This pole of the ¨Solid South¨ axis of evil exhibited effects of social Darwinism, Freud´s mis-understanding, and racial fears: abortions, sterilizations, grouping indigenous with other ¨non-Whites,¨ and other atrocities. As a Democrat strong-hold, it was an important Progressive ally. As B`ob noted recently, the premise was wrong [actually poisonous]: thousands suffered and millions mis-led.
I suggest AGW/CC lies comprise the second-greatest worst ¨scientific¨ falsehood. We wrought havoc on generations by accepting ´bad´ science, over a century ago.

2/11/2010 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger debass said...

Jack,
It took me twenty years to get my upright to sound like an upright when amplified. Some of it had to do with equipment. The newer pickups, amps and speakers are so much better for acoustic bass but it still only works at certain volumes. I like Jim Hall's guitar tone. He has such good note choice, he can make a whole note swing.

2/11/2010 12:02:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"Even worse, there are scientists who deny free will! Again, if a scientist denies free will, there is absolutely no reason to regard him as anything other than a crank, for it is as if he is salting the soil - the very spiritual conditions -- in which science flourishes."

The had no choice in the matter.



(ahem.)

2/11/2010 12:18:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

"I realize that my own field of psychology is not a science in the materialistic sense. But that's the whole point. It can never be a science in the way that physics or chemistry are, because the mind is not a material object, precisely.
Yes, there are still many hard scientists who believe that mind is reducible to brain, but what can you say to them except that they need to get out more often? "

If they did get out more often, they might realize that their errors were discovered and known long ago, and known quite well in our Founding Fathers day, prior to the replacement of Education, with Indoctrination. Aristotle noted in his Nicomachean Ethics,

"...for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs..."

and from his "On Metaphysics(Book IV)"
"... for not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education."

But with No Education, or worse, mis or dis-Education... the foolish and the stupid easily sneak into the faculty lounge and even begin teaching classes, and all we can do is,

"laugh at the provincialism and naivete of the global warmists and ideological Darwinians, but there will always be temporocentric mediocrities who are "trapped into seeing in the science of the day its ultimate phase of development" (Jaki).

Which is a puzzling trap to be in for a person who supposedly believes in evolution, for if evolution is occurring, there is no reason to believe that our current scientific understanding is anything like what it will be in 100 or 1000 years.
"

However the problem of the temporal provincialists is that time soon passes them by, and they don't realize it, and it can be loads of fun to ask them why we should believe their snazy new proregressive ideas, when the methods they (i.e. people like Dewey & Woodrow Wilson) used to discredit our and our Founders ideas were easily dismised with a snear of,

"Oh, those ideas of Liberty and Property Rights! Those are sooo 100 years ago! And from pre-industrial people who didn't even have the telegraph! Those old things Kant possibly apply to us anymore!",

Yet... their ideas were developed in the late 1800's, and by a people who'd never even seen a computer, much less T.V. let alone the Internet... they are even further removed from us, than they were from the Founders!... why should we pay them any mind at all?!

Alas for them, they have no answer, because,

"In contrast, traditional metaphysics does not change. For example, no scientific finding will ever overturn the principle that the world is uniquely intelligible to man's intelligence. For if this principle were not true, the practice of science would be impossible. Likewise, it is only because truth and being converge that we may know the truth of being. "

He who lives by the clock, dies by the clock.

2/11/2010 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

Debass-

Interesting you should mention Jim Hall as he was Bill Frisell's teacher. His tone is so bare and even pure that he is almost "forced" to reveal his magnificent phrasing. There's no place to hide.

I know what you mean about trying to amplify acoustic instruments. I've never found a great solution for amplifying my dobro, for example. It is interesting to me that the basics for electric amplification were in place 50 years ago, but we still have a ways to go for acoustic amplification.

A good part of electric tone is obviously technical...respecting the signal chain, as it were...but in the wrong hands even the best signal path is useless. Being able to be a conduit in the larger, transcendent signal path is perhaps the node most overlooked.

I think one of the most important lessons I have taken from my influences (both jazz and rock) is how the meat and depth of one's expression stems from tone and phrasing. Lester Young is a preeminent example for me of this deep integration of both elements. The list of such greats could, of course, go on and on.

2/11/2010 01:03:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

The records Jim Hall made with Paul Desmond are fantastic. Interestingly, Desmond's contract with Brubeck allowed him to do solo projects so long as he didn't work with another pianist. So he made 'em with Jim Hall, which worked out better anyway, since they had such great chemistry.

2/11/2010 01:11:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Troll:

Although on rare occasions I delete a comment, it is never, ever because the commenter disagrees with me. I'll leave it to you to figure out why your comments are deleted.

2/11/2010 01:42:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Hint:

There is more than one reason.

2/11/2010 01:43:00 PM  
Blogger debass said...

Jack,

Have you looked at Schertler pickups? I use a stat B on by bass. It's the best I've found.

Bob,

When I was on the road, I used to go to sleep every night to the Bridge-Sonny Rollins/Jim Hall. I had that album memorized.

Sorry about being OT for everyone else. There is a scarcity of raccoon musicians up here. I think I'm the only one.

2/11/2010 01:53:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Music is never off topic. I'm thinking of devoting one post per week to the subject.

2/11/2010 02:03:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

BTW, I just so happen to be listening to some early Sonny Rollins at this very moment, with the Miles Davis Quintet....

2/11/2010 02:06:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

Debass-

My contention is that all musicians, of sufficient depth, are religious--whether they know it or not. The "sufficient depth" part is the key. The problem is most haven't developed any significant depth in any other area save music...it makes for a very unbalanced situation. What they can articulate musically far outstrips what they can express pretty much everywhere else in life.

So I know *exactly* what you mean when you say there aren't many raccoon musicians. I guess that might explain, in part, why I am such a blabbermouth when the topic turns to music around these parts. It's like an oasis in the desert.

The Bridge is of course a classic, the backstory alone is worth the price of admission. Though I find piano and electric guitar an odd pairing I have always dug the Jim Hall and Bill Evans duos as well as Jim Hall with Ron Carter.

p.s. I will check out the schertler pickups and see what they are about. Thanks for the recommend!

2/11/2010 02:09:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Debass said "There is a scarcity of raccoon musicians up here. I think I'm the only one."

I'm betting that's more a case of being a scarcity of raccoon's up there... seems like every other one of us are either musicians or are so into music that they are merely musicians without having developed instrumental skills.

Jack said "My contention is that all musicians, of sufficient depth, are religious--whether they know it or not."

I know what you mean... but I also recall at least a few musicians I played with (think Tommy Lee variety) who at least showed NO visible possibilities of depth... but then come to think of it, of the three who come immediately to mind, one was a lead singer and two were drummers, so maybe that explains it.

(ducks... hides behind sofa... sprints off running in serpentine dodging a hail of drum sticks and mic stands)

2/11/2010 02:32:00 PM  
Blogger Dave said...

Intellectual cowardice? Fatuousness? A complete disregard for truth? Am I warm?

2/11/2010 02:33:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

There seem to be a number of raccoons who are:

- musicians
- software people
- poet/artist

others I'm missing?

2/11/2010 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger debass said...

Van,

So many drummers, so little time.
You are right. I don't personally know any raccoons. I don't even know one conservative jazz musician. Most of them were very vocal about voting for Obama when he ran for office, but I haven't heard a peep out of them all year. H'mm. Wonder if reality set in.
Like Jack says, this is an oasis for me.

2/11/2010 03:34:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Debass, artists are like that, too. At least, the ones I know. I did run into a fellow member of my choir at a tea party last year, though. If there are any other conservatives in the group, they keep as quiet as I do; I think we all know how long we'll be singing if we start talking politics.

2/11/2010 03:43:00 PM  
Blogger Magnus Itland said...

"My contention is that all musicians, of sufficient depth, are religious--whether they know it or not."

I'd think this would be true for any human of sufficient depth.

We could also say that there is the genius that comes from just having a fast brain and motivation to use it; and there is another type of genius that comes from seeing things from a higher (or deeper) perspective. It is the latter that is intrinsically religious.

2/11/2010 03:48:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Cooncur!

As I've mentioned in a number of posts, soul is the measure of depth. To put it another way, nothing has depth -- or can be recognized as deep -- in the absence of soul. Which is why soulless people are always so shallow (which is not to say they can't be "complicated," another matter entirely).

2/11/2010 03:55:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

Last summer I made the mistake of bringing up to my musician friends the topic of the demonstrations in Iran--what I thought would be a common ground. But alas no...it quickly devolved into a close variant of "Chomsky says..." and that most likely we were manipulating both the situation and the media for some unknown reasons. The more "unknown" the more obviously nefarious. What escaped them was even the *possibility* that it could be about the desire for freedom. I just sighed and waited out the storm...but it's not atypical.

2/11/2010 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

The left loves cynicism, as it confers a kind of pseudo-depth and sophistication. When they aren't being childishly romantic and sentimental, they are being corrosively cynical.

2/11/2010 04:10:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Gagdad said "When they aren't being childishly romantic and sentimental, they are being corrosively cynical."

Both of which are handy ways of avoiding reality with the least amount of effort and the maximum amount of soph satisfaction.

2/11/2010 04:20:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

Magnus...I think you put far better than I did. I guess what surprises me about musicians is that they can access and convey such deep truths i.e. have soul, but are otherwise shallow and distorted in their understand of the Real.

They believe things that couldn't possibly be true and guard these falsehoods like precious gems. Their cynical view is so "obvious" to them that any real discussion is impossible.

It is this glaring contrast that often confounds me. I guess I have been duped time and again after playing with such beautiful, soulful musicians to find such a shallow view of things. The dissonance, so to speak, is surprising.

Like most artists the contrast between depth of expression and shallowness of person seems anathema to the true expression of musical Beauty. I think of Coltrane and how he sought to make his life and his music one in the service of the Divine. That is rare. Most musicians I know lead fairly ugly lives regardless of the Beauty they create.

Hence my belief that they are religious even if they don't even know it. But you are right, that's the case in any true discipline.

G.B.- I would LOVE a regular music post on OC. I guess the drawback is that I would be far more verbose than usual-- as it is (you may have noticed) a favorite topic of mine!

2/11/2010 05:01:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Maybe on Saturdays.... I always secretly wanted to be a record reviewer in the bygone days of Almighty Rock....

2/11/2010 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

By the way, I love your comments. I was just thinking the same thing in reading the Beatles Anthology just for fun. Lennon comes across as such a boor, and yet, he clearly had a kind of elemental genius. He is also exactly as I described above, alternatively harsh and cynical or cluelessly romantic and idealistic. Lot of mind parasites there.

2/11/2010 05:30:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

Ah, John Lennon! His songs, particular the Beatle phase, have meant so much to me...it's rare to find a songwriter who can put together one album of great songs in a single lifetime let alone as many as he did.

I think you are right in that he was able to make his paranoid leftist worldview *beautiful* through his connection to *musical* truth. This is an awful confusion of categories for the listener. Which is rampant in the musical world.

I guess he had some clear Mommy issues and his Dad left the scene pretty early as well...which then he promptly returned the favor to his son Julian--who supposedly felt a stronger connection to Paul (hence "Hey Jude").

Imagine, indeed.

2/11/2010 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger debass said...

Once artists, or anyone for that matter, become successful, they surround themselves with people that agree with them, no matter what, thus creating a bubble of alternate reality. They don't have to deal with life as such because their every whim is handled by someone else, no matter how bizarre it may be. The mind parasites are let loose to roam free without any reality check. Without core beliefs, they slip further away from themselves into some very strange realities. The world of entertainment is rife with examples.

2/11/2010 06:27:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

debass:

Not everyone. I made out quite well in software during the dotcom era (and to a lesser extent after that). Many of my former colleagues live exactly as you describe. I on the other hand put the brakes on the fast life, started going to church and reading books like OCUG. I interact with everyone from priests to CEOs to Raccoons. And plenty of leftists.

Is there something about being a musician that makes one more likely to want to live in an echo chamber?

2/11/2010 06:54:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

And the success can be relatively local in nature for the same to apply. I have worked with a number of songwriters who seem able to collect people around them to leave their viruses not only unchallenged, but fully complied with. It's a sickening scenario.

A lot of these musicians are faced with blatant *offers* of submission to these mind viruses by willing hangers-on. The glassy eyed, adoring stare is not an unfamiliar one around gigs. I get the sense that perhaps these scenesters are looking for a transcendent purpose (and feel they've found it to the degree the transcendent is present in the music)that they project onto some seriously dysfunctional people.

It's creepy.

2/11/2010 06:59:00 PM  
Blogger Matteo said...

Apropos of the post we have this new blog, which represents the distilled essence of science-worshiping know-nothingism:

http://darwin-killed-god.blogspot.com/

2/11/2010 07:14:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

N.B.- I think the reason that so many people are alcoholics is that booze actually presents a "solution" to life's problems (as Homer Simpson put it "Alcohol! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems!). Of course there are costs associated with this "solution" but most don't care at that point, having been unable to solve it any other way.

Imagine, in a similar way, some lonely kid growing up in a unhealthy family who takes up music. For the first time he is able to find harmony--I mean this in both senses of the word, and quite literally. While he plays the world is whole, harmonious and often heartrendingly Beautiful--a state of being he finds himself unable to access any other way (save again perhaps alcohol/drugs).

So he practices all the time, he starts to play out and find that people now look at him differently, women like him (even desire him) despite his insecurities and lack of confidence. Music quickly becomes one of the few places life makes sense. Because he is so greatly rewarded for his ability to transmit beauty to others, he may neglect his human obligation to develop more fully in other ways e.g. morally etc, and so it becomes increasingly obvious that this neglect has a direct impact on his ability to function in the world.

Along come groupies--often *very* beautiful women--who not only tell him how special he is (which may tap directly into his mommy issues) but are perfectly willing to protect him from any circumstances that might trigger his issues. Such people find him like dysfunction-seeking missiles and offer their services on many different levels. I believe they want to feel special by proxy and bask in the musicians ability to transmit something beautiful and positive when he plays.

Anyone who challenges this setup is seen as dangerous and tend to be filtered out especially once the protective layer of true disciples are in place. There seems to be a testing process of increasingly irrational behavior and demands made to see who is part of the faithful and who is apostate.

Or that's what I've seen. It is one of the occupational hazards of the music world.

2/11/2010 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Jack:

The closest I've come to knowing any rock stars were Rush some years ago. I dated Geddy Lee's Austrian au pair for a few years. The few times I got to observe him "being himself", I noticed that unlike what I expected from a rock star he spent almost no time with other musicians or hanging around the "scene". Instead he pretty much was a normal Dad, albeit one with a penchant for inviting members of the Toronto Blue Jays over for a beer or two.

Again, I don't know much about it, but is seems like some musicians/bands are able to become very successful (at least financially) yet not get dragged down into the darkness that consumed so many others.

2/11/2010 07:29:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

N.B.-

Maybe there are more Geddy Lee's out there than most of us know. I certainly hope so.

I have often daydreamed about a "Cosmo-American" nada yoga--or using our blues based, jazz-informed musical traditions as an explicit path to the Absolute. Obviously I am NOT the person to make that happen, even if it were possible...but it's something I think about.

2/11/2010 07:51:00 PM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Totally off topic, but I have to ask: what's up with Pamela Geller? I could be totally off base here because I rarely pay much attention to her, but frankly she seems totally insane at times. She apparently is going around claiming that the entire US government is under the control of the Muslim Brotherhood...

2/11/2010 08:01:00 PM  
Blogger Gagdad Bob said...

Jack--

I really think Van Morrison attempted that. He even sponsored some kind of conference in the 1980s about the spiritual effects of music. It was around the time of Inarticulate Speech of the Heart....

2/11/2010 08:19:00 PM  
Blogger debass said...

NB,

I thought I made an exception for people with core beliefs. I know not everyone succumbs to wealth that way. As Jack stated, with musicians, it's also the adoration of fans, which for someone without a firm grasp on reality and his own self, can lead to many problems where aberrant behavior is condoned and reenforced. Some people want to be famous even if by proxy.

2/11/2010 08:25:00 PM  
Blogger julie said...

Jack,

Imagine, in a similar way, some lonely kid growing up in a unhealthy family who takes up music. For the first time he is able to find harmony--I mean this in both senses of the word, and quite literally.

Apropos that, did you (or anyone else) see any of the Playboy interview with John Mayer today? That almost exactly matches how he described his teenage years. He also reminded me rather too much of our exhibitionist troll(s) from the holidaze.

2/11/2010 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger grant said...

What is a deep experience of the undeniable reality of the soul?

2/11/2010 10:21:00 PM  
Blogger ge said...

Speaking of esoteric Coonianity and 6 string magic[k], everyone seen J Page's movie IT MAY GET LOUD? Boy that Jack of white stripes i canna stand, was my problem watching it.
Page was great and chipper looking.
--and couldnt they figger out by ear it's a B-minor not E-minor the second chord of THE WEIGHT?? I sure could in hi school we did that song

2/12/2010 06:05:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

NB said "Is there something about being a musician that makes one more likely to want to live in an echo chamber?"

Being a Musician? I don't think so... at least not any more so than any other artist might be. But a musician playing on stage for the purpose of exciting the crowd, as opposed to performing for the musical appreciation of an audience... yeah definitely... not only an echo chamber, but a re-echo chamber between the musician and some members of the crowd who want to tap into that excitement and popularity through the musician... oh yeah, there's definitely something about that.

2/12/2010 06:10:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Jack said "...are perfectly willing to protect him from any circumstances that might trigger his issues. Such people find him like dysfunction-seeking missiles and offer their services on many different levels..."

I think you nailed it with your comment, and it doesn't require superstar success to kick in either, any band that achieves some modicum of local success, is inundated with the same thing the superstars are... just less expensive versions of it. Finding A musician who has their head on their shoulders... and can keep it there... is a rarity of rarities. I can't tell you how may times I saw what you described play out in front of me, where guys who seemed to have it together when we brought them into the band (our first four years, we had the same four members, then two decided to quit and get lives, and the over next four years we went through 36 musicians), shortly afterwards they'd begin dissolving right before our eyes. And it wasn't just us, there were several cases of death due to Rock Stars disease (woke up dead due to drugs and/or drink) in Vegas alone.

"Anyone who challenges this setup is seen as dangerous and tend to be filtered out especially once the protective layer of true disciples are in place."

Oh yes indeedy! I, as 'bad cop' of the band, being the one who usually began to notice the dissolving process taking place, I was (this will be shocking to our trolls) highly disliked by many of the musicians and glitter crowd in our group and the scene in general - I proudly bore the royal title of 'Prince of Rude'.

;- )

2/12/2010 06:26:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

From Cuz's link "Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy."

The goal and ideal of leftism finds scientistic support - please, don't let the reid, pelosi & obamao know about this.

2/12/2010 07:29:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

Oops... apparently Cuz already underwent the proceedure - or I did - here it is on this post:

Grant:

Easy. Brain surgery. I do it all the time.

2/12/2010 07:31:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Scientific American has become so egregiously awful that they are capable of writing things like this with a straight face:

Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy. Their study provides the strongest evidence to date that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas.

Ooh! They've "proved" that spirituality is an illusion -- all in your head!

So I guess that removing the chunks of brain that allow you to see a blue sky must mean that the blue sky is all in our heads too.

Only intellectuals can be this super-stupid. No animal or human with an IQ of 70 could ever be as cosmically dumb as these jackass "intellectuals".

2/12/2010 07:38:00 AM  
Blogger xlbrl said...

"Which is a puzzling trap to be in for a person who supposedly believes in evolution, for if evolution is occurring, there is no reason to believe that our current scientific understanding is anything like what it will be in 100 or 1000 years."

von Hayek
'Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that “the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.” Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientist, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehension and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.'

2/12/2010 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger Northern Bandit said...

Spiritual thinking "arises in" specific parts of the brain?

There is an ocean of unarticulated a priori assumptions here which are completely invisible to this Sci-Am hack. There should be a new term invented to describe such profound ignorance of one's presuppositions.

"Arises from"? Do these people give even a second's pause to think about what they are saying? Are they really that dumb not to see the problem here?

2/12/2010 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

Unsurprisingly, in the comments following that article someone immediately concludes,

"Soooo... spirituallity is a by-product of brain damage? Imagine my surprise."

I'm sure the atheists will have a field day. Overlooked will be the fact that the number of people who are whole of brain and still have spiritual experiences outweighs the number of people with that specific form of brain damage by some orders of magnitude.

2/12/2010 08:32:00 AM  
Blogger Van said...

NB said "There should be a new term invented to describe such profound ignorance of one's presuppositions."

Nah, we've got it covered already, leftist will do.

"Do these people give even a second's pause to think about what they are saying? Are they really that dumb not to see the problem here? "

It's not that they're dumb, the problem is that they are smart and their smartness has been turned back against them. Instead of it's proper usage in seeking out what is real and true and testing it, from the beginning of modernity, with Descartes, his primary dictate was,
"And as I observed that in the words I think, therefore I am, there is nothing at all which gives me assurance of their truth beyond this, that I see very clearly that in order to think it is necessary to exist, I concluded that I might take, as a general rule, the principle, that all the things which we very clearly and distinctly conceive are true... "

Which puts the first and most importance test of truthfulness to be "Am I able to clearly and distinctly conceive this to be true?", and if you answer to yourself that, yes, you are right, then... you are right, and all that remains is to find the 'facts' that will 'support' your position.

Look at this Sci Am article, glow bull warming and all the rest... it is the modernist way of 'thinking', and easily serves to rewrite reality into whatever you want it to be.

2/12/2010 09:16:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home