Happy birthday.
So here's the song. Listen to it while you read. Over and over again if you need to. Pay attention to the lyrics - they're important.
I'll tell the story as closely as I can, but it's been a few years, so I can't promise perfect accuracy.
When I was in early high school, I threatened suicide a few times, holding knives to my throat and screaming at my mom until she would break down crying and have to lock herself in her room.
Needless to say, my parents - although divorced at the time - were worried.
They got together and agreed at least long enough to send me off to a rehab center in south central Oregon - right about here, to be exact.
I was there for just short of a year. I think I talked to my mom on the phone for the first time since leaving right around the second month - the staff had to forcibly end the call when I made her cry, if I remember right. I think it took another month or so to get to the point where I was able to get to the end of a complete phone call with her.
She came down from the Portland area to celebrate my 15th birthday with me in the reception office.
A while later, I had my first visit with my dad, and eventually, they even let me go off-campus.
The whole thing was an educational experience, to say the least.
Pray that you never have to see your best friend carve obscenities half an inch deep into their forearms with pieces of shattered obsidian.
Pray that you never have to see your roommate and surrogate little brother put his hand through a double paned window, and then break every bone left in the mutilated hand by repeatedly punching walls until staff members wrestle him to the floor and restrain him.
Pray that you never have to worry for days about your surrogate sister after she swallows a full bottle of Tylenol and gets rushed to the hospital in the middle of the night.
Pray that you never have to see one roommate beat another unconscious with a lead pipe or choke another nearly to death with a length of chain.
Pray that you never have to listen to a 17 year old boy's story of stabbing another boy 40 plus times over a drug deal gone bad and leaving him bleeding in the street, never knowing his fate...and then go to sleep in the same room as the first boy that night.
Pray that you never have to help wrestle your closest friend to the ground when he has a nightmare of his time in the high-risk psychiatric ward of a mental hospital, and takes one boy and two fully grown men to restrain him until he calms down.
Pray that you never have to wipe the tears off that same boy's face until he can be trusted to get back up again without harming himself or others.
Pray that you never have to run a mile over uneven ground in a Southern Oregon heatwave to save the life of a boy dying of dehydration after running away.
Pray that you never have to hold your best friend's wrists shut until the paramedics arrive.
Pray that you never have to stand between your violently paranoid 17 year old drug addict roommate with a knife and the unarmed staff members he wants to kill, hoping to God your friendship with him will be enough to keep him from going through you to get to them.
There are other stories, other memories. Most of them are ugly...but as always, there are a few good ones that make it all worth it. There's a lot of friendship, a lot of pain, and a lot of love. There's also a lot of learning.
Long story short, though, I came home at the end of the tenth month. I've still got the "graduation present" I got from my mom - it's actually sitting on the bookshelf in my bedroom here in California as I type this.
It's the CD single for "I Hope You Dance" by Lee Ann Womack, and the illustrated hardcover booklet with the lyrics. It's probably one of the most meaningful gifts I've ever recieved - the only thing that even comes close is my black belt.
I've been broke, I've been homeless, I've been addicted, I've been a cutter, I've been beaten up, I've been abused, I've been ostracized and isolated, I've been robbed, I've been suicidal (even tried it a few times), I've been hopeless, I've been friendless...
But whenever I get down...well, what the hell. There's no harm in dancing one last time.
Right?
I Hope You Dance, by Lee Ann Womack.
I hope you never lose your sense of wonder
You get your fill to eat
But always keep that hunger
May you never take one single breath for granted
God forbid love ever leave you empty handed
I hope you still feel small
When you stand by the ocean
Whenever one door closes, I hope one more opens
Promise me that you'll give fate a fighting chance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance
I hope you dance
I hope you dance
I hope you never fear those mountains in the distance
Never settle for the path of least resistance
Living might mean taking chances
But they're worth taking
Lovin' might be a mistake
But it's worth making
Don't let some hell-bent heart
Leave you bitter
When you come close to selling out
Reconsider
Give the heavens above
More than just a passing glance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance
I hope you dance
(Time is a wheel in constant motion always)
I hope you dance
(Rolling us along)
I hope you dance
(Tell me who)
I hope you dance
(Wants to look back on their years and wonder where those years have gone)
I hope you still feel small
When you stand by the ocean
Whenever one door closes, I hope one more opens
Promise me you'll give faith a fighting chance
And when you get the choice to sit it out or dance
Dance
I hope you dance
I hope you dance
(Time is a wheel in constant motion always)
I hope you dance
(Rolling us along)
I hope you dance
(Tell me who wants to look back on their years and wonder)
I hope you dance
(Where those years have gone)
(Tell me who)
I hope you dance
(Wants to look back on their years and wonder where those years have gone)
----------------
Now playing: Lee Ann Womack - I Hope You Dance
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
Shift happens.
The video, I think, speaks for itself - what will the world be like in 10 years? 50? 100? 500?
Even the changes I've witnessed in my lifetime alone would've struck the scientists of one hundred years ago as inconceivable - what will the scientists of millions, or even billions, of years in the future think (if they think in a way that we would even recognize as such) of us today?
Will we even exist in a recognizably human form millions of years in the future? Where will evolution, natural or deliberate, take us?
What lies in humanity's future?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Philosophical Convergence (pt 2)
An approach similar to the last, but this time to the Buddhist concept of Anatman/Anatta (the lack of self).
Enjoy!
First of all...I - yes, I, despite the fact that I still hold I doesn't know what it is in the first place - have to admit that I find Buddhism satisfying and always have.
My dad has always told me it's just because I love mind games and always have.
Philosophically speaking, though, he's a pretty materialistic sorta guy. If he can't see/hear/feel/taste/smell it, it probably doesn't exist.
Philosophically speaking, I fall closer to the path of the skeptic than anything else. In order to arrive at the most accurate statement possibly concerning my philosophical beliefs, solve the following equation:
(I may know nothing but that)+[(I'm not sure that)n]+(I know nothing), where n equals infinity.
I also think that math is a wonderful language for skeptics. Using absolutes to express possibilities of non-absolutes can be great fun.
I'm getting off-topic, though.
Post a thread on the idea that you should have no self and how that might affect one's actions in the world.
I should have no self? First of all, stating that "I" should have no "self" is a bit of an oxymoron. Self, if I understand correctly, is understood by Buddhist thought to be merely an illusion. This, as discussed in my earlier post on Hinduism, is, as I understand it, held by Buddhist doctrine to be Truth with a capital "T".
Putting aside for now the argument that not everybody recognizes it as such, and so it cannot be, if this doctrine is actually universal truth, any statement including individual pronouns are, strictly speaking, rendered inaccurate. For if there is no self, there can be no "I" to ponder the fact that there is no self.
Actually, with this in mind, the doctrine that there is no self is self-contradictory. Let us establish a list of ideas that, for the sake of argument, we shall accept as fact (contrary - perhaps - to skeptical thinking):
1. The doctrine that self is illusion, if true, must be true for all.
2. There is currently in existence a certain doctrine of human thought which holds that there is no self.
3. Some humans consciously know of this doctrine.
4. Some humans don't.
5. Some humans consciously agree with this doctrine.
6. Some don't.
7. In order for those who don't know of or agree with this doctrine to gain knowledge of it, it must be communicated.
8. Communication requires a transmitter and a receiver.
9. A transmitter, when transmitting, cannot receive, nor can a receiver, when receiving, transmit.
10. Holding concepts #8 and #9 to be true, in order for communication to take place, there must be a transmitter of some sort which is separate from the receiver which it is transmitting to, and vice versa.
11. Holding concept #10 to be true, in order for one who has no knowledge of the idea that there is no self to gain such knowledge, two selves of some sort must exist: one to transmit, and one to receive.
12. Holding concepts #3 and #4 to be true (note the word "conscious"), it is impossible for the concept that self is illusion to be true, for at some point, at least one self must exist to communicate to at least one other self that no selves exist.
Got it?
Okay, here's the breakdown: It's true that there are conscious, thinking beings who aren't aware of the idea that self is illusion, right?
Well, how do they learn it?
One could say it's an internal realization, but if it is, they still have to think about it at some point, and thinking about a self - even if it's concerning the lack of one - first requires a self of some sort to do the thinking.
If it's an external realization, then one must accept the fact that a self had to exist to give them the information that there is no self, and another self had to exist to receive the information that there is no self.
In addition to all the mental gymnastics above, one has to take into account the nature of Truth and Oneness (yes, those are capitalized for a reason). In order to be universal, Truth, as discussed in the post about Hinduism, must indeed be universal - instantly recognizable and undeniable to anyone. If there is no self, only a single One, then that One, as a single collective entity, must be capable of instantly and undeniably recognizing said Truth when presented with it.
Now let us say that there is no self, that all is One.
If this all-encompassing One was presented with Truth (as defined above), it - all of it, given the above definition of Truth - would instantly and undeniably recognize and acknowledge it as such.
In addition to that, in order for the Truth to be Truth in the first place, the One doing the recognizing and affirming would have to be a single entity - even if it's a collective one - rather than just part of it.
You see where the problems lie? How can all be One and Truth remain Truth if part of One recognizes Truth when presented with it while another does not?
For that matter, even if all is One, One is a non-zero concept. One has substance. One has singleness.
One - even a collective one - is still individual. A collective self is still a self.
Yet another problem - if a Buddhist admits that we have not consciously discovered the entirety of physical existence, the possibility remains that sentient non-human life exists. What happens to the doctrine of "all is one" if this particular individual collective One encounters another collective One? What is there to say for certain that this collective One is the only collective One in existence?
How does one deny self altogether while affirming that all individual human beings are part of a greater collective?
First of all, one has to affirm individual human beings - if only in conceptual form - in order to form this equation. Secondly, is not a greater self still a self? How could part of a non-self have any concept of its own existence? For that matter, if all is One, then any idea belonging to a single human, being that self is illusion, must at its root belong to the One, and with that in mind, given that self is illusion, how could the One have knowledge of its own existence (given that its own existence - or self - wouldn't be there to have knowledge of in the first place) to doubt if it had no self?
With all that said, it should be fairly obvious by now that the little bit of the One writing this post has some questions concerning the idea that there is no self that it wants answered before it acknowledges the idea that it doesn't exist as an individual.
I do, however, like the monistic tendencies inherent in the statement. The doctrine of "all which exists, exists" seems to make sense to me, and when you get right down to it, "all is One" isn't that much of a stretch from there.
As for how the doctrine of "all is one" could affect actions in the real world...it shouldn't. Quite simply, if all is One, there should be no motivation for behavior of any sort, since motivation requires a self to be motivated.
Let us take a simple idea to demonstrate: harm.
In all seriousness, if all is One, there is no reason for part of the One to wish harm upon another part, for what harms the One harms all of the One, and if one harms one part, one harms all parts.
Given that self-preservation (...) tends to run strong in humanity, one should not harm anything, because if one harms anything, one harms everything, including oneself.
Of course, this raises the question of why exactly harm is bad. Usually, harm is bad because it means immediate chances of survival are somehow decreased (i.e. pain being the body's method of letting the CNS know that it's injured). If the self is merely illusion, though, and all is One, self-preservation by the individual self should no longer be in any way relevant, since only the One should be motivated by self-preservation, given that all other selves are simply illusion and thus incapable of being motivated in the first place. Of course, for the One to have motivating factors for behavior, the One would need a self to be motivated...but since there is no self and all is One, there should be no motivation for any behavior, ever, self preservation included.
To put it another way, consider this:
For the following equation, consider the following to be true.
factor that is doing=A, factor that is being done to=B, All=C, and action done=X. A=C, therefore C=A. B=C, therefore C=B. A=C and B=C, therefore A=B.
If A=C and B=C, any X done by A to B is also done to C, since B=C. Since A=C as well, any X done by A to B is also done to A. Thus, no value of X should be harmful, for harm done by any value of A to any value of B is immediately done to A as well, and is thus undesirable.
Of course, the problem here lies with the fact that neither A nor B actually exist, since they are both really C, rendering the equation as follows:
No value of X should be harmful, for any X done to C by C is done to C.
With this in mind, any X done by A to B should be completely irrelevant, since neither A nor B exist to do or be done to in the first place and C, if it wishes to do harm to itself, since, being All, cannot by its nature actually be correct or incorrect (given that it wholly encompasses both concepts), should be free to do so.
This is usually the part where logic apologizes for making a mess on the carpet and goes to sit quietly in its corner again.
In conclusion?
One should not ponder the nature and/or existence of selfhood, including real-world consequences, while driving, pregnant, or capable of coherent thought. Possible side effects may include headaches, nausea, double vision, difficulty breathing, neural implosion, spontaneous combustion, insanity, and/or sudden and unexpected lack of existence.
Use with caution.
Enjoy!
First of all...I - yes, I, despite the fact that I still hold I doesn't know what it is in the first place - have to admit that I find Buddhism satisfying and always have.
My dad has always told me it's just because I love mind games and always have.
Philosophically speaking, though, he's a pretty materialistic sorta guy. If he can't see/hear/feel/taste/smell it, it probably doesn't exist.
Philosophically speaking, I fall closer to the path of the skeptic than anything else. In order to arrive at the most accurate statement possibly concerning my philosophical beliefs, solve the following equation:
(I may know nothing but that)+[(I'm not sure that)n]+(I know nothing), where n equals infinity.
I also think that math is a wonderful language for skeptics. Using absolutes to express possibilities of non-absolutes can be great fun.
I'm getting off-topic, though.
Post a thread on the idea that you should have no self and how that might affect one's actions in the world.
I should have no self? First of all, stating that "I" should have no "self" is a bit of an oxymoron. Self, if I understand correctly, is understood by Buddhist thought to be merely an illusion. This, as discussed in my earlier post on Hinduism, is, as I understand it, held by Buddhist doctrine to be Truth with a capital "T".
Putting aside for now the argument that not everybody recognizes it as such, and so it cannot be, if this doctrine is actually universal truth, any statement including individual pronouns are, strictly speaking, rendered inaccurate. For if there is no self, there can be no "I" to ponder the fact that there is no self.
Actually, with this in mind, the doctrine that there is no self is self-contradictory. Let us establish a list of ideas that, for the sake of argument, we shall accept as fact (contrary - perhaps - to skeptical thinking):
1. The doctrine that self is illusion, if true, must be true for all.
2. There is currently in existence a certain doctrine of human thought which holds that there is no self.
3. Some humans consciously know of this doctrine.
4. Some humans don't.
5. Some humans consciously agree with this doctrine.
6. Some don't.
7. In order for those who don't know of or agree with this doctrine to gain knowledge of it, it must be communicated.
8. Communication requires a transmitter and a receiver.
9. A transmitter, when transmitting, cannot receive, nor can a receiver, when receiving, transmit.
10. Holding concepts #8 and #9 to be true, in order for communication to take place, there must be a transmitter of some sort which is separate from the receiver which it is transmitting to, and vice versa.
11. Holding concept #10 to be true, in order for one who has no knowledge of the idea that there is no self to gain such knowledge, two selves of some sort must exist: one to transmit, and one to receive.
12. Holding concepts #3 and #4 to be true (note the word "conscious"), it is impossible for the concept that self is illusion to be true, for at some point, at least one self must exist to communicate to at least one other self that no selves exist.
Got it?
Okay, here's the breakdown: It's true that there are conscious, thinking beings who aren't aware of the idea that self is illusion, right?
Well, how do they learn it?
One could say it's an internal realization, but if it is, they still have to think about it at some point, and thinking about a self - even if it's concerning the lack of one - first requires a self of some sort to do the thinking.
If it's an external realization, then one must accept the fact that a self had to exist to give them the information that there is no self, and another self had to exist to receive the information that there is no self.
In addition to all the mental gymnastics above, one has to take into account the nature of Truth and Oneness (yes, those are capitalized for a reason). In order to be universal, Truth, as discussed in the post about Hinduism, must indeed be universal - instantly recognizable and undeniable to anyone. If there is no self, only a single One, then that One, as a single collective entity, must be capable of instantly and undeniably recognizing said Truth when presented with it.
Now let us say that there is no self, that all is One.
If this all-encompassing One was presented with Truth (as defined above), it - all of it, given the above definition of Truth - would instantly and undeniably recognize and acknowledge it as such.
In addition to that, in order for the Truth to be Truth in the first place, the One doing the recognizing and affirming would have to be a single entity - even if it's a collective one - rather than just part of it.
You see where the problems lie? How can all be One and Truth remain Truth if part of One recognizes Truth when presented with it while another does not?
For that matter, even if all is One, One is a non-zero concept. One has substance. One has singleness.
One - even a collective one - is still individual. A collective self is still a self.
Yet another problem - if a Buddhist admits that we have not consciously discovered the entirety of physical existence, the possibility remains that sentient non-human life exists. What happens to the doctrine of "all is one" if this particular individual collective One encounters another collective One? What is there to say for certain that this collective One is the only collective One in existence?
How does one deny self altogether while affirming that all individual human beings are part of a greater collective?
First of all, one has to affirm individual human beings - if only in conceptual form - in order to form this equation. Secondly, is not a greater self still a self? How could part of a non-self have any concept of its own existence? For that matter, if all is One, then any idea belonging to a single human, being that self is illusion, must at its root belong to the One, and with that in mind, given that self is illusion, how could the One have knowledge of its own existence (given that its own existence - or self - wouldn't be there to have knowledge of in the first place) to doubt if it had no self?
With all that said, it should be fairly obvious by now that the little bit of the One writing this post has some questions concerning the idea that there is no self that it wants answered before it acknowledges the idea that it doesn't exist as an individual.
I do, however, like the monistic tendencies inherent in the statement. The doctrine of "all which exists, exists" seems to make sense to me, and when you get right down to it, "all is One" isn't that much of a stretch from there.
As for how the doctrine of "all is one" could affect actions in the real world...it shouldn't. Quite simply, if all is One, there should be no motivation for behavior of any sort, since motivation requires a self to be motivated.
Let us take a simple idea to demonstrate: harm.
In all seriousness, if all is One, there is no reason for part of the One to wish harm upon another part, for what harms the One harms all of the One, and if one harms one part, one harms all parts.
Given that self-preservation (...) tends to run strong in humanity, one should not harm anything, because if one harms anything, one harms everything, including oneself.
Of course, this raises the question of why exactly harm is bad. Usually, harm is bad because it means immediate chances of survival are somehow decreased (i.e. pain being the body's method of letting the CNS know that it's injured). If the self is merely illusion, though, and all is One, self-preservation by the individual self should no longer be in any way relevant, since only the One should be motivated by self-preservation, given that all other selves are simply illusion and thus incapable of being motivated in the first place. Of course, for the One to have motivating factors for behavior, the One would need a self to be motivated...but since there is no self and all is One, there should be no motivation for any behavior, ever, self preservation included.
To put it another way, consider this:
For the following equation, consider the following to be true.
factor that is doing=A, factor that is being done to=B, All=C, and action done=X. A=C, therefore C=A. B=C, therefore C=B. A=C and B=C, therefore A=B.
If A=C and B=C, any X done by A to B is also done to C, since B=C. Since A=C as well, any X done by A to B is also done to A. Thus, no value of X should be harmful, for harm done by any value of A to any value of B is immediately done to A as well, and is thus undesirable.
Of course, the problem here lies with the fact that neither A nor B actually exist, since they are both really C, rendering the equation as follows:
No value of X should be harmful, for any X done to C by C is done to C.
With this in mind, any X done by A to B should be completely irrelevant, since neither A nor B exist to do or be done to in the first place and C, if it wishes to do harm to itself, since, being All, cannot by its nature actually be correct or incorrect (given that it wholly encompasses both concepts), should be free to do so.
This is usually the part where logic apologizes for making a mess on the carpet and goes to sit quietly in its corner again.
In conclusion?
One should not ponder the nature and/or existence of selfhood, including real-world consequences, while driving, pregnant, or capable of coherent thought. Possible side effects may include headaches, nausea, double vision, difficulty breathing, neural implosion, spontaneous combustion, insanity, and/or sudden and unexpected lack of existence.
Use with caution.
Philosophical Convergence (pt 1)
This is taken word for word from my response to a discussion in my philosophy course - just some Q&A on my perspective as a rational Christian approaching Hinduism.
1. There is great tolerance in Hinduism. Two phrases that are associated with Hinduism are: "Any road to the summit of the mountain is a good road", and "The truth is one, but the wise speak of it in many ways". The belief is that if something is truly important, there must be more than one of them.
In this particular case, I find myself wholly agreeing. By definition, "Truth" with a capital T, so to speak, must be whole, unalterable, and immune to interpretation. It must be all that it is and unrecognizable as anything else.
With this in mind, however, it must still be capable of being recognized by all, should they wish to take the time and thought to do so. Truth is outside of petty human struggles or hierarchies - a universal constant, whether viewed through a dualistic or monistic lens. Even the great skeptics admitted that Truth, at some point, must exist.
The problem, in this case, is finding it.
Here, I find the two quotes mentioned to be wholly accurate - if truth is, indeed, truth, it is not to be a narrow thing, for not all living beings are identical, nor will all living beings be capable of the same thought processes. They must, however, all be capable of at some point recognizing truth for what it is, should they wish to do so. With this in mind, I must conclude that in a sense, truth is simply too big to find upon a narrow road.
From an admittedly unusual Christian point of view, this simply re-affirms and broadens the definition of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (to this day I don't why we don't simply call God Omni - it'd make far more sense).
If this Christian definition of God is true, then God is beyond any and all human comprehension, for God cannot be held within any number of human minds, for they are human.
With this in mind, no human, nor any number of humans, can ever fully understand God. Indeed, under Christianity, claiming to do so would be perilously close to the sin that Jesus himself was accused of - claiming Godhood. For by the Christian definition, to understand God, one must be God.
Understanding this, the Christian must admit that their road to God cannot, by their definition, be the only one.
Yet there is a problem here - this is a conclusion arrived at by reason. According to the Bible, there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. But if a Christian believes in what the Bible implies about God - namely, the infinite nature beyond any mortal comprehension - they must admit the conclusion I've arrived at above as well.
I suppose in this case I am more Hindu than Christian, for I certainly fall far more comfortably within the confines of the former than the latter...but then, I hold to a definition of God implied by reason as well as the Bible, and would thus have to admit that this Hindu belief would fit quite comfortably with what Christianity has to say about God, and that perhaps with this in mind, God Itself is far more comfortable with being worshiped by all at the end of whatever road they find It on than being pinned to a single highway by a circle of televangelists' limos.
Poses some questions, doesn't it?
2. The goal of the religions is to achieve Moksha which is spiritual liberation. It is achieved by becoming one with Brahman which is the base of all things and being itself, or unconditional reality.
I see very little wrong with this, either. Although I must admit that it does appeal to my monistic tendencies, God being much like the advanced technology of Clarke's Third Law in that it/s/he (pardon for the confusing order, but putting the last first here, in addition to satisfying my contrary tendencies, avoids an unintentional bit of near-profanity) is not separate from our existence, but rather permeating it and not yet within the scope of our current understanding.
I can, indeed, understand the desire to understand that which is real beyond any doubt, that which is the very foundation of reality, which gives it structure, is its very essence.
I can also see that the transcendence to that point where the ultimate basis of reality is understood is also that point at which the mortal being becomes one with whatever label one wishes to give that basis in order to give it form during the course of their mortal (or limited) life.
I must confess that I would agree to this as well - perhaps not in those exact terms, but the underlying concept resonates, to me, of truth.
3. We need to be liberated from Samsara which is the worldly cycles of birth and rebirth. This is a world of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter which we need to transcend.
Here, perhaps, I differ. I tend to be a monistic rather than a dualistic sort of fellow, and thus to see any separation of God from earth as vaguely suspicious.
In my mind, if God truly is God as we've suspected that it is, then there is no way that our world and God can be anything but inseparable - for God, in God's infinite nature, could not help but to contain/surround/permeate the very fabric of reality, the earth included.
I do agree, however, that the fabric of reality is not dissimilar to an exceptional piece of art, possessing infinite depths of beauty and complexity. The deeper you look - or go - the more you find. And when you truly understand the fabric of the fabric - the space, the molecules, all the infinitely complex structures of which the art is made - at that point, you have achieved an understanding of the art so intimate and so deep as to be indistinguishable and inseparable from that which you have studied.
With this said, I would agree that the earth as we understand it is a place of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter. I would even agree with a concept including cycles of death and rebirth, for isn't it a relatively recently discovered truth that matter and energy are never destroyed or created, but merely change form?
I would also agree that when one comes to that point where understanding of the underlying fabric is complete, one would become one with - or indistinguishable and inseparable from - the fabric being understood. In short, to understand the fabric of reality, one must be the fabric of reality.
This actually, I believe, relates to Christianity rather well. Is not transcendence to Heaven or a fall to Hell a sort of rebirth? And does not the eventual prophesied return and opening of heaven's doors to all lost souls make a sort of mass rebirth or transcendence? And isn't going to Heaven or "being (one) with God" more or less equivalent to transcending the mortal plane, or liberating oneself from Samsara?
I may be marking myself as a black sheep indeed among the Christian faith, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any incompatible concepts here.
4. The key moments of possible release are our deaths. However, we generally reincarnate or transmigrate based on our Karma. We can move closer or farther away from Moksha with each rebirth.
Makes sense to me. We reap what we sow, the longer we live, the more we learn, and nobody ever said the road to God was an easy or a short one.
This seems to me to simply be a way of stating that what goes around comes around in a very final sort of way - not entirely unlike the Christian Heaven or Hell, except much more open-ended.
Do good, good will come to you. Do bad, bad will come to you. View something as good, it will be good. View something as bad, it will be bad.
Perception defines much, and there are consequences to every action. While I wouldn't agree that living beings reincarnate as other beings, retaining usable knowledge (even on the unconscious level) from lives as other beings, as stated above, matter and energy are never created or destroyed - merely changed. With this in mind, it's not inconceivable that the matter which is a human being here and now will be a cockroach, a tree, and/or a dolphin at some point in the future. It's also not inconceivable that the person's behavior, beliefs, or other unmeasurable facets may well affect the matter and energy they're composed of in as of yet unobservable, and therefore unmeasurable ways.
As far as the Christian effect on these ponderings? More or less discarded with the idea that we Christians have got Heaven and Hell already. Taking into account the idea I've already stated that there's no possible way by our own definition of God that we've got a monopoly on the truth, I really don't see how it's all that more or less likely to be one than it is to be the other. Maybe it's even that the two viewpoints are just different perspectives of the same thing. Might be, might not be...either way, I don't know yet and likely won't until I get there.
5. Karma is the universal law of cause and effect - as ye sow, so shall ye reap. It rules all of life, like gravity, including the lives of the gods and the demons. It dictates our rebirth.
See above. At this point, I honestly don't see any way this can be ruled out as a viable possibility. Whatever it is in the end, I do believe in Karma, Natural Consequences, or whatever you want to call it - what goes around, comes around.
As explained above, given that we're acknowledging some sort of unmeasurable and unobservable force (in that there are consequences to our actions, they do happen, and we don't yet have a universal reason as to why or how), it's not inconceivable - some might even say it's likely - that it has an unobservable, unmeasurable effect on the matter and energy we're composed of.
As far as Christianity goes, I think this is my major point of difference and always has been. I disagree with the concept of a narrowly defined set of 'sins' based on things which were relevant to survival of humanity as a species two thousands years ago, but are relevant no longer. On the other hand, I think that the concept of inevitable consequences for our thoughts and actions, whether good, bad, or indifferent, is not only wholly reasonable, but timeless and eternally relevant as well.
6. Our Karma is created by how well we follow our dharma. Dharma is our sacred duty or moral order or proper action. It depends on our caste, our gender, our age, and many other factors.
Karma being created by the degree of fulfillment of 'sacred duty' or 'moral order' I can agree with. These things being dictated by our caste, gender, age, etc - namely, things we have no power over even if we wanted to - I don't agree with.
I think that the concept of Karma being created by Dharma is a very sensible one indeed. I think that the idea of Dharma being governed by anything other than the choices one makes and the results of those choices, ad infinitum, is really a slightly silly one, being based more or less upon the concept that some humans beings possess a degree of natural superiority (or difference in the challenges they are called to face) based upon things that were determined before they were even capable of conscious thought. I, personally, don't believe they do. People are people are people, and although they are not born equal, they ought to be given the chance to fulfill what potential they have, regardless of such fixed and unchangeable factors as gender or accident of birth.
In this case, I think I tend to lean more towards typical Christian thinking than Hindu, in that 'all are equal in the eyes of the lord'. Namely, no one human ought to assume false pride over any other. Some are stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, some have different colored or different proportioned bits and pieces of anatomy than others. These do not necessarily translate to superiority or inferiority in a spiritual sense - merely to difference in a physical one that may or may not have physical consequences.
All in all, though, I must admit this is a doctrine absorbed more from the works of Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein than scholars of centuries gone by.
Not quite Christian or Hindu - something else entirely, rather, springing from a view of humanity not based in a need for domination over others, but a desire for a mutually advantageous coexistence with those others, instead.
Hindus do not have a problem with western thinking; they just think it has a critical weakness. That weakness is that it mistakes part of the truth for the entire truth.
This, now - this I can stand fully in agreement with regardless of religious or philosophical leanings. No matter the individual religious or philosophical opinions, mistaking part of the truth for the whole truth can, in my humble opinion, be said without exception to be a flaw, and quite an impressive one at that.
From a Christian perspective, claiming to know the Truth with a capital T is claiming to be on equal ground with God, and coming out of left field from my philosophically skeptical leanings, claiming to know the absolute Truth is claiming to know something that, by its very nature, cannot be known absolutely.
I must, I admit, view anyone who claims to know the absolute truth with a great deal of sudden and intense doubt - for Truth, as stated above, must be absolute. Truth must be recognizable to all. Truth must be so true that it is not capable of being doubted...and so far, there is nothing I have learned that fulfills that last requirement. Given, this is not to say I will never learn something that does, but it has not happened yet, and so far as I can tell, not to anyone else throughout the course of recorded history.
Part of the truth, indeed, is a far cry from truth in its whole and unblemished entirety, and it would be a shame indeed to deny the entire sky for a single star.
1. There is great tolerance in Hinduism. Two phrases that are associated with Hinduism are: "Any road to the summit of the mountain is a good road", and "The truth is one, but the wise speak of it in many ways". The belief is that if something is truly important, there must be more than one of them.
In this particular case, I find myself wholly agreeing. By definition, "Truth" with a capital T, so to speak, must be whole, unalterable, and immune to interpretation. It must be all that it is and unrecognizable as anything else.
With this in mind, however, it must still be capable of being recognized by all, should they wish to take the time and thought to do so. Truth is outside of petty human struggles or hierarchies - a universal constant, whether viewed through a dualistic or monistic lens. Even the great skeptics admitted that Truth, at some point, must exist.
The problem, in this case, is finding it.
Here, I find the two quotes mentioned to be wholly accurate - if truth is, indeed, truth, it is not to be a narrow thing, for not all living beings are identical, nor will all living beings be capable of the same thought processes. They must, however, all be capable of at some point recognizing truth for what it is, should they wish to do so. With this in mind, I must conclude that in a sense, truth is simply too big to find upon a narrow road.
From an admittedly unusual Christian point of view, this simply re-affirms and broadens the definition of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (to this day I don't why we don't simply call God Omni - it'd make far more sense).
If this Christian definition of God is true, then God is beyond any and all human comprehension, for God cannot be held within any number of human minds, for they are human.
With this in mind, no human, nor any number of humans, can ever fully understand God. Indeed, under Christianity, claiming to do so would be perilously close to the sin that Jesus himself was accused of - claiming Godhood. For by the Christian definition, to understand God, one must be God.
Understanding this, the Christian must admit that their road to God cannot, by their definition, be the only one.
Yet there is a problem here - this is a conclusion arrived at by reason. According to the Bible, there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. But if a Christian believes in what the Bible implies about God - namely, the infinite nature beyond any mortal comprehension - they must admit the conclusion I've arrived at above as well.
I suppose in this case I am more Hindu than Christian, for I certainly fall far more comfortably within the confines of the former than the latter...but then, I hold to a definition of God implied by reason as well as the Bible, and would thus have to admit that this Hindu belief would fit quite comfortably with what Christianity has to say about God, and that perhaps with this in mind, God Itself is far more comfortable with being worshiped by all at the end of whatever road they find It on than being pinned to a single highway by a circle of televangelists' limos.
Poses some questions, doesn't it?
2. The goal of the religions is to achieve Moksha which is spiritual liberation. It is achieved by becoming one with Brahman which is the base of all things and being itself, or unconditional reality.
I see very little wrong with this, either. Although I must admit that it does appeal to my monistic tendencies, God being much like the advanced technology of Clarke's Third Law in that it/s/he (pardon for the confusing order, but putting the last first here, in addition to satisfying my contrary tendencies, avoids an unintentional bit of near-profanity) is not separate from our existence, but rather permeating it and not yet within the scope of our current understanding.
I can, indeed, understand the desire to understand that which is real beyond any doubt, that which is the very foundation of reality, which gives it structure, is its very essence.
I can also see that the transcendence to that point where the ultimate basis of reality is understood is also that point at which the mortal being becomes one with whatever label one wishes to give that basis in order to give it form during the course of their mortal (or limited) life.
I must confess that I would agree to this as well - perhaps not in those exact terms, but the underlying concept resonates, to me, of truth.
3. We need to be liberated from Samsara which is the worldly cycles of birth and rebirth. This is a world of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter which we need to transcend.
Here, perhaps, I differ. I tend to be a monistic rather than a dualistic sort of fellow, and thus to see any separation of God from earth as vaguely suspicious.
In my mind, if God truly is God as we've suspected that it is, then there is no way that our world and God can be anything but inseparable - for God, in God's infinite nature, could not help but to contain/surround/permeate the very fabric of reality, the earth included.
I do agree, however, that the fabric of reality is not dissimilar to an exceptional piece of art, possessing infinite depths of beauty and complexity. The deeper you look - or go - the more you find. And when you truly understand the fabric of the fabric - the space, the molecules, all the infinitely complex structures of which the art is made - at that point, you have achieved an understanding of the art so intimate and so deep as to be indistinguishable and inseparable from that which you have studied.
With this said, I would agree that the earth as we understand it is a place of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter. I would even agree with a concept including cycles of death and rebirth, for isn't it a relatively recently discovered truth that matter and energy are never destroyed or created, but merely change form?
I would also agree that when one comes to that point where understanding of the underlying fabric is complete, one would become one with - or indistinguishable and inseparable from - the fabric being understood. In short, to understand the fabric of reality, one must be the fabric of reality.
This actually, I believe, relates to Christianity rather well. Is not transcendence to Heaven or a fall to Hell a sort of rebirth? And does not the eventual prophesied return and opening of heaven's doors to all lost souls make a sort of mass rebirth or transcendence? And isn't going to Heaven or "being (one) with God" more or less equivalent to transcending the mortal plane, or liberating oneself from Samsara?
I may be marking myself as a black sheep indeed among the Christian faith, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any incompatible concepts here.
4. The key moments of possible release are our deaths. However, we generally reincarnate or transmigrate based on our Karma. We can move closer or farther away from Moksha with each rebirth.
Makes sense to me. We reap what we sow, the longer we live, the more we learn, and nobody ever said the road to God was an easy or a short one.
This seems to me to simply be a way of stating that what goes around comes around in a very final sort of way - not entirely unlike the Christian Heaven or Hell, except much more open-ended.
Do good, good will come to you. Do bad, bad will come to you. View something as good, it will be good. View something as bad, it will be bad.
Perception defines much, and there are consequences to every action. While I wouldn't agree that living beings reincarnate as other beings, retaining usable knowledge (even on the unconscious level) from lives as other beings, as stated above, matter and energy are never created or destroyed - merely changed. With this in mind, it's not inconceivable that the matter which is a human being here and now will be a cockroach, a tree, and/or a dolphin at some point in the future. It's also not inconceivable that the person's behavior, beliefs, or other unmeasurable facets may well affect the matter and energy they're composed of in as of yet unobservable, and therefore unmeasurable ways.
As far as the Christian effect on these ponderings? More or less discarded with the idea that we Christians have got Heaven and Hell already. Taking into account the idea I've already stated that there's no possible way by our own definition of God that we've got a monopoly on the truth, I really don't see how it's all that more or less likely to be one than it is to be the other. Maybe it's even that the two viewpoints are just different perspectives of the same thing. Might be, might not be...either way, I don't know yet and likely won't until I get there.
5. Karma is the universal law of cause and effect - as ye sow, so shall ye reap. It rules all of life, like gravity, including the lives of the gods and the demons. It dictates our rebirth.
See above. At this point, I honestly don't see any way this can be ruled out as a viable possibility. Whatever it is in the end, I do believe in Karma, Natural Consequences, or whatever you want to call it - what goes around, comes around.
As explained above, given that we're acknowledging some sort of unmeasurable and unobservable force (in that there are consequences to our actions, they do happen, and we don't yet have a universal reason as to why or how), it's not inconceivable - some might even say it's likely - that it has an unobservable, unmeasurable effect on the matter and energy we're composed of.
As far as Christianity goes, I think this is my major point of difference and always has been. I disagree with the concept of a narrowly defined set of 'sins' based on things which were relevant to survival of humanity as a species two thousands years ago, but are relevant no longer. On the other hand, I think that the concept of inevitable consequences for our thoughts and actions, whether good, bad, or indifferent, is not only wholly reasonable, but timeless and eternally relevant as well.
6. Our Karma is created by how well we follow our dharma. Dharma is our sacred duty or moral order or proper action. It depends on our caste, our gender, our age, and many other factors.
Karma being created by the degree of fulfillment of 'sacred duty' or 'moral order' I can agree with. These things being dictated by our caste, gender, age, etc - namely, things we have no power over even if we wanted to - I don't agree with.
I think that the concept of Karma being created by Dharma is a very sensible one indeed. I think that the idea of Dharma being governed by anything other than the choices one makes and the results of those choices, ad infinitum, is really a slightly silly one, being based more or less upon the concept that some humans beings possess a degree of natural superiority (or difference in the challenges they are called to face) based upon things that were determined before they were even capable of conscious thought. I, personally, don't believe they do. People are people are people, and although they are not born equal, they ought to be given the chance to fulfill what potential they have, regardless of such fixed and unchangeable factors as gender or accident of birth.
In this case, I think I tend to lean more towards typical Christian thinking than Hindu, in that 'all are equal in the eyes of the lord'. Namely, no one human ought to assume false pride over any other. Some are stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, some have different colored or different proportioned bits and pieces of anatomy than others. These do not necessarily translate to superiority or inferiority in a spiritual sense - merely to difference in a physical one that may or may not have physical consequences.
All in all, though, I must admit this is a doctrine absorbed more from the works of Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein than scholars of centuries gone by.
Not quite Christian or Hindu - something else entirely, rather, springing from a view of humanity not based in a need for domination over others, but a desire for a mutually advantageous coexistence with those others, instead.
Hindus do not have a problem with western thinking; they just think it has a critical weakness. That weakness is that it mistakes part of the truth for the entire truth.
This, now - this I can stand fully in agreement with regardless of religious or philosophical leanings. No matter the individual religious or philosophical opinions, mistaking part of the truth for the whole truth can, in my humble opinion, be said without exception to be a flaw, and quite an impressive one at that.
From a Christian perspective, claiming to know the Truth with a capital T is claiming to be on equal ground with God, and coming out of left field from my philosophically skeptical leanings, claiming to know the absolute Truth is claiming to know something that, by its very nature, cannot be known absolutely.
I must, I admit, view anyone who claims to know the absolute truth with a great deal of sudden and intense doubt - for Truth, as stated above, must be absolute. Truth must be recognizable to all. Truth must be so true that it is not capable of being doubted...and so far, there is nothing I have learned that fulfills that last requirement. Given, this is not to say I will never learn something that does, but it has not happened yet, and so far as I can tell, not to anyone else throughout the course of recorded history.
Part of the truth, indeed, is a far cry from truth in its whole and unblemished entirety, and it would be a shame indeed to deny the entire sky for a single star.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
How, then, shall we view the masses?
The many, the humble, the ignorant, the mediocre?
I have taken this post nearly word for word from an assignment I have completed for my philosophy course upon reading Dostoevsky's tale of the Grand Inquisitor, omitting only insignificant details in respect to others' privacy.
May it lead you, my dear reader, to further doubts and questions regarding the state of your soul, your faith, and indeed, your very existence.
"As _____ stated in the very first post, this is, indeed, difficult reading. I found myself at several points making the same objections _____ did - but, humanity is glorious! We are strong! We are wonderful! We possess choice, and this is the gift which God has given us!
We are up to the challenge.
At this point, I came to my most uncomfortable realization.
We're not.
The Inquisitor, in a sense, is right. While he does, in the end, release the prisoner, while he does retain the warmth of that kiss in his heart, he refuses to depart from his love of humanity.
Indeed, how could he?
Being a student of Christ and a student of humanity, he had no other option.
I have returned, at _____'s gentle (and likely entirely accidental) prodding, to my old haunt - a forum I frequented in my youth, and may yet frequent, driven by the protective glow of my memories.
I am not there, however, as an equal to the children who call it their home - rather, I am their older brother, I am their caretaker, I am their protector, I am their guardian and their shield, I am loved and adored there still: and it makes my very soul sick.
It makes my heart ache to know that these children - mere children! - are destined to lives of ignorance, not by force, but by choice. That they long to give up their bread, to push away their freedom, to sacrifice it to another.
And so I take their bread. I shepherd these children in the ways of doubt, I assuage their pain and restore their broken confidence, I stand as the impenetrable wall between them and all who would assault them.
For I remember only all too well the days of living among an online community - of dedicating myself to those I had only met through lines of text and disembodied voices in my ear, living all over this forsaken planet. Of loving them, caring for them, needing them.
I remember all too well the days of doubt, of captivity and fear, and the comfort which lies in the protection of others.
Now, of course, that I have left these things behind, I see the behaviors in others still - and I have no recourse left but to act as their Grand Inquisitor.
I cherish these children - As representatives of humanity, as individual sparks in this sea of light, I could even be said to love them in my way. I believe that humanity is worth protecting.
With that in mind, I am confronted with the dilemma brutal honesty brings: those that need protecting aren't worth protecting, as the effort devoted to their protection is effort taken from the reach for ever greater glory, learning and discovery - in my own way, I sin.
Rather than reaching for God myself, I acknowledge with some wistfulness that although I possess that capability, though I possess that strength of spirit, that very spirit bestows upon me the duty to protect those who will not, who cannot do the same.
The Inquisitor presents us with a difficult dilemma.
Yes, humans possess the ability to choose freedom. We possess free will, we possess consciousness, we possess awareness - the problem lies, however, in the fact that many of us simply don't desire it. In the vast fearfulness of an entire universe laid bare to our wondering eyes, many of us - the huddled masses, the poor in spirit, the weak and the ignorant - choose to screw our eyes tightly shut and beg Jesus to make it all go away. We don't want fear, we don't want wonder, we don't want insecurity or uncertainty - we want love, unfettered and unconditional. We want a mother's embrace, the relief and security of a stalwart guardian's strong arms bearing sharpened sword and plated shield.
What, then, of those who take up the sword and shield? Who crusade against certainty, who assail the fortresses of ignorance and hatred with questing darts of curiosity, who plant seeds of doubt in the mortar of blind ignorance?
First, we are hated. If we are weak, we succumb and apologize, lay down arms and stop asking questions. Sometimes we join a church, sometimes we simply settle down to our basic duty as humans to produce offspring and foster generations to come.
If we are strong, however, we stand fast. We shatter the arrows of hatred upon our shields of doubt and cut through certainty with blades of curiosity.
And what then? Why, we are loved.
We are suddenly revered as pillars of knowledge - knowledge we often don't have - and held up as role models for entire communities. We are feared and awed, and approached with the meekest timidity, if at all.
We have, in essence, taken God's place. Others come to us to ask who to worship and how to worship them. They come to us to reinforce their faith, when we were the ones who tore it down in the first place.
At this point, another transformation has the potential to take place.
At this point as well, a crucial question must be asked: where does our love lie? Does it lie with the divine, with the growth of love and learning and knowledge? Do we dare to explore more and more of the world outside the cave?
Or does our love lie with humanity? Do we reject God, reject the divine, in order to call to our fellows dancing with shadows and lead them into the light? Do we sin in our deception of our weaker brethren while we take their hands and give them succor in their fear?
Which shall we choose? In our love of humanity, do we reject God? Or in our love of God, do we reject humanity?
At this point, I don't have an answer - but I must admit that the Grand Inquisitor frames it in such a way that I'm sure it will be nestling in the back of my mind for weeks, months, possibly even years to come.
The profound is rarely satisfying, it seems - the greatest questions lead only to more of the same, while only a combination of fear and the basest answers truly sate the appetite of curiosity.
I have taken this post nearly word for word from an assignment I have completed for my philosophy course upon reading Dostoevsky's tale of the Grand Inquisitor, omitting only insignificant details in respect to others' privacy.
May it lead you, my dear reader, to further doubts and questions regarding the state of your soul, your faith, and indeed, your very existence.
"As _____ stated in the very first post, this is, indeed, difficult reading. I found myself at several points making the same objections _____ did - but, humanity is glorious! We are strong! We are wonderful! We possess choice, and this is the gift which God has given us!
We are up to the challenge.
At this point, I came to my most uncomfortable realization.
We're not.
The Inquisitor, in a sense, is right. While he does, in the end, release the prisoner, while he does retain the warmth of that kiss in his heart, he refuses to depart from his love of humanity.
Indeed, how could he?
Being a student of Christ and a student of humanity, he had no other option.
I have returned, at _____'s gentle (and likely entirely accidental) prodding, to my old haunt - a forum I frequented in my youth, and may yet frequent, driven by the protective glow of my memories.
I am not there, however, as an equal to the children who call it their home - rather, I am their older brother, I am their caretaker, I am their protector, I am their guardian and their shield, I am loved and adored there still: and it makes my very soul sick.
It makes my heart ache to know that these children - mere children! - are destined to lives of ignorance, not by force, but by choice. That they long to give up their bread, to push away their freedom, to sacrifice it to another.
And so I take their bread. I shepherd these children in the ways of doubt, I assuage their pain and restore their broken confidence, I stand as the impenetrable wall between them and all who would assault them.
For I remember only all too well the days of living among an online community - of dedicating myself to those I had only met through lines of text and disembodied voices in my ear, living all over this forsaken planet. Of loving them, caring for them, needing them.
I remember all too well the days of doubt, of captivity and fear, and the comfort which lies in the protection of others.
Now, of course, that I have left these things behind, I see the behaviors in others still - and I have no recourse left but to act as their Grand Inquisitor.
I cherish these children - As representatives of humanity, as individual sparks in this sea of light, I could even be said to love them in my way. I believe that humanity is worth protecting.
With that in mind, I am confronted with the dilemma brutal honesty brings: those that need protecting aren't worth protecting, as the effort devoted to their protection is effort taken from the reach for ever greater glory, learning and discovery - in my own way, I sin.
Rather than reaching for God myself, I acknowledge with some wistfulness that although I possess that capability, though I possess that strength of spirit, that very spirit bestows upon me the duty to protect those who will not, who cannot do the same.
The Inquisitor presents us with a difficult dilemma.
Yes, humans possess the ability to choose freedom. We possess free will, we possess consciousness, we possess awareness - the problem lies, however, in the fact that many of us simply don't desire it. In the vast fearfulness of an entire universe laid bare to our wondering eyes, many of us - the huddled masses, the poor in spirit, the weak and the ignorant - choose to screw our eyes tightly shut and beg Jesus to make it all go away. We don't want fear, we don't want wonder, we don't want insecurity or uncertainty - we want love, unfettered and unconditional. We want a mother's embrace, the relief and security of a stalwart guardian's strong arms bearing sharpened sword and plated shield.
What, then, of those who take up the sword and shield? Who crusade against certainty, who assail the fortresses of ignorance and hatred with questing darts of curiosity, who plant seeds of doubt in the mortar of blind ignorance?
First, we are hated. If we are weak, we succumb and apologize, lay down arms and stop asking questions. Sometimes we join a church, sometimes we simply settle down to our basic duty as humans to produce offspring and foster generations to come.
If we are strong, however, we stand fast. We shatter the arrows of hatred upon our shields of doubt and cut through certainty with blades of curiosity.
And what then? Why, we are loved.
We are suddenly revered as pillars of knowledge - knowledge we often don't have - and held up as role models for entire communities. We are feared and awed, and approached with the meekest timidity, if at all.
We have, in essence, taken God's place. Others come to us to ask who to worship and how to worship them. They come to us to reinforce their faith, when we were the ones who tore it down in the first place.
At this point, another transformation has the potential to take place.
At this point as well, a crucial question must be asked: where does our love lie? Does it lie with the divine, with the growth of love and learning and knowledge? Do we dare to explore more and more of the world outside the cave?
Or does our love lie with humanity? Do we reject God, reject the divine, in order to call to our fellows dancing with shadows and lead them into the light? Do we sin in our deception of our weaker brethren while we take their hands and give them succor in their fear?
Which shall we choose? In our love of humanity, do we reject God? Or in our love of God, do we reject humanity?
At this point, I don't have an answer - but I must admit that the Grand Inquisitor frames it in such a way that I'm sure it will be nestling in the back of my mind for weeks, months, possibly even years to come.
The profound is rarely satisfying, it seems - the greatest questions lead only to more of the same, while only a combination of fear and the basest answers truly sate the appetite of curiosity.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Making Barfing Sound Pretty, Among Other Things
Yeah, so it's the end of the class.
I think I did okay in a few of the discussion bits here and there, I'm pretty sure I failed the quizzes miserably due to the fact that I missed most of them entirely and didn't realize it until tonight, and I honestly couldn't care less whether I did okay in the blog bit, because the fact of the matter is that I've enjoyed the hell out of blogging.
If I fail the class...well, I enjoyed it, I actually learned new things for the first time since junior high, and the instructor was fantastic (Mark, I know - or hope, rather - that you're reading this at some point in time. You've been great!). With all in mind, I suppose that if I do fail, it's worth it anyway.
In any case, back to blogging. It's like writing. On a daily basis. Except it's not really writing. It's more like regurgitating as-yet unformed thoughts onto a keyboard, at which point they spill from your fingers in tiny rivulets of creativity and become words, dancing across a lovely little white box of text in perfectly aligned chorus lines of ideas.
I have to admit, as well, that there's some satisfaction in making barfing sound pretty.
...
Gotcha. =)
Now then - down to the assignment. For this one, I'm to pick a vanity blog (sorry, Justine) and an information blog (sorry, Scott).
Now, while I don't know either of these folks in person, I positively adore their writing. Also, Justine uses the same distortion of the word "love" that my fiancee and I do, which, I must admit, while the slightest bit creepy, is made awesome by the fact that Mrs. Larbalestier is that rarest of all creatures: a real writer. Not just a wordsmith such as myself, or a budding poet such as my fiancee, but an actual writer. Someone who gets paid actual money to write actual stories about not-so-actual things. Which, of course, being the geeky type I am, I've always wanted to do and never gotten around to.
Of course, her blog has very little to do with actually writing and more to do with life in general - in a very entertaining way. Writing is a way of meeting someone without seeing them (minus the creepiness). To a wordsmith, words are personal - they're part of your soul. When you create sentences, put them down on paper, you are giving birth and these are your children. When people see you, they don't just say your name, they know you by your writing as well. They know your personality, your likes, your dislikes, and your opinions. They know your tendencies, your habits, and that odd mutter you develop in the middle of the night.
Such is the power of writing.
And such is the power of a blog written by those rarefied people who must write - and Justine Larbalestier positively exudes that particular glow. It's as if rather than sitting down and straining, fighting the words to get them to settle down in a nice neat row on paper, they joyously flow from her fingertips, dancing in ecstacy at the touch of an enthusiastic practitioner.
As such, her blog - while not expressly about writing - is a joy to read, nonetheless.
Her husband, on the other hand, is another story entirely - no pun intended. While just as much a writer as his wife, with the same deft touch and finely honed skill, his blog is entirely about writing. Writing workshops, writing quotes, writing interviews, writing ideas, writing hints, writing guidance.
He may as well call it "Westerwrite". Except "Westerblog" sounds cooler. And a little bit more sophisticated. And just very slightly urbane, although not so much that it'll scare off the teens looking to be really cool despite the fact that they're reading a writer's blog. Although, of course, when you think about it...the whole idea is really very clever. By the time the teen realizes they've been sucked in by a writer's blog pretending to be cool (because we all know writers can't be cool. Cool people wear sunglasses, and it's a well-known fact that writers enjoy sunshine. Rain, after all, gets our pages wet), they're already so caught up in Scott's cuttingly caustic cunning that they've stopped caring about coolness in the refreshing flow of genuinely well-written words.
Of course, these two are a rarity in today's blogosphere. In this social community, as in all others, there is a sparkling upper crust of glory which must be supported by the dense, monotonous press of mediocrity underneath. Blogs like this one - hell, even I don't know what that is - or this one, which seems to be...a series of pictures aimed at getting you to rack up an enormous phone bill? I really can't tell.
Don't say I didn't warn you, though. Just in case.
With this in mind...my thesis hasn't changed. I still think that blogging is slowly but surely revolutionizing the world of journalism, and I think that it's perfectly suited for opening up a whole new universe of relationships and connections that most of us never even knew were possible.
Here's to the future - may it be entirely devoid of law-enforced plastic surgery.
I think I did okay in a few of the discussion bits here and there, I'm pretty sure I failed the quizzes miserably due to the fact that I missed most of them entirely and didn't realize it until tonight, and I honestly couldn't care less whether I did okay in the blog bit, because the fact of the matter is that I've enjoyed the hell out of blogging.
If I fail the class...well, I enjoyed it, I actually learned new things for the first time since junior high, and the instructor was fantastic (Mark, I know - or hope, rather - that you're reading this at some point in time. You've been great!). With all in mind, I suppose that if I do fail, it's worth it anyway.
In any case, back to blogging. It's like writing. On a daily basis. Except it's not really writing. It's more like regurgitating as-yet unformed thoughts onto a keyboard, at which point they spill from your fingers in tiny rivulets of creativity and become words, dancing across a lovely little white box of text in perfectly aligned chorus lines of ideas.
I have to admit, as well, that there's some satisfaction in making barfing sound pretty.
...
Gotcha. =)
Now then - down to the assignment. For this one, I'm to pick a vanity blog (sorry, Justine) and an information blog (sorry, Scott).
Now, while I don't know either of these folks in person, I positively adore their writing. Also, Justine uses the same distortion of the word "love" that my fiancee and I do, which, I must admit, while the slightest bit creepy, is made awesome by the fact that Mrs. Larbalestier is that rarest of all creatures: a real writer. Not just a wordsmith such as myself, or a budding poet such as my fiancee, but an actual writer. Someone who gets paid actual money to write actual stories about not-so-actual things. Which, of course, being the geeky type I am, I've always wanted to do and never gotten around to.
Of course, her blog has very little to do with actually writing and more to do with life in general - in a very entertaining way. Writing is a way of meeting someone without seeing them (minus the creepiness). To a wordsmith, words are personal - they're part of your soul. When you create sentences, put them down on paper, you are giving birth and these are your children. When people see you, they don't just say your name, they know you by your writing as well. They know your personality, your likes, your dislikes, and your opinions. They know your tendencies, your habits, and that odd mutter you develop in the middle of the night.
Such is the power of writing.
And such is the power of a blog written by those rarefied people who must write - and Justine Larbalestier positively exudes that particular glow. It's as if rather than sitting down and straining, fighting the words to get them to settle down in a nice neat row on paper, they joyously flow from her fingertips, dancing in ecstacy at the touch of an enthusiastic practitioner.
As such, her blog - while not expressly about writing - is a joy to read, nonetheless.
Her husband, on the other hand, is another story entirely - no pun intended. While just as much a writer as his wife, with the same deft touch and finely honed skill, his blog is entirely about writing. Writing workshops, writing quotes, writing interviews, writing ideas, writing hints, writing guidance.
He may as well call it "Westerwrite". Except "Westerblog" sounds cooler. And a little bit more sophisticated. And just very slightly urbane, although not so much that it'll scare off the teens looking to be really cool despite the fact that they're reading a writer's blog. Although, of course, when you think about it...the whole idea is really very clever. By the time the teen realizes they've been sucked in by a writer's blog pretending to be cool (because we all know writers can't be cool. Cool people wear sunglasses, and it's a well-known fact that writers enjoy sunshine. Rain, after all, gets our pages wet), they're already so caught up in Scott's cuttingly caustic cunning that they've stopped caring about coolness in the refreshing flow of genuinely well-written words.
Of course, these two are a rarity in today's blogosphere. In this social community, as in all others, there is a sparkling upper crust of glory which must be supported by the dense, monotonous press of mediocrity underneath. Blogs like this one - hell, even I don't know what that is - or this one, which seems to be...a series of pictures aimed at getting you to rack up an enormous phone bill? I really can't tell.
Don't say I didn't warn you, though. Just in case.
With this in mind...my thesis hasn't changed. I still think that blogging is slowly but surely revolutionizing the world of journalism, and I think that it's perfectly suited for opening up a whole new universe of relationships and connections that most of us never even knew were possible.
Here's to the future - may it be entirely devoid of law-enforced plastic surgery.
O, I See Wut U Did Thar!
(Paraphrased) What is your favorite ad? Why is it your favorite, and what makes it effective?
Word of mouth=EPIC WIN.
First of all, this is a webcomic (by the way, xkcd apparently has more webcomic than Wikipedia). It is one of the few webcomics I read on a daily basis (the others are, of course, Ctrl-Alt-Del and Order of the Stick, if only because 8-Bit Theater doesn't have an RSS feed I can use with my Google homepage). It is written by a genius. Also illustrated and colored.
The man is amazing, I tell you. I don't have that much talent in my right pinky toe. Probably because it has a funny habit of going numb when I get cold.
That said, the most effective ad I've ever seen is on that page. You see the sidebar? The one with the blip about today's comic? Look lower. No, not there, we're not donating right now. We're not going to Dayfree Press either.
There. You see it? That little line of text, the one that says "recommended reading"?
That is the single most effective ad I've ever seen. It is the reason I read Dr. McNinja, Overcompensating, and Indietits. It is amazing. And hypnotic.
Like Picard.
Why is it effective? Because it is full of recommended reading from Jeph Jacques. This means that it is guaranteed to create laughter from nothing except for air and maybe a little bit of alcohol (if that's your thing. I don't like alcohol myself. My dad used to drink it and get angry, and boy, that just sucked. It's most of the reason I've been straightedge for the past three years).
There you go.
(Paraphrasing again) Which ads don't you like? Why not?
Ehhh...anything except for recommended reading from my favorite webcomics? I use the adblock extension with Firefox, so I don't see ads when I'm surfing the net.
I don't watch TV, so I don't see commercials.
I don't listen to the radio, so I don't hear those ads.
I don't drive and I read in the car when someone else is driving, so I don't see billboards.
I don't read magazines or newspapers, so I don't see those ads, either.
Oh, and the ads that randomly get dropped off in your mailbox? They are the cozy lining that keeps my real mail warm. I like them.
So uhh...yeah. Ads are bad, mmk?
Also, this is going in my blog. With better linkage.
Clicky clicky!
I told you.
Word of mouth=EPIC WIN.
First of all, this is a webcomic (by the way, xkcd apparently has more webcomic than Wikipedia). It is one of the few webcomics I read on a daily basis (the others are, of course, Ctrl-Alt-Del and Order of the Stick, if only because 8-Bit Theater doesn't have an RSS feed I can use with my Google homepage). It is written by a genius. Also illustrated and colored.
The man is amazing, I tell you. I don't have that much talent in my right pinky toe. Probably because it has a funny habit of going numb when I get cold.
That said, the most effective ad I've ever seen is on that page. You see the sidebar? The one with the blip about today's comic? Look lower. No, not there, we're not donating right now. We're not going to Dayfree Press either.
There. You see it? That little line of text, the one that says "recommended reading"?
That is the single most effective ad I've ever seen. It is the reason I read Dr. McNinja, Overcompensating, and Indietits. It is amazing. And hypnotic.
Like Picard.
Why is it effective? Because it is full of recommended reading from Jeph Jacques. This means that it is guaranteed to create laughter from nothing except for air and maybe a little bit of alcohol (if that's your thing. I don't like alcohol myself. My dad used to drink it and get angry, and boy, that just sucked. It's most of the reason I've been straightedge for the past three years).
There you go.
(Paraphrasing again) Which ads don't you like? Why not?
Ehhh...anything except for recommended reading from my favorite webcomics? I use the adblock extension with Firefox, so I don't see ads when I'm surfing the net.
I don't watch TV, so I don't see commercials.
I don't listen to the radio, so I don't hear those ads.
I don't drive and I read in the car when someone else is driving, so I don't see billboards.
I don't read magazines or newspapers, so I don't see those ads, either.
Oh, and the ads that randomly get dropped off in your mailbox? They are the cozy lining that keeps my real mail warm. I like them.
So uhh...yeah. Ads are bad, mmk?
Also, this is going in my blog. With better linkage.
Clicky clicky!
I told you.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Update
Hitman was awesome. Guns, swords, explosions, bad dialogue, improbable international intrigue, and bald dudes kicking ass. What more could a Bruce Willis/Vin Diesel fan ask for?
Question of the day:
Why do you/don't you believe in God? And no shallow answers - what really makes you want to believe in it or not?
Question of the day:
Why do you/don't you believe in God? And no shallow answers - what really makes you want to believe in it or not?
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Oh, my.
Anonymous vs. The Church of Scientology.
The power of the internets compels you!
...Oughta be interesting to see how this turns out.
The power of the internets compels you!
...Oughta be interesting to see how this turns out.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Alright, so bugger this.
So I wrote this blog entry for class, right?
And I wrote it twice. Because I'm that persistent. And because tonight, for some damned reason, Firefox and blogger - two perfectly wonderful pieces of software brilliance - just won't work.
Anywho, my e-zines (yeah, this was clever. Twice. But not now. Not now, M$ - you have sapped my creative energy. Twice. How could you.) are the following:
Torrentfreak, and ironically enough, the Wired e-zine article about things that suck. I should email them this blog. See if they accept it. Bet they wouldn't. I mean, really, who wants to read another blog ranting about a company that everybody loves to rant about anyway? See?
More things that suck.
Anyway, back to the whole buggery of the class thing - Wired=more professional. It's pretty, it's clever, it's smart, it's funny, it's damned sexy. Wired Magazine is in every geek's harem of "other computers". That's right, we don't have significant others, we have computers. And even if we do have significant others, we have computers anyway.
Torrentfreak, on the other hand? Along with Ars Technica, Techdirt, and p2pNet, it's relevant. It's immediate, it's entertaining, it's reliable, and I check it at least twice daily.
In the end, I must admit that while Wired may be seriously cool, slick, and full of awesome features, I trust torrentfreak more. It's not on a corporate leash, it doesn't make loads of money, and what little money it does make, it puts towards good causes.
Now then. I'm tired, I'm cranky, I wanna get on watching Hitman.
Stay tuned.
And I wrote it twice. Because I'm that persistent. And because tonight, for some damned reason, Firefox and blogger - two perfectly wonderful pieces of software brilliance - just won't work.
Anywho, my e-zines (yeah, this was clever. Twice. But not now. Not now, M$ - you have sapped my creative energy. Twice. How could you.) are the following:
Torrentfreak, and ironically enough, the Wired e-zine article about things that suck. I should email them this blog. See if they accept it. Bet they wouldn't. I mean, really, who wants to read another blog ranting about a company that everybody loves to rant about anyway? See?
More things that suck.
Anyway, back to the whole buggery of the class thing - Wired=more professional. It's pretty, it's clever, it's smart, it's funny, it's damned sexy. Wired Magazine is in every geek's harem of "other computers". That's right, we don't have significant others, we have computers. And even if we do have significant others, we have computers anyway.
Torrentfreak, on the other hand? Along with Ars Technica, Techdirt, and p2pNet, it's relevant. It's immediate, it's entertaining, it's reliable, and I check it at least twice daily.
In the end, I must admit that while Wired may be seriously cool, slick, and full of awesome features, I trust torrentfreak more. It's not on a corporate leash, it doesn't make loads of money, and what little money it does make, it puts towards good causes.
Now then. I'm tired, I'm cranky, I wanna get on watching Hitman.
Stay tuned.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
It's About Time.
I think the video pretty much speaks for itself here.
The story, though - apparently, European politicians have beaten their American counterparts to the punch. Greens EFA and RåFILM collaborated to create the above advertisement promoting the new "I Wouldn't Steal" pro-filesharing campaign. They've already made their work available via bittorrent, and their website doesn't exactly beat around the bush when it comes to their beliefs on filesharing:
"We believe that consumers are willing to pay if offered good quality at a fair price. We also believe that sharing is expanding culture – not killing it."
They don't stop there, either. They go so far as to back up what so-called "pirates" - these villains of the internet - have been saying for years: that, contrary to what the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to convince consumers this entire time, "making a copy is fundamentally different from stealing."
Essentially, these are politicians - a cohesive, unified group of them with a total of 42 seats in the European parliament. They have spoken in support of consumer rights, net neutrality, and artists' rights, and they have made it quite clear that they stand opposed to the media industry's attempts to "adapt laws to criminalize sharing, turning consumers into criminals" and the "faulty propaganda" it churns out in the process.
Stay tuned.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Back to Work.
I'm pretty sure that Whatever qualifies as an entrepreneurial blog.
As far as blogs go that talk about blogging as a way of business promotion, I dug up this blog on celebrity-copulation for popularity, specifically by reading Scalzi's post on it while listening to the Braindead Monkeys' latest album "Haiku".
As far as the first blog goes, I have to say that Scalzi's interpretation is pretty spot-on. Star-fuckery (am I allowed to say that here?) is unattractive and messy, and nobody likes attention-whoring anyway.
I mean, really. "Exploring ways of working together in win-win ways." "pick 5 top-100 blogs that I felt worked well with my target market". "engage in social media marketing campaigns". Or my favorite, "Doing public speaking. Sort of a like a party, right? But it’s a party where everyone is listening to you".
Seriously now, children.
Yes, blogging can be used as a way to attract a larger audience to one's products, viewpoints, etc. For example, I found Scalzi's blog when I stumbled across one of his more entertaining posts, and now I buy his books. Before, I had never even heard of the guy (sorry, John!).
On the other hand, though, blogs certainly aren't the one and only way to market oneself to the public. One way, for example, is to just put your stuff out there and hope to god people notice. You can contact advertising agencies if you've got enough money. You can use word of mouth - talk to your buddy, who will talk to their buddy who will talk to their buddy and so on.
Most of all, though...put out a quality product. If Scalzi's writing sucked, I wouldn't read his blog or his books. If the Braindead Monkeys didn't make...noise...that broke the suck-o-meter so hard it divided by zero and looped back into the realm of pure friggin' awesome, I wouldn't listen to it.
As for what a blog can do that other things can't? Well, reach a massive online audience, for one. Serve as a home for certain elements of internet culture nothing else really can (LOLcats, anyone?). Make your material available internationally, 24/7, for peer review.
Most of all, though, it allows you to connect to your audience. Talk with people you've never met before, let them talk with you, get to know people, broaden your horizons, and hopefully, with a little luck, learn a little bit.
Are blogs effective alternatives to sucking? No. Nothing on the internet is an alternative to sucking.
Go outside.
Really.
To actually answer the question of whether blogs are a viable alternative for other methods of advertising for up-and-coming entrepeneurs, though...not so much a viable alternative as a worthwhile addition. while blogging isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of entrepreneurial advertising, it certainly doesn't hurt.
Most of the time.
As the Braindead Monkeys say,
"Anyone can suck.
But we make it an art form.
Please to kill us now!"
As far as blogs go that talk about blogging as a way of business promotion, I dug up this blog on celebrity-copulation for popularity, specifically by reading Scalzi's post on it while listening to the Braindead Monkeys' latest album "Haiku".
As far as the first blog goes, I have to say that Scalzi's interpretation is pretty spot-on. Star-fuckery (am I allowed to say that here?) is unattractive and messy, and nobody likes attention-whoring anyway.
I mean, really. "Exploring ways of working together in win-win ways." "pick 5 top-100 blogs that I felt worked well with my target market". "engage in social media marketing campaigns". Or my favorite, "Doing public speaking. Sort of a like a party, right? But it’s a party where everyone is listening to you".
Seriously now, children.
Yes, blogging can be used as a way to attract a larger audience to one's products, viewpoints, etc. For example, I found Scalzi's blog when I stumbled across one of his more entertaining posts, and now I buy his books. Before, I had never even heard of the guy (sorry, John!).
On the other hand, though, blogs certainly aren't the one and only way to market oneself to the public. One way, for example, is to just put your stuff out there and hope to god people notice. You can contact advertising agencies if you've got enough money. You can use word of mouth - talk to your buddy, who will talk to their buddy who will talk to their buddy and so on.
Most of all, though...put out a quality product. If Scalzi's writing sucked, I wouldn't read his blog or his books. If the Braindead Monkeys didn't make...noise...that broke the suck-o-meter so hard it divided by zero and looped back into the realm of pure friggin' awesome, I wouldn't listen to it.
As for what a blog can do that other things can't? Well, reach a massive online audience, for one. Serve as a home for certain elements of internet culture nothing else really can (LOLcats, anyone?). Make your material available internationally, 24/7, for peer review.
Most of all, though, it allows you to connect to your audience. Talk with people you've never met before, let them talk with you, get to know people, broaden your horizons, and hopefully, with a little luck, learn a little bit.
Are blogs effective alternatives to sucking? No. Nothing on the internet is an alternative to sucking.
Go outside.
Really.
To actually answer the question of whether blogs are a viable alternative for other methods of advertising for up-and-coming entrepeneurs, though...not so much a viable alternative as a worthwhile addition. while blogging isn't exactly the be-all and end-all of entrepreneurial advertising, it certainly doesn't hurt.
Most of the time.
As the Braindead Monkeys say,
"Anyone can suck.
But we make it an art form.
Please to kill us now!"
...Not much you can say to that.
John Scalzi captures the essence of SF.
"Now excuse me, I'm off to write science fiction."
You do that, John. I'll get back to you in 50 years or so, 'kay?
"Now excuse me, I'm off to write science fiction."
You do that, John. I'll get back to you in 50 years or so, 'kay?
Thursday, January 10, 2008
A quick break to talk about the future of music
Okay, taking a quick intercession here to comment on the current state of affairs in the music biz...
This was originally written in response to a discussion board question concerning the future of music in the digital age, but I figure it's worth reposting here with a few slight alterations to take the class references out of it.
There is no future for the physical, major label record store. The age of the record store is over - the age of the independent and independently marketed artist has begun.
With bands such as Harvey Danger, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails, and artists such as 50 Cent, Saul Williams, and Dave Peters openly defying the major record labels and artists willing and able to promote themselves and sell their own product sans middleman, the days where the record labels are able to get away with their monopolistic behavior are swiftly drawing to a close.
A self-described on and off insider in the major record labels had this to say:
"For the major labels, it's over. It's f___ing over. You're going to burn to the f___ing ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault."[1]
So-called 'piracy' - or at least what the major record labels would love to make us think is piracy - is bigger, faster, and more widespread than ever. The Canadian police have openly admitted that they are no longer targeting piracy for personal use: "St-Hilaire explained that they rather focus on crimes that actually hurt consumers such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances." (sic)
Dan Glickman, chairman of the MPAA, has publicly announced that "we recognize and we know that we will never stop piracy."[2]
Even artists belonging to these organizations are fighting back against their barrage of lawsuits: "I play in a metal band. We have sold around 200k records across 3 releases. We’re not ‘huge’ by any stretch but do alright and live off (and ON subsequently) the road. Fans and friends ask me all the time how I feel about “stealing music.” I just told someone yesterday “I have a hard time seeing it as stealing…when I don’t see any money from cd sales to begin with.
...
If you want to squeeze an opinion on theft out of me, ask me about the dude that grabbed our tshirt off the table tonight in Detroit or better yet.. ask me about record contracts."
So says Dave Peters, frontman of straightedge hardcore band Throwdown.
Continuing, he puts forth the following provocative statement:
"I encourage our fans to acquire our album however they please. The philosophy I’ve adopted is that if you’re supporting disc sales, you’re keeping the old model around longer…the one that forces dudes like me to tour 9 mos/year if they want to make ends meet with a career in music."
"If you wanna really support a band," he concludes, "“steal” their album….help bury the label….and buy a tshirt when you show up at their show and sing every word."
Even "the ones directly profiting from the sale of digital or physical music" are speaking out in opposition to the current business model being embraced by the major corporations. The recording industry, and record stores with it, are quite simply obsolete. Contrary to what they'd like you to think, record sales are most likely not declining due to piracy. Rather, the companies trying to make the sales are shooting themselves in the foot - repeatedly - in their futile attempts to bully and terrorize their own customers.
Even mainstream artists like 50 Cent have publicly admitted that "What is important for the music industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists".
The future of music is in the internet - middlemen are no longer necessary for musicians to make money or market their product, and as such, record stores, and the major record label conglomerates with them, have been rendered wholly obsolete.
What reason is there to go to a record store if the music is available to download straight to my computer? The major problem here, I think, is the view of record stores as strictly physical entities. If the music is available online, the only possible logical reason to go to an actual store would be a desire for the physical product in analog format. Given the rapidly increasing recognition of lossless audio formats (particularly FLAC) among the throngs of audiophiles populating the internet, however, this reason is rapidly decreasing in actual relevance. On the other hand, the future of the online record store is looking brighter and brighter by the day - all that's required is for the dinosaurs dominating the industry to catch up with current trends and adapt to current events instead of fighting the inexorable momentum of history.
As for reasons other than buying an album to go to a record store...a better place to find fellow music enthusiasts, including band members, would be an online community dedicated exclusively to those who love music - such as the former filesharing site OiNK, loved by industry heavy hitters such as Trent Reznor[3] (frontman of popular industrial group Nine Inch Nails) as well as everyday fans and music enthusiasts.
As much as the major record labels would love people to believe that they're losing millions to piracy, it's actually been strongly suggested by a Canadian government-commissioned independent study to be factually incorrect.
As for ethical implications of downloading? Hopefully, someday, the end of tyranny over music by aging executives who openly admit that they don't know what they're doing. Included in the positive ethical ramifications of filesharing, however, as opposed to negative, are free publicity for the artist as well as the potential for larger audiences than they ever could've reached without the hugely effective word-of-mouth advertising ability provided by P2P (peer-to-peer) technology.
As for the last two questions...
Hypothetically speaking, if I were to download any music for free off of the internet, whether I downloaded it at all would depend quite heavily on the circumstances surrounding the download.
For example, if the artist themselves specifically requested that people not download their music for free, I wouldn't download it.
If, however, the music was copied from CD and made available for free online by an individual who legally obtained that CD with full permission from the artist and all associated entities to reproduce and share the effort represented by and art contained upon the CD as they saw fit...I sincerely doubt that I would see any moral problem at all with downloading it for my own personal use. Continuing to speak hypothetically, if I did download something for free off the internet using the above criteria, I can even see myself sharing what I downloaded with others if I liked it enough.
Contrary to what the RIAA and its cohorts around the globe would like the largely technologically illiterate public to believe, copying is not stealing...unless, of course, the RIAA ends up getting their way in the end, in which case anybody who owns an iPod - or a computer, for that matter - would be well advised to start saving their nickels and dimes in preparation for the lawsuits to come.
When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink, the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide
Steal This Film II, 4:49-4:54
"I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now...I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want."
-Trent Reznor in an interview with New York Magazine, "Trent Reznor and Saul Williams Discuss Their New Collaboration, Mourn OiNK"
This was originally written in response to a discussion board question concerning the future of music in the digital age, but I figure it's worth reposting here with a few slight alterations to take the class references out of it.
There is no future for the physical, major label record store. The age of the record store is over - the age of the independent and independently marketed artist has begun.
With bands such as Harvey Danger, Radiohead, and Nine Inch Nails, and artists such as 50 Cent, Saul Williams, and Dave Peters openly defying the major record labels and artists willing and able to promote themselves and sell their own product sans middleman, the days where the record labels are able to get away with their monopolistic behavior are swiftly drawing to a close.
A self-described on and off insider in the major record labels had this to say:
"For the major labels, it's over. It's f___ing over. You're going to burn to the f___ing ground, and we're all going to dance around the fire. And it's your own fault."[1]
So-called 'piracy' - or at least what the major record labels would love to make us think is piracy - is bigger, faster, and more widespread than ever. The Canadian police have openly admitted that they are no longer targeting piracy for personal use: "St-Hilaire explained that they rather focus on crimes that actually hurt consumers such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances." (sic)
Dan Glickman, chairman of the MPAA, has publicly announced that "we recognize and we know that we will never stop piracy."[2]
Even artists belonging to these organizations are fighting back against their barrage of lawsuits: "I play in a metal band. We have sold around 200k records across 3 releases. We’re not ‘huge’ by any stretch but do alright and live off (and ON subsequently) the road. Fans and friends ask me all the time how I feel about “stealing music.” I just told someone yesterday “I have a hard time seeing it as stealing…when I don’t see any money from cd sales to begin with.
...
If you want to squeeze an opinion on theft out of me, ask me about the dude that grabbed our tshirt off the table tonight in Detroit or better yet.. ask me about record contracts."
So says Dave Peters, frontman of straightedge hardcore band Throwdown.
Continuing, he puts forth the following provocative statement:
"I encourage our fans to acquire our album however they please. The philosophy I’ve adopted is that if you’re supporting disc sales, you’re keeping the old model around longer…the one that forces dudes like me to tour 9 mos/year if they want to make ends meet with a career in music."
"If you wanna really support a band," he concludes, "“steal” their album….help bury the label….and buy a tshirt when you show up at their show and sing every word."
Even "the ones directly profiting from the sale of digital or physical music" are speaking out in opposition to the current business model being embraced by the major corporations. The recording industry, and record stores with it, are quite simply obsolete. Contrary to what they'd like you to think, record sales are most likely not declining due to piracy. Rather, the companies trying to make the sales are shooting themselves in the foot - repeatedly - in their futile attempts to bully and terrorize their own customers.
Even mainstream artists like 50 Cent have publicly admitted that "What is important for the music industry to understand is that this really doesn’t hurt the artists".
The future of music is in the internet - middlemen are no longer necessary for musicians to make money or market their product, and as such, record stores, and the major record label conglomerates with them, have been rendered wholly obsolete.
What reason is there to go to a record store if the music is available to download straight to my computer? The major problem here, I think, is the view of record stores as strictly physical entities. If the music is available online, the only possible logical reason to go to an actual store would be a desire for the physical product in analog format. Given the rapidly increasing recognition of lossless audio formats (particularly FLAC) among the throngs of audiophiles populating the internet, however, this reason is rapidly decreasing in actual relevance. On the other hand, the future of the online record store is looking brighter and brighter by the day - all that's required is for the dinosaurs dominating the industry to catch up with current trends and adapt to current events instead of fighting the inexorable momentum of history.
As for reasons other than buying an album to go to a record store...a better place to find fellow music enthusiasts, including band members, would be an online community dedicated exclusively to those who love music - such as the former filesharing site OiNK, loved by industry heavy hitters such as Trent Reznor[3] (frontman of popular industrial group Nine Inch Nails) as well as everyday fans and music enthusiasts.
As much as the major record labels would love people to believe that they're losing millions to piracy, it's actually been strongly suggested by a Canadian government-commissioned independent study to be factually incorrect.
As for ethical implications of downloading? Hopefully, someday, the end of tyranny over music by aging executives who openly admit that they don't know what they're doing. Included in the positive ethical ramifications of filesharing, however, as opposed to negative, are free publicity for the artist as well as the potential for larger audiences than they ever could've reached without the hugely effective word-of-mouth advertising ability provided by P2P (peer-to-peer) technology.
As for the last two questions...
Hypothetically speaking, if I were to download any music for free off of the internet, whether I downloaded it at all would depend quite heavily on the circumstances surrounding the download.
For example, if the artist themselves specifically requested that people not download their music for free, I wouldn't download it.
If, however, the music was copied from CD and made available for free online by an individual who legally obtained that CD with full permission from the artist and all associated entities to reproduce and share the effort represented by and art contained upon the CD as they saw fit...I sincerely doubt that I would see any moral problem at all with downloading it for my own personal use. Continuing to speak hypothetically, if I did download something for free off the internet using the above criteria, I can even see myself sharing what I downloaded with others if I liked it enough.
Contrary to what the RIAA and its cohorts around the globe would like the largely technologically illiterate public to believe, copying is not stealing...unless, of course, the RIAA ends up getting their way in the end, in which case anybody who owns an iPod - or a computer, for that matter - would be well advised to start saving their nickels and dimes in preparation for the lawsuits to come.
When Pigs Fly: The Death of Oink, the Birth of Dissent, and a Brief History of Record Industry Suicide
Steal This Film II, 4:49-4:54
"I'll admit I had an account there and frequented it quite often. At the end of the day, what made OiNK a great place was that it was like the world's greatest record store. Pretty much anything you could ever imagine, it was there, and it was there in the format you wanted. If OiNK cost anything, I would certainly have paid, but there isn't the equivalent of that in the retail space right now...I'm not saying that I think OiNK is morally correct, but I do know that it existed because it filled a void of what people want."
-Trent Reznor in an interview with New York Magazine, "Trent Reznor and Saul Williams Discuss Their New Collaboration, Mourn OiNK"
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Needs Moar Research!
As we all know, the interwebs are full of LIES (or was that lulz?).
In any case, I'm using them for my research. The hypothesis?
"I am for the following statement: Blogging has significantly impacted the print journalism industry."
Financially affected? Perhaps not. Actually made a dent in sales? Probably not. Changed, though? Certainly.
Blogs can indeed be used as an up to date, reliable resource for specialized information (just take a look at the guys over at Ars Technica or Technorati if you don't believe me), and as far as attracting widespread audiences and influencing journalism go...Look no further.
As for why I'm taking this position? Simple, really - I think that as technology improves, humanity ought to take advantage of it. What's the point of creating neat new things that make life better if we don't use them? Why invent the wheel if we're just gonna sit in our caves and grunt?
Suspicion, paranoia, and maximum lulz: the future of global communication.
OMGWTFBBQ
First post - welcome to the world of a java gremlin.
I'm Brandon, it's 2 in the morning, and I need more coffee.
This, by the way, is a blog that my media and journalism class finally got me to start writing after several months of hemming and hawing around the idea.
Blogs, in my not-so-humble opinion, are to print journalism what the Mpeg-3 format and widespread peer-to-peer technology are to the record industry: death incarnate. Much like the record industry, though, print journalism just hasn't realized it yet. My prediction? Within the next few centuries, paper and ink as methods of communication will not only be wholly obsolete, but quite possibly illegal as well (trees as a finite resource, anyone?).
So yeah. There's my starting position. It's almost two in the morning, though, and I don't have nearly enough caffeine in me to make a thoughtful post of this.
More later. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the day after. We'll see.
I'm Brandon, it's 2 in the morning, and I need more coffee.
This, by the way, is a blog that my media and journalism class finally got me to start writing after several months of hemming and hawing around the idea.
Blogs, in my not-so-humble opinion, are to print journalism what the Mpeg-3 format and widespread peer-to-peer technology are to the record industry: death incarnate. Much like the record industry, though, print journalism just hasn't realized it yet. My prediction? Within the next few centuries, paper and ink as methods of communication will not only be wholly obsolete, but quite possibly illegal as well (trees as a finite resource, anyone?).
So yeah. There's my starting position. It's almost two in the morning, though, and I don't have nearly enough caffeine in me to make a thoughtful post of this.
More later. Maybe tomorrow, maybe the day after. We'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
