Partch

The others (the Partch stuff with vocals) at this link sounds awful but Delusion of the Fury is really refreshing.
http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/piece.pl?pid=199

Scenario: A huge volcano has erupted and lava is fast approaching. You see a hill you can run to and run up away from the lava. But you also see that the lava will quickly overflow the top of the hill. The last rescue helicopter has already left totally full of passengers. From radio communications you know that no one else is left to rescue you. Logically you know that you're going to die.

Do you bother to run up the hill away from the lava? Or since you see that the action is futile and will only prolong your life a minute or two, do you just stand there and let the lava kill you now?

Of course you take off up the hill. And it turns out the going is quite tough. It's muddy. You keep sliding and falling. You're getting out of breath. The going is really quite tough indeed. By the way, why exactly are you going up this hill anyway?

You realize you're hoping that another helicopter will appear and rescue you. In fact, running up this hill is so tough and you've wanted to stop so many times, that in order to continue running you've gone beyond hoping and into believing in the existence of this helicopter.

Whoa! That's illogical! That's ridiculous crap worthy only of derision.

So... how is running up the hill in the first place not illogical?

Such is life. This is the predicament we're all in. There is no logical action to be taken. The fact that we're going up that hill at all is illogical. It is the belief that the helicopter is coming. It is a futile action much like all of life which just has nonexistence waiting at the finish life. And if you do anything other than just stand there, no matter what you say, by what you do, you are showing quite clearly that you believe in the existence of that helicopter.

And so atheism is a contradiction.

It's maybe a very small point. And contradictory atheism certainly appears better than organized religion. Certainly the belief in the helicopter doesn't mean you have to be against evolution, intolerant of homosexuals, etc. And you certainly don't have to run up that hill chanting praises to the great helicopter god and persecuting anyone else running along whom you notice isn't singing.

But this contradiction of atheism. The problem is that in the attempt to know one's self. In the attempt to understand our own subconscious and unconscious, pretending that there is no contradiction in atheism really makes such knowledge impossible. It keeps us instead just floating on the top of our minds, ignoring what is in the depths.

Because so much of what actually makes us happy from day to day is tied into subconscious symbolizations which aren't logical.

But what would happen if these things are uncovered?

Would that not just destroy them?

Is it perhaps better to pretend they're not there in order to keep them there than it is to instead see them, and see how illogical they are and thus destroy them?

Maybe. Perhaps it's more that I just wish my fellow atheists would at least give a bit of respect to the nihilism which is inherent in atheism instead of pretending it's not there....

Why do they pretend it's not there?

I think because they feel locked in a battle with an adversary. Admitting the nihilism would be giving a point, a very big point, to the competition. And, unfortunately the competition, in attempting to combat nihilism is also doing incredible harm. They are against science. Which is a horrifying thing.

Is it actually possible to stand on the fence between the two?

The one trying to combat nihilism but turning earth into a dystopia along the way. The other simply turning a blind eye to their own subconscious, in other words kind of not truly being scientific. The one wants to believe a fantasy. The other wants to ignore crucial data...

36 TET

36 tone equal temperment. Was somewhat difficult. Seemed to take a while. Fought the understanding of the randomness a bit more than usual. To make it longer/better would have taken a long time and not been very much fun. Prefer to start over and this isn't quite so bad to just throw away. I do like having more notes to work with. And 36 was a multiple of the standard 12 note scale thus not quite so foreign... Could potentially just write normal music in it. Near the end I think I came close. Not that that's the goal of course. But ending the song that way felt like having a nuanced resolution of the conflict.

Want to do much more. Slowed down by the fact I don't really like homegrown piano. Really not a very good sounding VST, in my subjective opinion. Just haven't gotten around to buying something else.

I did buy 135 dollar Bose headphones. They're amazing. Although I suspect they'll quickly just become the way music is supposed to sound and everything other than them will just sound like crap.

Another Wonderful Christmas

Eating breakfast at sister's house on christmas morning. It's me, my mother, my wife, my stepfather, my sister, her husband R, her seven year old son T, her one year old son, her mother-in-law, her father-in-law, and her brother-in-law.

I brought a couple of cans of curried lentils and am eating one with a biscuit while everyone else eats bacon, sausage, chili, etc.

7 year old T says, "Why are you eating that?"

I reply, "What do you mean?"

"Why are you eating that?" he repeats.

I respond, "What do you mean? I'm eating it because I'm human and humans have to eat food."

T continues, "But why are you eating something different than everyone else?"

"Because I don't eat meat."

T asks, "Why not?"

"Because I don't want to take part in the killing of animals."

T replies, "But they're already dead so it doesn't matter, right?"

I reply, "When you buy meat it ensures the continued demand for the killing of more animals."

T asks, "Do you wish that everyone would be a vegetarian?"

"Yes I do wish that everyone would be a vegetarian."

T asks, "But why isn't everyone else then?"

"uhh... you'd have to ask them." I respond evasively. I know exactly why but I'm sure his rightwing father doesn't want me to talk to him about all this. This whole conversation has been really awkward for me. T is just now getting old enough to ask intelligent questions.

Later I'm in the kitchen finishing breakfast with my stepfather. My sister's rightwing husband, R, comes in and with a threatening look says to me, "Don't you ever talk about politics with my son again! I don't want you indoctrinating my son to any of your politics!"

It is his son. It may take a village to raise a child in theory. But in practice the parents own that child and no one else is allowed to take part in the raising whatsoever unless they consent.

So I start to say, "I'm sorry..."

And am cut off from anything futher with a very threatening, "That's your last warning!" as he points a finger at me.

I calmly finish my food and then go to the front room and very quietly try to inform my wife and mother that R has again threatened me, thus I don't feel very welcome here and will go ahead and go home now. In truth I really don't respond so well to force. Not well at all. It's seriously in everyone's best interest if I just leave and do so quickly.

My mother exclaims, "What?! Oh come on can't everyone just get along for christmas. R?! R?! What's going on?"

I say quietly to her, "Mom just let it go. Please."

Mom continues loudly, "R? What's going on? T was asking about him being a vegetarianism, isn't he allowed to answer?"

R comes out of kitchen and says, "Well if he'd just keep his mouth shut about politics!"

And suddenly I decide it's time to make it clear that this rightwing dick is not going to force me to shut up. I point at him and with a raised voice say, "You don't fucking tell me to shut up buddy!"

I say it in a scary way. Hard to explain this with words. It's hard to really give the real flavor for all of this I think. Hard to explain how this person tries to control people. Anyway, I don't get angry often. But when I do it's scary. Not to mention I'm a big guy. A former boxer. Six foot four and half, 235 pounds. Very wide shoulders. R is 6'2" 260 but just a big marshmellow. I say it as I sharply backhand punch the door with my right hand as I stalk toward him. R's mom grabs the youngest child and runs out of the room. R stands there looking scared yet idiotically trying to raise a false bravado, the dumbass is acting as if he's preparing to actually get it on with me.

My mom and wife yell, "Emphryio! No!!!"

And he's too stupid to even know how to turn away from a fight. One he'd have no absolutely no chance in. Instead he thinks he's somehow impressing someone with a display of bravado...

And so I quickly turn to pity for this scared idiot. I shake my head and walk out.

With some people it would be possible to reach this point and then civily go back to talking. Talking is equally impossible with him at this point as it's always been from any point. Very generally speaking the Leftist talks things out, explores all options, tries to learn all the facts. While the Rightwinger wants to shield his child from anything that might make him become anything other than a rightwinger. And when unwanted information is spoken, that person must be made to shut up by a show of force. It's essentially just like the O'Reilly Show.

So he tries to do to me, and when I respond by saying, "I'm sorry...", he mistakenly thinks that's the time to be that much more forceful. But the dumbass is a marshmellow for one thing. And way too dumb to understand that although I'm smart enough to get away from such people before I end up in jail, I don't actually just sit there and take crap from them.

I think the anger I showed was the proper response. It's all well and good to talk about reason instead of force. But when someone believes in force, they just use it if they can. Why would you give them the impression that using force works by acting meek in the face of it? Why reinforce that such displays work?

I didn't just scare him though. I'm sure everyone was scared. It's not like a normal person getting angry. I've learned to be extremely careful about ever showing anger. It's possible R's mom will be afraid to ever be near me again just on the basis of that one sentence and those few steps.

Was I right to show anger? I think so.

After I leave my mother continues to slowly go through the roof at R. Turns out that a big part of his problem is he's mad about the health care reform bill passing. Claims I was rubbing his face in it when actually I think the bill's a disaster. But he's far too big a dumbass to comprehend that actually the Left is appalled by this "reform". My mom goes on and on with him until eventually she also gets so mad she decides to leave. But my father-in-law has left to drop off someone. So my 60 year old mom stumbles off through the snow. Till he finally picks her up a mile down the road.

The night before we went to another christmas party where an 86 year old man left in anger because he said someone wouldn't let him sit down. He's hard of hearing and gets confused so nobody is too sure it even happened or who it even was. His daughter left in anger also after yelling the f word a few times.

Just one more christmas party to go.

But there was already a wide gap between his practice and his theory, between the simple painted canvas and the load of ambitious meanings it was expected to shoulder. What a picture was and what it was supposed to be were increasingly proving to be two distinct and irreconcilable things.

As I worked on building a perpetual motion machine I did of course reflect upon the absurdity of what I was doing and what it meant.
Here I was with a BS in mechanical engineering and working on a MS. And I spent some of my free time building these wheels which would hopefully have gravity, the earth's magnetic field, and centrifugal force working against each other like gravity and evaporation work against each other with dams. Absurdity I knew. I knew it well. But still, to effing dream. Even if it didn't work, so what? The wheels were kind of marvelous to look at. And I like making things.

And what did it say though about me? It said that my opinion of humankind was incredibly low. And... at least somewhat justifiably so. Humans are incredibly stupid. But, the thing is, the stupidity really shows when they get together. Working alone, they manage to be pretty intelligent at science. And surely back then, when experiments didn't require millions in funding, if it were possible, many people would have done it. But again, my opinion of mankind was incredibly low. And it was somewhat justifiable.

But I used the same thinking to invent the kokopelli later. A third type of aerosol impactor (first invented 130 and 60 years ago) which worked so well they stole it from me.

What if I today did successfully make a Bessler wheel?

I wouldn't share it. I wouldn't try to tell the world. I'd use it to make a bit of extra electricity for myself. Otherwise... I really don't see any point on giving it to mankind. They wouldn't use it wisely.

not only is it tremendously time consuming but perhaps not all that fulfilling....
In her coming book, "Alone Together"....
wasn't merely a distraction, but it was really confusing him about who he was....

"Alone Together". Post-industrial living. Awful. But people do still desire some aspects of how they once lived. A world where there was far more face to face interaction. Where your house wasn't a fortress and you didn't even know your neighbors. Where instead there was some meaningful connection and you interacted on a daily basis with the people whom live around you. A world where you felt connected to both nature and other people. Facebook and some other things online reveal this desire in people to have such a connection with others. But trying to get it there is like already being dead.

But, it's a good way to keep in touch with all the people that don't live close?

Industrialized society again. Always moving. And walled away in your fortress. TV, internet, car, no one you work with even lives anywhere near you.

What reason is there for me to speak to anyone ever?

Go to work. Slap on a smile. Go home. I don't exist.

...Van Gogh's unoccupired chairs pay respect to a tendency to avoid represtentation of the human figure. Gauguin is there, seated in his armchair, even if we cannot see him - according to this formula.

The breat in the two artists' friendship had become inevitable. When Gauguin decided to leave, he left the ruins of van Gogh's dreams of an artists' community in the South behind. "As you know, I have always considered it idiotic that painters live alone. It is always a loss if one is left to one's own devices", van Gogh had written to his brother, describing his longing for solidarity amongst painters.

"....sooner there will be nothing left... but empty chairs."

"In the 19th century there was an altogether new type of suffering artist: the lonely, lost, despairing artist on the brink of insanity...

"The 19th century was the inhuman century par excellence; the triumph of technology mechanized our lives totally, rendering us stupid; the worship of Mammon has irredemably impoverished mankind, without exception; and a world without God is not only the least moral but als othe least comfortable that can be conceived. As he enters the Present, modern man reaches the inmost circle of hell along his absurd and necessary path of suffering."- Egon Friedell