Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Damned To Fail
We pay the government taxes and fees to provide services to us. In the absence of competition or any motive other than altruism for innovation or efficiency, the work done, the product, or service provided, is often substandard or nonfunctional.
Private enterprise offers another way to recieve services. Since private enterprises must make a profit to survive, they compete with one another for customers, and customer's money. On the one hand, this can lead naturally to innovation as a way of attracting customers. This can also lead to effiency as a means of avoiding waste and overhead costs. On the other hand, often private enterprise results in other strategies such as lying, cheating, and manipulation in order to make a profit, reduce thier overhead costs, and/or attract customers. Thus, the work done, the service, or product, provided by private enterprise is often substandard or nonfunctional.
Private enterprise offers another way to recieve services. Since private enterprises must make a profit to survive, they compete with one another for customers, and customer's money. On the one hand, this can lead naturally to innovation as a way of attracting customers. This can also lead to effiency as a means of avoiding waste and overhead costs. On the other hand, often private enterprise results in other strategies such as lying, cheating, and manipulation in order to make a profit, reduce thier overhead costs, and/or attract customers. Thus, the work done, the service, or product, provided by private enterprise is often substandard or nonfunctional.
Friday, October 15, 2010
IV. The Speed of Time
We apprehend a three dimensional world in time, and in time it has been since its beginning. From the moment at which the infinitely massive, infinitely dense, concentrated singularity explosively began its expansion outwards, creating space as we know it, the universe had a direction. This asymmetry, this basic directionality in the universe, is called Time
Time is change and change in time is irreversible. Time itself is irreversible, unrepeatable, and whether or not it exists outside of consciousness ,(footnote here regarding theories that time does not exist outside of the subjective consciousness)this principle of irreversibility is what time is. It has one fundamental property: direction. It is even misleading to say that time has a direction, in fact time is direction, and everything that inhabits it, the totality of the three dimensional world, can be described in term s of it.
The measurement of time, and its utilization in human communities throughout the world, in other words, the utilitarian concept of time in common practice, is both different and similar to the existence of time in the sense discussed above, as a universe principle. In the prior sense, time is a dimension, and its effect, that of directionality in terms of itself, is detectable throughout the universe. In our human experience, directionality in time is a fundamental irreversible constant present in every aspect of our experience, and this informs time’s utilitarian applications and our measurement practices regarding it. Commonplace linguistic and practical usage of time referents belie a deeper truth: expandable and compressible spacial dimensions – when describing an object like a planet or a peanut – exist in the medium of time. In the English language, in fact, objects are described as being “in” time, and the use of this preposition, and the inherent inside/outside dualism that it implies places objects within time as as if spacial entities, their developments, and space itself, exist in suspension, floating in a moving river of time, to borrow a common traditional metaphor. In any case, spacial entities, their developments, and space is commonly referred to in terms of time, and it seems as if it must be, as if time with its property of irreversibility, provides a ground on which the figures of spacial articulation, that is three-dimensional objects, interact. Yet a paradox lurks within this idea, for it is the expansion of space itself, outward from its beginning with a big bang, that creates the directionality, the endless change, that gives a future and a past to the universe, and thus creates time, which is this property of movement itself.
So then, looking past the immediate perception of time and thus sidestepping the entire question of whether the perception of time is an artifact of our conscious mind itself, a function of the memories we store as biochemicals in our brains, it is clear that if one adopts a cosmological model of universal expansion – at least for the present development of the universe- than one also accepts that the universe has a shape and a direction. Put another way, it is possible to assume a certain consistency between cosmological scales and human scales of time perception In common practice, given a consistent linearity between time as perceived in our own life experiences, and time as perceived in the earth’s fossil record, for example. In short, the action of time seems consistent across many (foot note ref QED Fenneyman) if not all frames of reference. Such an idea relates our sensation of time not inconsistently to the directionality of the universe as a whole, as implied by spacial expansion in one direction since the big bang.
At least one currently popular cosmological model seems to agree with this (citation). The universe, it seems, and space itself, is expanding, and always has been, since the beginning. Before the big bang time did not exist, and neither did anything else. Judging by recent estimates (citation and footnote) of how much mass exists in the universe, some theories indicate that it should, in fact, continue to expand forever. In such a model reversibility, or repeatability, could not exist on any scale. Such a universe of three, four, or more dimensions exists as a great puddle of change spilling forth from an initial point and such universal, infinite expansion of everything in an outward vector implies direction, at least, from an earlier more inward point. On the other hand, as such an expansion is not an expansion into anything, how can it be said to exist? If reality expands into, as it were, itself, than how can we trace its progress , and would the expansion itself be consistent or variable?
The answer comes along with that energy which itself makes it possible for us to know that such expansion exists. That energy is light. Light emitted by stars represents a broadband, high energy radiation. When it is shifted into the red from the perspective of an observer, this means that the object is travelling away from the observer. Fundamentally, this is very close to the audio phenomena of Doppler Shift, in which, for example, an ambulance approaching an observer at high speed, passing the observer and then continuing to speed away into the distance is heard to emit a siren which, from the standpoint of a stationary observer first rises in frequency (perceived as pitch) and then falls as the ambulance approaches and then passes the observer, respectively. This effect occurs from the standpoint of an observer because the sound waves emitted by a moving object are first compressed in the direction of motion with respect to the listener and then elongated as the sound producing source recedes into the distance. Since higher frequencies are perceived as higher pitches, the spacial compression of the wavelength emitted by the sound producing object (the siren in the example above) results in a higher frequency as perceived by the stationary observing listener, though the sound emitted by the siren itself (or any sound producing body in motion) remains consistent.
In terms of light higher frequencies correspond to the blue end of the visible spectrum and lower to the perceived red end, therefore objects in recession with respect to an observer appear to be redish in color, while those in motion towards an observer would appear blueish. Since, according to recent astronomical observations, all other galaxies appear to be redshifted with respect to our vantage point in the Milky Way, one can deduce that in fact these redshifted structures are moving away from us. All apparent large scale structures moving apart from one another seems a credible argument for universal expansion, for spacial expaqnsion. This becomes more complicated, however, if one considers the question of what the universe, what space itself, is expanding into.
Many cosmologists suggest (citation) that the cosmos is not, in fact, expanding into anything, but that space itself is expanding. Stretching, as it were, out into all dimensions. However, since space is more or less nothing, how do we map it in order to understand its direction of expansion. Further, how can we know the shape of the universe?
Space is mapped by the energy that it contains, whether this energy is contained in three- dimensional objects or whether it exists as fields of radiation. Light, or electromagnetic radiation in general, can function as an indicator to map out the shape and development of the cosmos. Radiation, including light, interacts with objects, including our telescopes and other instruments, and offers us a way to theorize about the age, size, direction of motion, or behavior in general;, of cosmological bodies. We look to the galaxies furthest from us, receding, from our perspective on earth, at a rate close to the speed of light, as an indicator of the furthest cusp of spacetime, and the edge of the expanding universe.
Here light emerges again, but this time its function is as a limit. As is well known in popular and professional publications (citation) the speed of light sets certain limitations on the realm of human experience. According to the theory of Special Relativity (citation) frames of reference in motion relative to one another account for the difference in the energies and information perceived by an observing system at rest relative to its own coordinate system and those emitted by a system moving relative to the observers coordinate system (whether or not that system is moving or at rest relative to their own coordinate frame. Further, as a moving system increases in velocity relative to an observer at rest relative to its own coordinate system, the moving system would be seen to elongate in space and become more massive. In addition, it would be observed that a clock present in such a moving system approaching the speed of light in relation to one at rest within a coordinate system would tick slower and slower as the velocity approaches the speed of light. From the standpoint of an observer within the moving system, however, all would progress as usual (or so goes the theory), such an observer would not perceive a change in size, mass, and the clock would tock as before, even Stephen, and the moving system could continue to try to accelerate towards the speed of light.
The problem is that this seems to suggest that in fact the speed of light cannot be exceeded. If, upon approach to it objects mass, and size increase towards infinity and time moves infinitely slower, than the situation becomes similar to trying to cross the threshold of a door by taking a step one half the distance of each previous step. Forgiving for a moment the limit of one’s foot size, which would impose itself on the situation rather quickly, one can see how the situation quickly explodes into an infinity of fractions and the doorway would remain forever unreachable. To try to port this metaphor into our experience of objects moving relative to one another and relative to the speed of light is fairly logical since we have information about objects at a distance do to the radiation, the light that they emit. A system moving faster than itself is not possible, and one moving faster than all energy emitted by it would certainly be invisible, not to say bizarre. Movement exists in relation to a coordinate system perceived to be at rest, or a system at rest relative to its own coordinate system, however if the universe itself is expanding as indicated by the directionality of the time dimension, it is difficult to say that stasis exists objectively anywhere.
Further, if the systems of perception, that is, the systems for receiving information are limited by lightspeed for their reception of radiation-energy than it would be logical that to exceed that would be impossible while inside of such a frame of reference. It also seems impossible to adopt another frame of reference, in practice. Any attempts to break out of this one by crossing the lightspeed limit result in the distortions discussed above, or so goes the theory. Thus, it seems that the speed of light sets a limit on the nature of reality in general. It is interesting to consider, however, if this is true across several orders of magnitude.
This introduces a number of problematic situations. First of all, the galaxies furthest from us, those mentioned above whose light we might hope to use to indicate the furthest visible cusp of the expanding universe, in fact seem to be moving away from us at a rate faster than the speed of light! Further, going the other direction along orders of magnitude, very small particles are sometimes annihilated within atomic reactions in which a particle is said to interact with an anti-particle of the same type (citation). In such reactions it has been argued that in fact what happens is that time is moving backwards as these energies are in motion close to light speed.
With regard to the first situation, that of the galactic recession at super light speed, it is possible to consider that the rate of expansion of space itself is in fact faster than the speed the light from the galaxies is traveling towards us. Thus the velocity of spacial expansion is faster than the velocity of light in space. If the spacial expansion can be utilized to explain the directionality of time, than it could be said that the velocity of time is greater than the velocity of light, and that does not, on the surface seem to make sense.
One partial solution to the problem, however, is to consider the coordinate system from which we are viewing these galaxies from. We too, are in motion, and seeing as the light reaching us from these furthest receding galaxies (as seen by the Hubble Deep Field telescope, citation etc) takes a considerable amount of time to reach us, along with the distortions enacted up on by the gravitational fields of massive objects around which light bends along with space itself, which, according to further relativistic theory, is the cause of gravitation (citation). This introduces still more fascinating problems such as how it is possible that the galaxies furthest from us appear to us to recede from us at a value greater than than of the speed of light. Is this due to some change in the value for the speed of light at the edges of the universe? Or could such a phenomena be caused by our observational position with regard to the universe as a whole?
Space and time, though often conceptually separated in commonplace experience, are tightly united physically and cosmically. Is space itself moving, expanding, faster than the speed of light? Since the Hubble constant is a spacial constant but not a temporal one, could it be said that galaxies expanding along with universe itself could exceed the speed of light? Does this mean that the speed of light might itself be slower than the “speed of time”, which in this case the rate of universal expansion itself?
Time is change and change in time is irreversible. Time itself is irreversible, unrepeatable, and whether or not it exists outside of consciousness ,(footnote here regarding theories that time does not exist outside of the subjective consciousness)this principle of irreversibility is what time is. It has one fundamental property: direction. It is even misleading to say that time has a direction, in fact time is direction, and everything that inhabits it, the totality of the three dimensional world, can be described in term s of it.
The measurement of time, and its utilization in human communities throughout the world, in other words, the utilitarian concept of time in common practice, is both different and similar to the existence of time in the sense discussed above, as a universe principle. In the prior sense, time is a dimension, and its effect, that of directionality in terms of itself, is detectable throughout the universe. In our human experience, directionality in time is a fundamental irreversible constant present in every aspect of our experience, and this informs time’s utilitarian applications and our measurement practices regarding it. Commonplace linguistic and practical usage of time referents belie a deeper truth: expandable and compressible spacial dimensions – when describing an object like a planet or a peanut – exist in the medium of time. In the English language, in fact, objects are described as being “in” time, and the use of this preposition, and the inherent inside/outside dualism that it implies places objects within time as as if spacial entities, their developments, and space itself, exist in suspension, floating in a moving river of time, to borrow a common traditional metaphor. In any case, spacial entities, their developments, and space is commonly referred to in terms of time, and it seems as if it must be, as if time with its property of irreversibility, provides a ground on which the figures of spacial articulation, that is three-dimensional objects, interact. Yet a paradox lurks within this idea, for it is the expansion of space itself, outward from its beginning with a big bang, that creates the directionality, the endless change, that gives a future and a past to the universe, and thus creates time, which is this property of movement itself.
So then, looking past the immediate perception of time and thus sidestepping the entire question of whether the perception of time is an artifact of our conscious mind itself, a function of the memories we store as biochemicals in our brains, it is clear that if one adopts a cosmological model of universal expansion – at least for the present development of the universe- than one also accepts that the universe has a shape and a direction. Put another way, it is possible to assume a certain consistency between cosmological scales and human scales of time perception In common practice, given a consistent linearity between time as perceived in our own life experiences, and time as perceived in the earth’s fossil record, for example. In short, the action of time seems consistent across many (foot note ref QED Fenneyman) if not all frames of reference. Such an idea relates our sensation of time not inconsistently to the directionality of the universe as a whole, as implied by spacial expansion in one direction since the big bang.
At least one currently popular cosmological model seems to agree with this (citation). The universe, it seems, and space itself, is expanding, and always has been, since the beginning. Before the big bang time did not exist, and neither did anything else. Judging by recent estimates (citation and footnote) of how much mass exists in the universe, some theories indicate that it should, in fact, continue to expand forever. In such a model reversibility, or repeatability, could not exist on any scale. Such a universe of three, four, or more dimensions exists as a great puddle of change spilling forth from an initial point and such universal, infinite expansion of everything in an outward vector implies direction, at least, from an earlier more inward point. On the other hand, as such an expansion is not an expansion into anything, how can it be said to exist? If reality expands into, as it were, itself, than how can we trace its progress , and would the expansion itself be consistent or variable?
The answer comes along with that energy which itself makes it possible for us to know that such expansion exists. That energy is light. Light emitted by stars represents a broadband, high energy radiation. When it is shifted into the red from the perspective of an observer, this means that the object is travelling away from the observer. Fundamentally, this is very close to the audio phenomena of Doppler Shift, in which, for example, an ambulance approaching an observer at high speed, passing the observer and then continuing to speed away into the distance is heard to emit a siren which, from the standpoint of a stationary observer first rises in frequency (perceived as pitch) and then falls as the ambulance approaches and then passes the observer, respectively. This effect occurs from the standpoint of an observer because the sound waves emitted by a moving object are first compressed in the direction of motion with respect to the listener and then elongated as the sound producing source recedes into the distance. Since higher frequencies are perceived as higher pitches, the spacial compression of the wavelength emitted by the sound producing object (the siren in the example above) results in a higher frequency as perceived by the stationary observing listener, though the sound emitted by the siren itself (or any sound producing body in motion) remains consistent.
In terms of light higher frequencies correspond to the blue end of the visible spectrum and lower to the perceived red end, therefore objects in recession with respect to an observer appear to be redish in color, while those in motion towards an observer would appear blueish. Since, according to recent astronomical observations, all other galaxies appear to be redshifted with respect to our vantage point in the Milky Way, one can deduce that in fact these redshifted structures are moving away from us. All apparent large scale structures moving apart from one another seems a credible argument for universal expansion, for spacial expaqnsion. This becomes more complicated, however, if one considers the question of what the universe, what space itself, is expanding into.
Many cosmologists suggest (citation) that the cosmos is not, in fact, expanding into anything, but that space itself is expanding. Stretching, as it were, out into all dimensions. However, since space is more or less nothing, how do we map it in order to understand its direction of expansion. Further, how can we know the shape of the universe?
Space is mapped by the energy that it contains, whether this energy is contained in three- dimensional objects or whether it exists as fields of radiation. Light, or electromagnetic radiation in general, can function as an indicator to map out the shape and development of the cosmos. Radiation, including light, interacts with objects, including our telescopes and other instruments, and offers us a way to theorize about the age, size, direction of motion, or behavior in general;, of cosmological bodies. We look to the galaxies furthest from us, receding, from our perspective on earth, at a rate close to the speed of light, as an indicator of the furthest cusp of spacetime, and the edge of the expanding universe.
Here light emerges again, but this time its function is as a limit. As is well known in popular and professional publications (citation) the speed of light sets certain limitations on the realm of human experience. According to the theory of Special Relativity (citation) frames of reference in motion relative to one another account for the difference in the energies and information perceived by an observing system at rest relative to its own coordinate system and those emitted by a system moving relative to the observers coordinate system (whether or not that system is moving or at rest relative to their own coordinate frame. Further, as a moving system increases in velocity relative to an observer at rest relative to its own coordinate system, the moving system would be seen to elongate in space and become more massive. In addition, it would be observed that a clock present in such a moving system approaching the speed of light in relation to one at rest within a coordinate system would tick slower and slower as the velocity approaches the speed of light. From the standpoint of an observer within the moving system, however, all would progress as usual (or so goes the theory), such an observer would not perceive a change in size, mass, and the clock would tock as before, even Stephen, and the moving system could continue to try to accelerate towards the speed of light.
The problem is that this seems to suggest that in fact the speed of light cannot be exceeded. If, upon approach to it objects mass, and size increase towards infinity and time moves infinitely slower, than the situation becomes similar to trying to cross the threshold of a door by taking a step one half the distance of each previous step. Forgiving for a moment the limit of one’s foot size, which would impose itself on the situation rather quickly, one can see how the situation quickly explodes into an infinity of fractions and the doorway would remain forever unreachable. To try to port this metaphor into our experience of objects moving relative to one another and relative to the speed of light is fairly logical since we have information about objects at a distance do to the radiation, the light that they emit. A system moving faster than itself is not possible, and one moving faster than all energy emitted by it would certainly be invisible, not to say bizarre. Movement exists in relation to a coordinate system perceived to be at rest, or a system at rest relative to its own coordinate system, however if the universe itself is expanding as indicated by the directionality of the time dimension, it is difficult to say that stasis exists objectively anywhere.
Further, if the systems of perception, that is, the systems for receiving information are limited by lightspeed for their reception of radiation-energy than it would be logical that to exceed that would be impossible while inside of such a frame of reference. It also seems impossible to adopt another frame of reference, in practice. Any attempts to break out of this one by crossing the lightspeed limit result in the distortions discussed above, or so goes the theory. Thus, it seems that the speed of light sets a limit on the nature of reality in general. It is interesting to consider, however, if this is true across several orders of magnitude.
This introduces a number of problematic situations. First of all, the galaxies furthest from us, those mentioned above whose light we might hope to use to indicate the furthest visible cusp of the expanding universe, in fact seem to be moving away from us at a rate faster than the speed of light! Further, going the other direction along orders of magnitude, very small particles are sometimes annihilated within atomic reactions in which a particle is said to interact with an anti-particle of the same type (citation). In such reactions it has been argued that in fact what happens is that time is moving backwards as these energies are in motion close to light speed.
With regard to the first situation, that of the galactic recession at super light speed, it is possible to consider that the rate of expansion of space itself is in fact faster than the speed the light from the galaxies is traveling towards us. Thus the velocity of spacial expansion is faster than the velocity of light in space. If the spacial expansion can be utilized to explain the directionality of time, than it could be said that the velocity of time is greater than the velocity of light, and that does not, on the surface seem to make sense.
One partial solution to the problem, however, is to consider the coordinate system from which we are viewing these galaxies from. We too, are in motion, and seeing as the light reaching us from these furthest receding galaxies (as seen by the Hubble Deep Field telescope, citation etc) takes a considerable amount of time to reach us, along with the distortions enacted up on by the gravitational fields of massive objects around which light bends along with space itself, which, according to further relativistic theory, is the cause of gravitation (citation). This introduces still more fascinating problems such as how it is possible that the galaxies furthest from us appear to us to recede from us at a value greater than than of the speed of light. Is this due to some change in the value for the speed of light at the edges of the universe? Or could such a phenomena be caused by our observational position with regard to the universe as a whole?
Space and time, though often conceptually separated in commonplace experience, are tightly united physically and cosmically. Is space itself moving, expanding, faster than the speed of light? Since the Hubble constant is a spacial constant but not a temporal one, could it be said that galaxies expanding along with universe itself could exceed the speed of light? Does this mean that the speed of light might itself be slower than the “speed of time”, which in this case the rate of universal expansion itself?
Monday, October 4, 2010
in case anyone is actually reading this
please bear with me, citations are coming and so are some revisions, especially for sloppy number 4.
III. Movement Towards Later
All movement exists in relation to the idea of stillness. Bodies in motion move in relation to bodies at rest with respect to their local coordinate systems (citation). This is how we know they are moving. It could even be imagined that this imaginary quality called stillness is the medium within which movement happens. Still, stillness, like movement, is only relative to a particular situation (a coordinate system, ibid.) being considered. An elevator can be be said to be at rest on the 3rd floor of a building, and yet the planet on which the building itself resides is itself speeding through space, in rotation around both the sun, and about its own axis. Our galaxy, further, is in rotation about its center as well, and in fact, according to Edwin Hubble's slowly (from our coordinate system) stretching "constant" the entire universe is moving, expanding, as evidenced by the the fact that galaxies both distant and local to our own appear red-shifted with respect to us. Everything appears to be in motion, spreading apart, away from us, as the fabric of space itself expands.
Despite the fact that everything else is red-shifted, this does not imply that we are in the center, and are motionless, instead such red-shifted galaxies would be seen from any point in our isometric universe, and thus our own galaxy would appear red-shifted if seen from another, or so goes the theory.
Thus, nothing can really be said to be at rest. Even molecules super-cooled to absolute zero would retain the inertial mass of the coordinate system they exist in, the planet they are on. Yet typically human beings measure time as though we ourselves are at rest, and who can blame us? Our common sense idea of time, and thus of rest, as applied to our utilitarian exploitation of time works just fine.
So then, people characterize time in terms of direction. Tomorrow is in the future. Yet, the systems in place for quantifying and measuring time operates with reference to the three spacial dimensions, in terms of volumes of time, durations. We play out actions in three-dimensional space in terms of these time volumes, and without the implied but not quantified sense of directionality, which is caused by the movement of the expansion of the universe, the movement of space through itself, there would be no before or after. Everything would happen at a point, at once.
So what is time? Time, and the perceived quality of non-repeatability in our universe are analogous and inseparable. What we call time is a perceived vector quality. Time is a direction and a movement within our environment. The strange part is that really, the entire three-dimensional environment is moving, it moves, itself, though time. Everything exists, as it where, in time.
One curious side effect is that although the spacial quantities are reversible, at least to the zero point, time is irreversible. This is curious, because simply put, this is what time is, a principle of irreversibility. We can break time into units, and measure it out quantitatively (this is done despite the lack of any absolute zero state of rest to refer to), but unlike the spacial dimensions, in which reversibility is possible, at least down to zero and further in some cases), in time this simply isn't possible. It goes in one direction, and that maybe is its only attribute. You can lose weight but you can't go back in time.
In fact, when one tries to prove time's existence, the mind finds an irreducible barrier within the concept of non-repeatability. Time has direction, it is direction, in which space and everything in it, everything in our experience and seemingly outside of it, moves. The whole universe is doing it, and that is it, and really all we know about it. Time simply goes. As a certain natural scientist put it "evolution is just one damn thing after another" (citation), and maybe that could be said for time itself, if it wasn't for the fact that the things themselves seem to exist in the medium of time rather than the other way around.
Another curious experience is apparent fluidity of the movement of time. We have all experienced, certainly, at one time or another, the feeling of that time is "flowing" at different rates. This can at times be quite extreme. Waking, for example, from what one thought to be a short rest only to realize that one has slept for hours (if not years in the case of Rip Van Winkle mythologies). To compare such experiences with our imposed regular quantitative divisions of time, that is, clock time, are a source of wonder and amazement, but still all we can say about time is that it moves. It is MOVING. It IS moving. IT is moving. But where is it going? It is going towards Later.
We know this based on one thing: that we cannot go back. Repetition, in a very strict sense, is impossible. Every repetition, in a strict sense, is a new event against the axis of time. It is, at most, a similar shape, in the geometrical sense, if we where to imagine a four dimensional coordinate system with the three spacial axes and time as a fourth axis. The same three dimensional form at two points on the fourth dimensional axis creates a similar form but not the same one.
Perhaps, as present in science fiction and in certain Fenneyman (citation) -esque branches of particle physics (about which, this author admittedly knows almost nothing) retrograde temporal movement is possible. When one finds theories regarding this, they usually are framed in orders of magnitude much smaller or much greater than ours. Some theories about anti-matter particles imply a retrograde temporal movement to account for the existence of these particles but this is on an order of magnitude so much smaller than our own everyday world that very little in fact behaves in similar ways, even though we are made of that world. It seems impossible to experience such a transformation here and, with your pardon, now. No anti-author will appear to annihilate this author. Traveling the other direction, upwards to agreater orders of magnitude of spacetime, should the universe end in a big crunch in which time reverses backwards into an inverse big bang, the experience of this is still quite beyond the scope of our present discussion.
Time has every appearance, and in fact, we find our utility of it in the firm directionality of its development in relation to spacial forms. This directionality is time itself. Although some mathematical models, referred to earlier, describe time and space on a four dimensional coordinate system, and as such, more or less mathematically equivalent to one another, it seems that in some ways they are not equivalent. Spacial events happen in time. Time is, in this sense, the media in which spacial events happen. This idea is very commonly encountered in everyday speech. One doesn't say that time exists inside of an object. Yet an object, like a block of wood, clearly exists in time. The usage illustrates important aspects of how we use time itself, and these are formed by and indeed form our conceptions of what time is itself.
This is why, when in need of quantitative reference for time, we place a grid over it. This grid consists of assigned, regular units marked off according to a reference point, as we do with spacial coordinates. Throughout history, humanity has relied on myriad reference points such as the behavior or the sun and moon, tides, decaying isotopes, and so forth for such reference points, but what are we trying to do with our grid once established? We are trying to see the progression of three-dimensional events. For example, a baby book, in which parents collect photos of their child at regular intervals displays the three dimensional development (two dimensionally, of course, using photos) with reference to a time grid, here a calender. We make such grids to see change more clearly.
To put the problem another way, imagine an object in an environment. The object's environment (set A) is simply the collection of all other objects not object A (our initial object) inside set A. The development of object A (the changes which this object goes through while remaining, for the purposes of a perceiver, object A)in relation to the other objects in set A represents object A's path through time, if not the path of set A itself. All of this can then be set against time grid T, which is based on a regular division of time (which as stated before is simply this quality of irreversible movement in our universe). The relationships between object A within set A (the development discussed earlier), in reference to grid T, and set A's relationship to grid T can be described as a "rate of change", and units from time grid T can be used to describe it. This quantification thus describes both time and space, and both space and time coordinates are necessary to catch a particular bus or arrange a meeting with a person in the center of a crowded city.
Interestingly, this relationship of interdependence between time and space shows up in the tools of calculus, where rate of change is measured and often expressed graphically. Curves have attributes of being analyzable graphs of functions, and in this way share a behavior with other curves, such as those found in nature or in nature as designed by humans - architecture. Curves turn out to be curves whether they represent data about spacetime, or whether they are stone monuments. Still, this conceptual flattening of spacial and linear curves is something of a game. The effect of negating the function of such curves is unfortunately similar to the flattening effect of treating the three spacial values and the time dimension as mere numerical values or variables in a coordinate system when in fact their behavior seems to be very different.
Consider this final point: if time is taken to be a medium of sorts, in which spacial events happen, and irreversible a paradox emerges. Time described as the concept of movement cannot be quantified. When one tries, the best that emerges is the idea of a field. That is not problematic as certainly spacial events can develop against, or better, in, such a field, but that field itself exists in relation to something, since it itself describes a development. What then, is the field of time in development in, what is its medium, given that nothing could exist without or before it? After all, we have never known stillness.
Despite the fact that everything else is red-shifted, this does not imply that we are in the center, and are motionless, instead such red-shifted galaxies would be seen from any point in our isometric universe, and thus our own galaxy would appear red-shifted if seen from another, or so goes the theory.
Thus, nothing can really be said to be at rest. Even molecules super-cooled to absolute zero would retain the inertial mass of the coordinate system they exist in, the planet they are on. Yet typically human beings measure time as though we ourselves are at rest, and who can blame us? Our common sense idea of time, and thus of rest, as applied to our utilitarian exploitation of time works just fine.
So then, people characterize time in terms of direction. Tomorrow is in the future. Yet, the systems in place for quantifying and measuring time operates with reference to the three spacial dimensions, in terms of volumes of time, durations. We play out actions in three-dimensional space in terms of these time volumes, and without the implied but not quantified sense of directionality, which is caused by the movement of the expansion of the universe, the movement of space through itself, there would be no before or after. Everything would happen at a point, at once.
So what is time? Time, and the perceived quality of non-repeatability in our universe are analogous and inseparable. What we call time is a perceived vector quality. Time is a direction and a movement within our environment. The strange part is that really, the entire three-dimensional environment is moving, it moves, itself, though time. Everything exists, as it where, in time.
One curious side effect is that although the spacial quantities are reversible, at least to the zero point, time is irreversible. This is curious, because simply put, this is what time is, a principle of irreversibility. We can break time into units, and measure it out quantitatively (this is done despite the lack of any absolute zero state of rest to refer to), but unlike the spacial dimensions, in which reversibility is possible, at least down to zero and further in some cases), in time this simply isn't possible. It goes in one direction, and that maybe is its only attribute. You can lose weight but you can't go back in time.
In fact, when one tries to prove time's existence, the mind finds an irreducible barrier within the concept of non-repeatability. Time has direction, it is direction, in which space and everything in it, everything in our experience and seemingly outside of it, moves. The whole universe is doing it, and that is it, and really all we know about it. Time simply goes. As a certain natural scientist put it "evolution is just one damn thing after another" (citation), and maybe that could be said for time itself, if it wasn't for the fact that the things themselves seem to exist in the medium of time rather than the other way around.
Another curious experience is apparent fluidity of the movement of time. We have all experienced, certainly, at one time or another, the feeling of that time is "flowing" at different rates. This can at times be quite extreme. Waking, for example, from what one thought to be a short rest only to realize that one has slept for hours (if not years in the case of Rip Van Winkle mythologies). To compare such experiences with our imposed regular quantitative divisions of time, that is, clock time, are a source of wonder and amazement, but still all we can say about time is that it moves. It is MOVING. It IS moving. IT is moving. But where is it going? It is going towards Later.
We know this based on one thing: that we cannot go back. Repetition, in a very strict sense, is impossible. Every repetition, in a strict sense, is a new event against the axis of time. It is, at most, a similar shape, in the geometrical sense, if we where to imagine a four dimensional coordinate system with the three spacial axes and time as a fourth axis. The same three dimensional form at two points on the fourth dimensional axis creates a similar form but not the same one.
Perhaps, as present in science fiction and in certain Fenneyman (citation) -esque branches of particle physics (about which, this author admittedly knows almost nothing) retrograde temporal movement is possible. When one finds theories regarding this, they usually are framed in orders of magnitude much smaller or much greater than ours. Some theories about anti-matter particles imply a retrograde temporal movement to account for the existence of these particles but this is on an order of magnitude so much smaller than our own everyday world that very little in fact behaves in similar ways, even though we are made of that world. It seems impossible to experience such a transformation here and, with your pardon, now. No anti-author will appear to annihilate this author. Traveling the other direction, upwards to agreater orders of magnitude of spacetime, should the universe end in a big crunch in which time reverses backwards into an inverse big bang, the experience of this is still quite beyond the scope of our present discussion.
Time has every appearance, and in fact, we find our utility of it in the firm directionality of its development in relation to spacial forms. This directionality is time itself. Although some mathematical models, referred to earlier, describe time and space on a four dimensional coordinate system, and as such, more or less mathematically equivalent to one another, it seems that in some ways they are not equivalent. Spacial events happen in time. Time is, in this sense, the media in which spacial events happen. This idea is very commonly encountered in everyday speech. One doesn't say that time exists inside of an object. Yet an object, like a block of wood, clearly exists in time. The usage illustrates important aspects of how we use time itself, and these are formed by and indeed form our conceptions of what time is itself.
This is why, when in need of quantitative reference for time, we place a grid over it. This grid consists of assigned, regular units marked off according to a reference point, as we do with spacial coordinates. Throughout history, humanity has relied on myriad reference points such as the behavior or the sun and moon, tides, decaying isotopes, and so forth for such reference points, but what are we trying to do with our grid once established? We are trying to see the progression of three-dimensional events. For example, a baby book, in which parents collect photos of their child at regular intervals displays the three dimensional development (two dimensionally, of course, using photos) with reference to a time grid, here a calender. We make such grids to see change more clearly.
To put the problem another way, imagine an object in an environment. The object's environment (set A) is simply the collection of all other objects not object A (our initial object) inside set A. The development of object A (the changes which this object goes through while remaining, for the purposes of a perceiver, object A)in relation to the other objects in set A represents object A's path through time, if not the path of set A itself. All of this can then be set against time grid T, which is based on a regular division of time (which as stated before is simply this quality of irreversible movement in our universe). The relationships between object A within set A (the development discussed earlier), in reference to grid T, and set A's relationship to grid T can be described as a "rate of change", and units from time grid T can be used to describe it. This quantification thus describes both time and space, and both space and time coordinates are necessary to catch a particular bus or arrange a meeting with a person in the center of a crowded city.
Interestingly, this relationship of interdependence between time and space shows up in the tools of calculus, where rate of change is measured and often expressed graphically. Curves have attributes of being analyzable graphs of functions, and in this way share a behavior with other curves, such as those found in nature or in nature as designed by humans - architecture. Curves turn out to be curves whether they represent data about spacetime, or whether they are stone monuments. Still, this conceptual flattening of spacial and linear curves is something of a game. The effect of negating the function of such curves is unfortunately similar to the flattening effect of treating the three spacial values and the time dimension as mere numerical values or variables in a coordinate system when in fact their behavior seems to be very different.
Consider this final point: if time is taken to be a medium of sorts, in which spacial events happen, and irreversible a paradox emerges. Time described as the concept of movement cannot be quantified. When one tries, the best that emerges is the idea of a field. That is not problematic as certainly spacial events can develop against, or better, in, such a field, but that field itself exists in relation to something, since it itself describes a development. What then, is the field of time in development in, what is its medium, given that nothing could exist without or before it? After all, we have never known stillness.
II. One Hand Clapping
A falling tree in a forest would be heard if someone was there to hear it in the same sense that it would be seen if someone where there to see it. Now there are no trees, no sounds, no observers of them, real or imaginary. We are leaving all that behind to talk about sound in terms of our utilitarian definition of it, as a system of interactions, or rather as an interaction of systems that define both our use and our experience of sound as a phenomena.
What makes a sound?
Every sound, heard or not, is produced, or rather, represents (as "a wavelike disturbance in an elastic media" citation) an interaction between two or more systems. For it to be heard, as we shall see later, still more complexity is required. Firstly, however, here on earth a sound moves outward, wavelike, propagating from an event in all directions, unless obstructed. What was the event? It was a basic interaction between two physical systems like two snapping fingers, or a hammer and a piece of board (and again, a medium, as we shall see momentarily). A sound could be said to be the effect of this interaction, it is not always the desired effect either, as I unfortunately can attest to each morning when the construction begins outside my bedroom window. After all, those machines for sawing wood and shooting nails direct their energies towards the wood and nails used, and the sound produced is actually "radioactive waste" in a sense, or at least wasted radiation, similar to the way that heat produced by machinery and released into the atmosphere can represent lost energy in a physical system. Nevertheless, the cause of the sound is the same, be it a saw or a violin (and often there is little difference), two systems interact, energy propagates outward, and if we hear it we call it sound. In fact, when we organize it for amusement or communicative purposes it is called music or poetry, or some other things, but we must leave that for an entirely different discussion. The point is this: hammer and wood interact, air pressure is displaced between the two, a sound wave (which is a pressure wave in air and water) vibrates outward in all directions at a constant rate. This is sound production on earth, that is, inside of our atmosphere.
With the addition of the atmosphere we must increase our model by an order of complexity. Instead of two systems of interaction we now must include a third: the atmosphere. This environment, the medium through which our sound travels, is certainly of itself complex, but then upon consideration one realizes that so is our hammer, forged from complex mineral crystals melted at high heat and recast in an iron alloy, and the wood itself, which it strikes. Unfortunately those fundamental layers of complexity, those systems and their own fascinating molecular interactions will not be considered here. We must return instead to our earth-based common practice human definition of sound as audible radiation which depends on at least two interactive three-dimensional systems and a closed system of atmospheric pressure. This pressurized atmospheric room surrounding the earth provides "ground" necessary for the "figurative" changes in the pressure which allow it to become audible, and thus to fall within our definition of sound itself as an "audible" energy. Our definition, it turns out, is already recursive on one order, and also a bit self-centered: The pressurized atmosphere renders sound waves audible to us because it is the medium through which the waves that we can hear propagate.
Such circular thinking produces a crises of third order, for now it is clear than it is not enough to have two interacting systems interacting within an atmospheric system which forms the medium for their interaction but further that to hear any of this further complexity is required! So, then, our common practice definition of sound implies the presence of a listener. Earlier, it was determined neither to precede with an investigation of the medium (our atmosphere, in the example given) nor of the two interactive systems (the hammer and the piece of wood it strikes) in terms of their internal complexity. Still, a listener, a human listener, as implied by the common practice definition of sound as audible energy, is worth looking into. What systems are required for a listener to hear, and further, to make meaningful, the pressure data retrieved from the environmental medium as sound?
Depending on the organism in question these systems can be integrated or separate from one another. Most animal life, including humans, feature highly complex inter-connected systems of perception and interpretation (further reading reference here). Computers, to the extent one chooses to consider them to be organisms, often feature perception and interpretation systems discretely housed if not totally separated from one another, often dependent on user interface for systemic integration. The main idea, however, is that these systems, whether animal or computer, are frightfully complex, and find their greatest interdependence in that mysterious complex known as consciousness. Since we are discussing particularly human listeners, it is germane to explore how the human sense of awareness functions in the listening process.
Consciousness, as entity or idea, remains fascinating and strange. Despite the research into it being conducted in multifaceted ways, it's structure and function remain largely unknown. Thus, it will be approached in materialistic terms. Despite volumes of research into sound perception, it is clear that we do not yet understand how the perception of sound happens in the human brain in a clear way. I do not understand my own, and I certainly do not understand yours.
So then, what can be said about sound as a perceived phenomena?
For one thing, it is clearly not a static, momentary, individual, occurrence, but rather something in time. It is dependent on the three spacial dimensions but by it's nature also implies a continuity in another dimension. Sound exists in relation to time and has a shape in time, a history. This history, the perception of which could be said to be based on the memory of the perceiver of the sound, relates to the cause and the chain of integral effects within the sound, producing it's line of development in time. This is what musicians call the form of a piece or what electronic musicians refer to in terms of individual sounds as an envelope, the two dimensional line which describes the life of the sound from it's birth (attack), life (sustain), old age (decay), and finally death (release). It describes the perceived effects of the process of a sounds creation, existence, transformation, and conclusion, for any sound no matter what duration. Yet from this one sees that a "sound" is actually itself a complex, an aggregate of parts, of systems of interaction that through a person's choice have been made into one meta-system, that makes a whole that can be described by such an envelope.
What is required for such a choice to be made? What is required to take a selection of pulsations within an environmental medium and group them together as a concrete line of development and to claim that these together, through their interactions, produce one thing, this sound? The answer is memory. Yet the experience of this envelope, this line of sonic development as perceived by the listener says something more about the listener than simply that memory is required and the listener has one. To be able to interpret, much less acknowledge the existence of this time dimension, or to have a memory at all a special sense is required, a sense different in kind from the normal five of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting. To experience the development of a sound, or of anything, one must ask what the sound is developing against, what the medium for this development is.
Similar to the momentary pressure displacement in the air required to produce the sound wave discussed in the first section, the medium against which the movement of the subsequent sound wave is gauged is that of time itself, as apprehended by an observer, with their own relative clock. If we had no memory, we would know no time, or possibly if there was no time there would be no memory, or stranger perhaps if there was no memory there would be no time (citation), and eggs before chickens before eggs into eternity.
Sound, in the widest physical sense requires no observer. A wavelike disturbance can and will continue to disturb it's elastic media in the absence of awareness of it by anyone. Otherwise, the universe would not exist, after all more than likely no one was around to observe that. Yet nevertheless sound still requires an interaction of at least two separate systems and a medium to exist. It is often difficult in practice to isolate these three systems, but nevertheless, they exist. Finally, a time dimension is implied, and perhaps the ubiquitous use of the word "wave" in definitions of sound implies this, as a wave itself is a periodicity, even if it is a modified periodicity. Sound requires two interactive systems, an elastic environment, and time. So to solve an old problem totally out of context: One hand cannot clap, especially if taken out of time and therefore produces no sound.
What makes a sound?
Every sound, heard or not, is produced, or rather, represents (as "a wavelike disturbance in an elastic media" citation) an interaction between two or more systems. For it to be heard, as we shall see later, still more complexity is required. Firstly, however, here on earth a sound moves outward, wavelike, propagating from an event in all directions, unless obstructed. What was the event? It was a basic interaction between two physical systems like two snapping fingers, or a hammer and a piece of board (and again, a medium, as we shall see momentarily). A sound could be said to be the effect of this interaction, it is not always the desired effect either, as I unfortunately can attest to each morning when the construction begins outside my bedroom window. After all, those machines for sawing wood and shooting nails direct their energies towards the wood and nails used, and the sound produced is actually "radioactive waste" in a sense, or at least wasted radiation, similar to the way that heat produced by machinery and released into the atmosphere can represent lost energy in a physical system. Nevertheless, the cause of the sound is the same, be it a saw or a violin (and often there is little difference), two systems interact, energy propagates outward, and if we hear it we call it sound. In fact, when we organize it for amusement or communicative purposes it is called music or poetry, or some other things, but we must leave that for an entirely different discussion. The point is this: hammer and wood interact, air pressure is displaced between the two, a sound wave (which is a pressure wave in air and water) vibrates outward in all directions at a constant rate. This is sound production on earth, that is, inside of our atmosphere.
With the addition of the atmosphere we must increase our model by an order of complexity. Instead of two systems of interaction we now must include a third: the atmosphere. This environment, the medium through which our sound travels, is certainly of itself complex, but then upon consideration one realizes that so is our hammer, forged from complex mineral crystals melted at high heat and recast in an iron alloy, and the wood itself, which it strikes. Unfortunately those fundamental layers of complexity, those systems and their own fascinating molecular interactions will not be considered here. We must return instead to our earth-based common practice human definition of sound as audible radiation which depends on at least two interactive three-dimensional systems and a closed system of atmospheric pressure. This pressurized atmospheric room surrounding the earth provides "ground" necessary for the "figurative" changes in the pressure which allow it to become audible, and thus to fall within our definition of sound itself as an "audible" energy. Our definition, it turns out, is already recursive on one order, and also a bit self-centered: The pressurized atmosphere renders sound waves audible to us because it is the medium through which the waves that we can hear propagate.
Such circular thinking produces a crises of third order, for now it is clear than it is not enough to have two interacting systems interacting within an atmospheric system which forms the medium for their interaction but further that to hear any of this further complexity is required! So, then, our common practice definition of sound implies the presence of a listener. Earlier, it was determined neither to precede with an investigation of the medium (our atmosphere, in the example given) nor of the two interactive systems (the hammer and the piece of wood it strikes) in terms of their internal complexity. Still, a listener, a human listener, as implied by the common practice definition of sound as audible energy, is worth looking into. What systems are required for a listener to hear, and further, to make meaningful, the pressure data retrieved from the environmental medium as sound?
Depending on the organism in question these systems can be integrated or separate from one another. Most animal life, including humans, feature highly complex inter-connected systems of perception and interpretation (further reading reference here). Computers, to the extent one chooses to consider them to be organisms, often feature perception and interpretation systems discretely housed if not totally separated from one another, often dependent on user interface for systemic integration. The main idea, however, is that these systems, whether animal or computer, are frightfully complex, and find their greatest interdependence in that mysterious complex known as consciousness. Since we are discussing particularly human listeners, it is germane to explore how the human sense of awareness functions in the listening process.
Consciousness, as entity or idea, remains fascinating and strange. Despite the research into it being conducted in multifaceted ways, it's structure and function remain largely unknown. Thus, it will be approached in materialistic terms. Despite volumes of research into sound perception, it is clear that we do not yet understand how the perception of sound happens in the human brain in a clear way. I do not understand my own, and I certainly do not understand yours.
So then, what can be said about sound as a perceived phenomena?
For one thing, it is clearly not a static, momentary, individual, occurrence, but rather something in time. It is dependent on the three spacial dimensions but by it's nature also implies a continuity in another dimension. Sound exists in relation to time and has a shape in time, a history. This history, the perception of which could be said to be based on the memory of the perceiver of the sound, relates to the cause and the chain of integral effects within the sound, producing it's line of development in time. This is what musicians call the form of a piece or what electronic musicians refer to in terms of individual sounds as an envelope, the two dimensional line which describes the life of the sound from it's birth (attack), life (sustain), old age (decay), and finally death (release). It describes the perceived effects of the process of a sounds creation, existence, transformation, and conclusion, for any sound no matter what duration. Yet from this one sees that a "sound" is actually itself a complex, an aggregate of parts, of systems of interaction that through a person's choice have been made into one meta-system, that makes a whole that can be described by such an envelope.
What is required for such a choice to be made? What is required to take a selection of pulsations within an environmental medium and group them together as a concrete line of development and to claim that these together, through their interactions, produce one thing, this sound? The answer is memory. Yet the experience of this envelope, this line of sonic development as perceived by the listener says something more about the listener than simply that memory is required and the listener has one. To be able to interpret, much less acknowledge the existence of this time dimension, or to have a memory at all a special sense is required, a sense different in kind from the normal five of seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, and tasting. To experience the development of a sound, or of anything, one must ask what the sound is developing against, what the medium for this development is.
Similar to the momentary pressure displacement in the air required to produce the sound wave discussed in the first section, the medium against which the movement of the subsequent sound wave is gauged is that of time itself, as apprehended by an observer, with their own relative clock. If we had no memory, we would know no time, or possibly if there was no time there would be no memory, or stranger perhaps if there was no memory there would be no time (citation), and eggs before chickens before eggs into eternity.
Sound, in the widest physical sense requires no observer. A wavelike disturbance can and will continue to disturb it's elastic media in the absence of awareness of it by anyone. Otherwise, the universe would not exist, after all more than likely no one was around to observe that. Yet nevertheless sound still requires an interaction of at least two separate systems and a medium to exist. It is often difficult in practice to isolate these three systems, but nevertheless, they exist. Finally, a time dimension is implied, and perhaps the ubiquitous use of the word "wave" in definitions of sound implies this, as a wave itself is a periodicity, even if it is a modified periodicity. Sound requires two interactive systems, an elastic environment, and time. So to solve an old problem totally out of context: One hand cannot clap, especially if taken out of time and therefore produces no sound.
I. Ghost of a Fallen Tree
Children find fascination, or alternately horror, in imagining what goes on in their rooms when they leave home, or what goes on under their beds when the lights go out. In the imagination, toys become animate and monsters form out of the syrupy ether of darkness, as soon as one turns one's back on an environment. Adults too share in this obsession. People set up cameras to see if anything happens in their rooms when they leave. They ask themselves questions a to whether unobserved trees falling in an unobserved forest produce a sound.
Normally, upon investigating these questions it turned out that there where no monsters beneath the bed, that one's toys very likely remained in place and inanimate for the duration of one's absence from an undisturbed room. That, in the absence of intruders, the only action caught on the video camera left to record one's empty flat while one visited the grocery store was the changing light, the accumulation of dust, perhaps the movement from floor to couch and back of a dog or cat, or, given the presence of a time-lapse system and a longer duration, the normally imperceptible growth of one's houseplants, rendered visible. Still, the unobserved tree falling in the forest does in fact make a sound. The splintering crash of the this tree, though unheard, resonates down to the root of our perceptual and cognitive processes and this essay will be about why and how, and beyond this, will open a discussion of what sound is, what it is made of, and later what time is itself, and what it is made of.
Let's begin with the tree. Only the most dedicated solipsist would suggest that an unperceived event does not exist. Some take the situation still further to the point at which any event not perceived or experienced directly by themselves as observers cannot be said to exist. Such persons would do well to consider their own birth, or better, their conception. Luckily, none of us where around to witness that! Still, the affect of the action of our own conception in the womb is visible in terms of our existence. So unless the universe is far stranger than can even begin to be discussed here, extrapolating from what we know about other people and their bedroom behaviors, we can assume that something similar happened between our parents, and that this brought us into existence. Most of us would agree that this was not an action we witnessed (no doubt fortunately) and yet, here we are.
Thus, events do not need to be perceived directly to be said to exist. In fact, even their effects need not be perceived as we constantly assume or become convinced of the reality of objects and situations by the mere plausibility of them. Consider, for example, a news broadcast. We hear about an environmental crisis in Madagascar. YWould a reasonable person question the existence of weather in Madagascar, or the island itself? Of course not. If a friend brings you a report of a new restaurant in the neighborhood, you likewise accept the existence of such a restaurant. Why? Firstly, because the event is simply possible, and more than that, it is likely, it is ordinary. Secondly, analyzing the motivations of the speaker, we find that there is no reason we should doubt our friend's enthusiastic report, and we may even alter our plans for the afternoon and choose to visit this restaurant with our friend, similar to the way we may alter our commute based on the traffic report on the morning radio. In such a way we accept the existence of things we cannot see, and even modify our behaviors based on the mere plausibility of the existence of some situation, and the absence of a reasonable reason to doubt it.
A tree has fallen in the forest. Did it make a sound? Have you ever witnessed a tree fall in the forest that did not make one?
On such grounds an idea can be said to have an existence, at very least in terms of it's effect, similar to that of a physical object immediately perceived. There is something else, however, hiding in the question itself: a tree falls, unobserved, in the forest. Does it make a sound? Well, based on what we have discussed, yes. It makes an unobserved, unheard sound. Yet there is something strange in this, something that reaches both the physical and perceptual roots of what a sound is in itself, and this has to do with questions of utility, that is, with the tone the question is asked in. Thus, two further philosophical questions present themselves.
The first question is "what is a tree to itself?".
Beginning from a basic stance, it is clear that if a tree had any kind of consciousness or awareness at all that it would likely be very different from our own. We have completely different physiologies, for one thing. Thus, the second question: "Does a tree call itself a tree?" Unlikely, especially given that even among humans we don't agree on what a tree is or what it should be called (for example in Czech language a tree is "strom" and in Hindi it is " "). So then, with some sadness, the discussion must be narrowed. If an Englishman observes a tree falling in the forest and then is asked for a report, they will likely reply something to the effect of "a tree has fallen". Still, this event, as experienced by the tree itself, by an insect on the tree, or a squirrel on the ground, would no doubt be characterized quite differently than by our Englishman. So then, returning to our original question with the modifications we have based on the two questions above we rephrase it to read: "If a tree falls in forest, in the absence of an observant Englishman, has a tree fallen?" The action, of course, happens either way. The experience of it, is infinite.
This approach negated a highly important element of the original question. Looking back to the original, it is clear that the question was not, in fact, about the existence of the tree itself, but the sound which a tree might make upon falling. This is even more mysterious when one considers that sound is simply radiative energy. Our Englishman calls it "sound" simply because it is perceived the way most of what we have been taught to call sounds are perceived, that is, by the ears. Of course, if one takes a physicist like Harry F. Olson's definition, as expressed in the second edition of his seminal acoustics text from 1967:
"Sound is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity which is propogated in an elastic medium, or superposition of such propagated alterations. Sound is also the auditory sensation produced through the ear by the alterations described above."
than one can see that here sound can exist apart from it's sensation. In addition, it is common (citation and example here) to simplify the above definition to "sound is a wavelike disturbance in an elastic medium", and here, as in the first part of the previous definition it is clear that an opening exists, as not only need sound not be heard, but sound need not even be hearable.
Though at first this seems surprising after a moment, it is clear that this is not a new idea. Dog whistles produce a sound. We cannot hear it. Still, we refer to it as a sound. Still it is interesting to consider the fact that sounds need not even be audible. Rather, like the sounds that make up earthquakes, they may simply be the energy, and medium around them, that is, that which resonates, determines how they are characterized.
I can hear the critical chorus rising even now: "But we are not," they sing forth in my imagination, "questioning the existence of radiation. We are asking a question about a tree in a forest." Therefore, let us return to common practice definitions of sound as heard energy, and continue to try and get to the bottom of this. "Tree" "falling" "inside forest" "unobserved". Does it "make" a "sound"?
Ignoring the ambiguities inherent in the quoted words above and forging forth with the common practice definitions of these things we nevertheless find ourselves stuck. How can that portion of the energy that would normally be heard, as produced by a tree falling unobserved in a forest be heard energy if no one, not even a squirrel, snake, bird, or insect, is there to hear it? One must again simply rely on the plausibility argument, extending to what one knows about the system called "forest". We know of no soundless forests, as all known forests are dependent on the pressurized atmosphere of our planet. Therefore, just as it is eminently plausible for a tree to fall unobserved, it is likewise expected that such a tree would produce a sound, though an unobserved, that is to say an unheard, one.
In the next section we will consider this common practice definition of sound, as "audible energy", and in particular what such a definition means in terms of our utility of sound in general.
Normally, upon investigating these questions it turned out that there where no monsters beneath the bed, that one's toys very likely remained in place and inanimate for the duration of one's absence from an undisturbed room. That, in the absence of intruders, the only action caught on the video camera left to record one's empty flat while one visited the grocery store was the changing light, the accumulation of dust, perhaps the movement from floor to couch and back of a dog or cat, or, given the presence of a time-lapse system and a longer duration, the normally imperceptible growth of one's houseplants, rendered visible. Still, the unobserved tree falling in the forest does in fact make a sound. The splintering crash of the this tree, though unheard, resonates down to the root of our perceptual and cognitive processes and this essay will be about why and how, and beyond this, will open a discussion of what sound is, what it is made of, and later what time is itself, and what it is made of.
Let's begin with the tree. Only the most dedicated solipsist would suggest that an unperceived event does not exist. Some take the situation still further to the point at which any event not perceived or experienced directly by themselves as observers cannot be said to exist. Such persons would do well to consider their own birth, or better, their conception. Luckily, none of us where around to witness that! Still, the affect of the action of our own conception in the womb is visible in terms of our existence. So unless the universe is far stranger than can even begin to be discussed here, extrapolating from what we know about other people and their bedroom behaviors, we can assume that something similar happened between our parents, and that this brought us into existence. Most of us would agree that this was not an action we witnessed (no doubt fortunately) and yet, here we are.
Thus, events do not need to be perceived directly to be said to exist. In fact, even their effects need not be perceived as we constantly assume or become convinced of the reality of objects and situations by the mere plausibility of them. Consider, for example, a news broadcast. We hear about an environmental crisis in Madagascar. YWould a reasonable person question the existence of weather in Madagascar, or the island itself? Of course not. If a friend brings you a report of a new restaurant in the neighborhood, you likewise accept the existence of such a restaurant. Why? Firstly, because the event is simply possible, and more than that, it is likely, it is ordinary. Secondly, analyzing the motivations of the speaker, we find that there is no reason we should doubt our friend's enthusiastic report, and we may even alter our plans for the afternoon and choose to visit this restaurant with our friend, similar to the way we may alter our commute based on the traffic report on the morning radio. In such a way we accept the existence of things we cannot see, and even modify our behaviors based on the mere plausibility of the existence of some situation, and the absence of a reasonable reason to doubt it.
A tree has fallen in the forest. Did it make a sound? Have you ever witnessed a tree fall in the forest that did not make one?
On such grounds an idea can be said to have an existence, at very least in terms of it's effect, similar to that of a physical object immediately perceived. There is something else, however, hiding in the question itself: a tree falls, unobserved, in the forest. Does it make a sound? Well, based on what we have discussed, yes. It makes an unobserved, unheard sound. Yet there is something strange in this, something that reaches both the physical and perceptual roots of what a sound is in itself, and this has to do with questions of utility, that is, with the tone the question is asked in. Thus, two further philosophical questions present themselves.
The first question is "what is a tree to itself?".
Beginning from a basic stance, it is clear that if a tree had any kind of consciousness or awareness at all that it would likely be very different from our own. We have completely different physiologies, for one thing. Thus, the second question: "Does a tree call itself a tree?" Unlikely, especially given that even among humans we don't agree on what a tree is or what it should be called (for example in Czech language a tree is "strom" and in Hindi it is " "). So then, with some sadness, the discussion must be narrowed. If an Englishman observes a tree falling in the forest and then is asked for a report, they will likely reply something to the effect of "a tree has fallen". Still, this event, as experienced by the tree itself, by an insect on the tree, or a squirrel on the ground, would no doubt be characterized quite differently than by our Englishman. So then, returning to our original question with the modifications we have based on the two questions above we rephrase it to read: "If a tree falls in forest, in the absence of an observant Englishman, has a tree fallen?" The action, of course, happens either way. The experience of it, is infinite.
This approach negated a highly important element of the original question. Looking back to the original, it is clear that the question was not, in fact, about the existence of the tree itself, but the sound which a tree might make upon falling. This is even more mysterious when one considers that sound is simply radiative energy. Our Englishman calls it "sound" simply because it is perceived the way most of what we have been taught to call sounds are perceived, that is, by the ears. Of course, if one takes a physicist like Harry F. Olson's definition, as expressed in the second edition of his seminal acoustics text from 1967:
"Sound is an alternation in pressure, particle displacement, or particle velocity which is propogated in an elastic medium, or superposition of such propagated alterations. Sound is also the auditory sensation produced through the ear by the alterations described above."
than one can see that here sound can exist apart from it's sensation. In addition, it is common (citation and example here) to simplify the above definition to "sound is a wavelike disturbance in an elastic medium", and here, as in the first part of the previous definition it is clear that an opening exists, as not only need sound not be heard, but sound need not even be hearable.
Though at first this seems surprising after a moment, it is clear that this is not a new idea. Dog whistles produce a sound. We cannot hear it. Still, we refer to it as a sound. Still it is interesting to consider the fact that sounds need not even be audible. Rather, like the sounds that make up earthquakes, they may simply be the energy, and medium around them, that is, that which resonates, determines how they are characterized.
I can hear the critical chorus rising even now: "But we are not," they sing forth in my imagination, "questioning the existence of radiation. We are asking a question about a tree in a forest." Therefore, let us return to common practice definitions of sound as heard energy, and continue to try and get to the bottom of this. "Tree" "falling" "inside forest" "unobserved". Does it "make" a "sound"?
Ignoring the ambiguities inherent in the quoted words above and forging forth with the common practice definitions of these things we nevertheless find ourselves stuck. How can that portion of the energy that would normally be heard, as produced by a tree falling unobserved in a forest be heard energy if no one, not even a squirrel, snake, bird, or insect, is there to hear it? One must again simply rely on the plausibility argument, extending to what one knows about the system called "forest". We know of no soundless forests, as all known forests are dependent on the pressurized atmosphere of our planet. Therefore, just as it is eminently plausible for a tree to fall unobserved, it is likewise expected that such a tree would produce a sound, though an unobserved, that is to say an unheard, one.
In the next section we will consider this common practice definition of sound, as "audible energy", and in particular what such a definition means in terms of our utility of sound in general.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Side Thought Regarding Interactivity in Performance as Fact and Fiction
Performance, which I take to mean "activity carried out in the presence of an audience" is fundamentally an interactive art form. Layers of complex interactivity abound between performer, multi-dimensional space, and audience within any given performance situation. Though clearly there are exist whole highly developed genres of performance that focus on a particular type of interactivity, in which the audience determines, directs or influences the performer or the direction or structure of the piece in some way I will here discuss one aspect of performance interactivity at it's most basic psychological and physical levels. Thus, the term interactivity is here taken to mean the basic interaction between any person and any space or situation whatsoever, and in particular that interactivity present in the special and strange situation that occurs between an audience, a performance space and a person or group of people who present some actions to an audience within such a space.
Actually, I must add the fact that this essay was originally conceived long ago and forgotten about but because of a conversation I just had with Che Chen I decided to recall and publish here the most salient point, and in fact, the one point about this giant subject that I really think bears discussion or needs clarification or all of the above, and that concerns questions of communication and "honesty" in performance, which regards one complex of the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional performance space alluded to above, particularly, the social space.
Often, in the context of music performance and artistic presentations in general a premium is placed on some quality of the work or performance that is called "honesty". Since I am primarily a musician, I will at least start by discussing music. In musical performance, it is often expected that a performer is expected to communicate some information. This information can be emotional, or evocative of an emotional state, or it can be conceptual, fantastic, narrative, purely structural as in various modernist styles, historical (in the sense of the ballad and other forms), coercive (in the case of a political or advertising context) or even simply informative (as might be the case in a public service announcement). Other examples of communicative musical content are sure to exist, and in fact the list of possible contents is likely infinite as is the "list" of possible uses of music. Yet audience members use this information and a comparison of their perceptions of this information and the efficiency, uniqueness, and "honesty" of the presentation of this information as a basis on which to comment on a given performance.
To bring this back to earth simply consider how many times you have heard a musical performance described as "heartfelt". Adjectives of this type, reflexive to the performer, illustrate the belief that the performer in fact portrays the emotional (or other) content represented by the piece from the standpoint of the first person. In other words, the assumption is that the performer is in fact experiencing the emotional (or other) content in question in the actual act of performance of the music. This is the honesty considered to be a virtue of a good performance.
The folksinger illustrates this to a high degree. Though many times presenting music other than their own, or even music borrowed from another culture, the value (often referred to in terms of legitimacy, for some reason) of the performance is many times based on the perceived honesty of the performer. Even with the long term habit of gender crossing in folk narratives (where a female narrative is sung by a man from the female perspective or vice-versa), the honesty of the portrayal is cited often as a determinant of the legitimacy of the performance. Of course, such heartfelt legitimacy, such honesty is entirely theater, or at most the vicarious imagination and summoning of an emotional state on the part of the performer that probably never existed, or at most existed at a former point (but certainly not normally during the actual performance) in their life. Music performance is expected to be engaging but also to be honest, and as such brings to light a key contradiction present in all the theatrical arts of western culture. The audience enjoys imagining that the artist is the character presented in the work as this is the utmost in efficiency in terms of communication, yet to consider again the example of the folksinger most people would prefer to listen to a musician perform these songs than the actual characters present in the narratives...Loretta Lynn can tell us better about being a "coal miner's daughter" than an actual example of the specimen in question, even though clearly the honesty in question is dependent on something else, and this something else is the other major factor by which people seem to judge musical performance and performance in general in western performance art.
Ironically, the other major premium placed on performers is "theatricality". This means that a performer is expected to be engaging, and even to perhaps present "fiction". The prime example of the conflict between these two demands that the audience seems to make on almost every performance is most evident not in music but in theater. Actually, perhaps the funniest examples exist in politics, but then, that seems to be a type of theater in itself.
In theater the two modes of presentational honesty and theatricality are often mixed. Thus a performer is expected to presented the emotional content of a work honestly, even though they perform the same work night after night. In addition, actors and actresses many times are praised for an "honest" portrayal of a character that is completely fictitious, and in the minds of the audience the actor or actresses image becomes fused with this character (as Leonard Nemoy has, to his chagrin, become fused with the personality of Dr. Spock). Yet an actor or actress is a person who has studied and mastered the art of theatrical deception to highest degree. To compliment the honesty presented onstage is not particularly a compliment to someone whose goal is mass deception!
And so there it is. We are all dishonest, but believe us if you want to, after all, we probably in fact did at one point feel something akin to what we are presenting to you on stage. In fact, what is happening on the stage exists as much as anything else exists: what you are actually seeing in theater is an illusion (in most cases) but it certainly is a real illusion. What you hear in music is sound. That certainly is real, honesty and emotions aside for the moment, musical sound is as real as it gets, and thus we are in this together, and interactively.
Actually, I must add the fact that this essay was originally conceived long ago and forgotten about but because of a conversation I just had with Che Chen I decided to recall and publish here the most salient point, and in fact, the one point about this giant subject that I really think bears discussion or needs clarification or all of the above, and that concerns questions of communication and "honesty" in performance, which regards one complex of the dimensionality of the multi-dimensional performance space alluded to above, particularly, the social space.
Often, in the context of music performance and artistic presentations in general a premium is placed on some quality of the work or performance that is called "honesty". Since I am primarily a musician, I will at least start by discussing music. In musical performance, it is often expected that a performer is expected to communicate some information. This information can be emotional, or evocative of an emotional state, or it can be conceptual, fantastic, narrative, purely structural as in various modernist styles, historical (in the sense of the ballad and other forms), coercive (in the case of a political or advertising context) or even simply informative (as might be the case in a public service announcement). Other examples of communicative musical content are sure to exist, and in fact the list of possible contents is likely infinite as is the "list" of possible uses of music. Yet audience members use this information and a comparison of their perceptions of this information and the efficiency, uniqueness, and "honesty" of the presentation of this information as a basis on which to comment on a given performance.
To bring this back to earth simply consider how many times you have heard a musical performance described as "heartfelt". Adjectives of this type, reflexive to the performer, illustrate the belief that the performer in fact portrays the emotional (or other) content represented by the piece from the standpoint of the first person. In other words, the assumption is that the performer is in fact experiencing the emotional (or other) content in question in the actual act of performance of the music. This is the honesty considered to be a virtue of a good performance.
The folksinger illustrates this to a high degree. Though many times presenting music other than their own, or even music borrowed from another culture, the value (often referred to in terms of legitimacy, for some reason) of the performance is many times based on the perceived honesty of the performer. Even with the long term habit of gender crossing in folk narratives (where a female narrative is sung by a man from the female perspective or vice-versa), the honesty of the portrayal is cited often as a determinant of the legitimacy of the performance. Of course, such heartfelt legitimacy, such honesty is entirely theater, or at most the vicarious imagination and summoning of an emotional state on the part of the performer that probably never existed, or at most existed at a former point (but certainly not normally during the actual performance) in their life. Music performance is expected to be engaging but also to be honest, and as such brings to light a key contradiction present in all the theatrical arts of western culture. The audience enjoys imagining that the artist is the character presented in the work as this is the utmost in efficiency in terms of communication, yet to consider again the example of the folksinger most people would prefer to listen to a musician perform these songs than the actual characters present in the narratives...Loretta Lynn can tell us better about being a "coal miner's daughter" than an actual example of the specimen in question, even though clearly the honesty in question is dependent on something else, and this something else is the other major factor by which people seem to judge musical performance and performance in general in western performance art.
Ironically, the other major premium placed on performers is "theatricality". This means that a performer is expected to be engaging, and even to perhaps present "fiction". The prime example of the conflict between these two demands that the audience seems to make on almost every performance is most evident not in music but in theater. Actually, perhaps the funniest examples exist in politics, but then, that seems to be a type of theater in itself.
In theater the two modes of presentational honesty and theatricality are often mixed. Thus a performer is expected to presented the emotional content of a work honestly, even though they perform the same work night after night. In addition, actors and actresses many times are praised for an "honest" portrayal of a character that is completely fictitious, and in the minds of the audience the actor or actresses image becomes fused with this character (as Leonard Nemoy has, to his chagrin, become fused with the personality of Dr. Spock). Yet an actor or actress is a person who has studied and mastered the art of theatrical deception to highest degree. To compliment the honesty presented onstage is not particularly a compliment to someone whose goal is mass deception!
And so there it is. We are all dishonest, but believe us if you want to, after all, we probably in fact did at one point feel something akin to what we are presenting to you on stage. In fact, what is happening on the stage exists as much as anything else exists: what you are actually seeing in theater is an illusion (in most cases) but it certainly is a real illusion. What you hear in music is sound. That certainly is real, honesty and emotions aside for the moment, musical sound is as real as it gets, and thus we are in this together, and interactively.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
new releases...part 1
Hello friends,
I am pleased to announce the release of two new Core of the Coalman/Nitro Uliře recordings:
Affinity Groups, is a self-released cd-r, recorded during last winters very long deep freeze. This recording features five highly textured tracks in which sounds arranged according to lattice-like pattern structures interweave, vibrate, and interfere with each other. Like sound propagating through the inside of a crystal or like being inside of one, the waves make disturbances in the surface and depth of a gelatenous structure in which the listener is immersed. Alternately, this music is structured aggregations of multiple similar events out of which these lattice forms emerge, at times self-organized, at other times organized by me... Or better, a metaphorical audio tour through the Geological Wing of a Natural History Museum. These tracks are the studio versions of material I have developed since I moved to Czech Republic three years ago, and represents the main material I have played on various tours during that time, here in Europe and in the US.
Affinity Groups, Core of the Coalman 7Euro (approx 9$) includes shipping
or paste this in your browser:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=49LGT77UGBSMW
New Cassette from George Chen and Steve Santa Maria's label Two Thousand Tapes features a variation on a continuous sound structure performed by Core of the Coalman many times in concerts in Oakland and San Francisco as well as in Czech Republic. Here, heavy, physical sounds drone and rub against one another in a crushing geological sexuality. New minerals are born here. This is something of a sequel to the very well recieved cassette Carnasie released by Custodian Color Zoo Containers a few years back.
(2/3)r to the 4th power, Core of the Coalman, cassette 4 Euro
or paste in:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FUD76T3WBGHFG
Note: This is my first attempt to use PayPal links directly from an email. If for some reason it doesnt work, please contact me and I will figure it out! I have tested it quite alot, and it should work! Thanks!
Core of the Coalman has other new releases on the way:
Aggregate and Crackle cdr, Chocolate Monk(UK)
Box of the Last Help, cd, Zum (USA)
Other Continues, cassette, Poot Records (UK)
You'll Need a Catapult cd, Klang Und Krack (CZ)
What/who is ...
Jorge Boehringer's viola axe and silver toned frequency drift for the vibration of the air surrounding the Aural Coils, electrically. Both of them, vibrated in phase pulses sometimes symmetrical, and other times it's life burning to pour out. Its Yam Yad much picked over when found in the company of a rough legged hawk. It's a barbershop quartet dedicated to performing baroque slink slop in concordance with thermoelectric properties, and when they are hot, they are hot. It's a theoretical cure for chronic coryza, and while the predicament is allieviated, the geocephalo-cotex is also direly affected, causing an initiative of obsessive vision: geological and musical time frames became supercooled and thus glacially motivated. Slow in form but powered and etched by sunshine continually, in the spirit of biting the hand that feeds one, Core of the Coalman is dyspeptic subtended prescient lacuna and cash money coated in peppermint oil and wrapped in a burning flag,a nest made from twigs stuck in the discarded remains of a dissected dream of textural structures evolving at their own rates and viewable from aan infinity of viewpoints and dimensions simultaneously, and all that, that sort of thing.
Core of the Coalman feedback-driven yodel triggers,descending tympanic pressures implying sexual interface, and (probably) extended upwardly mobile Carnasitic arrays, with ornaments. Its like the blurred fossil record of a biological crises during a time of intense geological speed. Know what I mean, man? its Ordovician noise. The invitations went out like 648 million years ago, it was old school. You still haven't showed up. I miss you
A compound eye may consist of thousands of individual photoreception units. The image perceived is a combination of inputs from the numerous ommatidia (individual "eye units"), which are located on a convex surface, thus point in slightly different directions. This, for Jorge Boehringer, results in a specific type of focus, in which multiple systems of polymathic pursuits are allowed to progress at their own rates, attaining, as such, a unified, rather than fractured, perceptive, though a perspective different from that enjoyed by our ancestors- human and otherwise. Mr. Boehringer is active foremost as a composer and you can find samples of his sound work by typing his name, or the name "Core of the Coalman," into your internets. He lives in Prague currently.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Czech Language version
s pomoc z Google Translator!
"Affinity Groups", je self-cd-r, zaznamenaných během posledních zim velmi dlouhou mrazu. Tato funkce nahrávání pěti vysoce dekorativní skladeb, v němž zní uspořádány podle mříž-jako vzor struktury proplést, vibrují, a navzájem ovlivňovat. Stejně jako zvuk množit přes uvnitř krystalu nebo jako být v rámci jednoho, aby vlny v důsledku narušení povrchu a hloubka gelatenous struktuře, v níž se ponoří posluchače. Střídavě, je to hudba strukturovaný agregace více podobných akcí, z nichž tyto mříže formuláře objeví, občas sebe-organizované, jindy pořádané mě ... Nebo lepší, metaforický audio procházku Geologická křídle Natural History Museum. Tyto stopy jsou studiové verze materiálu jsem vyvinul, protože jsem se přestěhoval do Česká republika před třemi lety, a představuje hlavní materiál jsem hrál na různé výlety během toho času, tady v Evropě a ve Spojených státech.
Affinity Groups, Core of the Coalman
nebo vložte tento ve vašem prohlížeči:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=49LGT77UGBSMW
New Kazeta od George Steve Chen a Santa Maria na etiketě Dva tisíce pásky funkce variace na kontinuální zvukové struktury provedené Jádro týmu Uhlířské v mnoha koncertech v Oaklandu a San Francisca, stejně jako v Česká republika. Tady těžké fyzické zní hukot a třít proti sobě v drtivé geologické sexuality. Nové minerály se zde rodí. To je něco, o pokračování velmi dobře přijatý kazeta Carnasie vydané opatrovníka Barva Zoo Kontejnery několik let zpátky.
(2/3)r to the 4th power, Core of the Coalman, cassette
nebo vložte tento ve vašem prohlížeči:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FUD76T3WBGHFG
Poznámka: Tohle je můj první pokus o použití PayPal odkazy přímo z e-mailu. Pokud z nějakého důvodu ono doesnt práce, prosím, kontaktujte mě a já na to pozor! Mám zkoušet to docela hodně, a měl by fungovat! Díky!
Jádro Uhlířské má další novinky na cestě:
Aggregate and Crackle cdr, čokoláda Monk (UK)
Box Poslední Pomoc, cd, Zum (USA)
Other Continues, kazetový přehrávač, Poot Records (UK)
Budete potřebovat cd Katapult, Klang Und Krack (CZ)
Co / kdo je ...
Jorge Boehringer na violu sekery a stříbrné tónovaný frekvence drift pro chvění vzduchu v okolí Aural Cívky, elektricky. Oba, vibrátorem ve fázi impulsů symetrický někdy, a jindy je to život hoří vylévat. Jeho Yam Yad hodně zvedl nad tím, kdy se ve společnosti vyskytují hrubé nohama jestřába. Je to holičství kvartet věnovaný provedení barokní plížit se sběrnou ve shodě s termoelektrické vlastnosti, a pokud jsou horké, jsou horké. Je to teoretická lék na chronické rýma, i když je dilema allieviated je geocephalo-cotex úděsně také ovlivněn, což způsobuje iniciativa obsedantně vize: geologické a hudební časové rámce, a tím se stal podchladí glacially motivovaný. Pomalý v podobě, ale pohon a leptané slunečním zářením neustále, v duchu kousat ruku, která krmí jedno, Jádro Uhlířské je pesimistický zorný jasnozřivý mezera a hotovostní peníze obalené v mátu ropy a zabalené do hořící vlajka, hnízdo z větviček uvízl v zlikvidovat zbytky snu o členité texturní struktury vyvíjejí své vlastní sazby a viditelný z aan nekonečno názorů a kót najednou, a tak dále, a tak podobně.
Jádro zpětné vazby Uhlířské-řízený jódlovat spouští, sestupně bubínkové tlaky naznačuje sexuální rozhraní, a (pravděpodobně) rozšířené vzestupně mobilní Carnasitic pole, s ornamenty. Stejně jako jeho rozmazané fosilní záznam biologických krizí v době intenzivního geologických rychlosti. Vím, co chci říct, člověče? ordovik jeho hluk. Pozvánky vyšel jako před 648 miliony roků, je to staré školy. Pořád ještě neukázal. Chybíš mi
Složené oko může sestávat z tisíců jednotlivých photoreception jednotek. Vnímán obraz je kombinací vstupů z mnoha ommatidia (individuální "oko jednotky"), které jsou umístěny na konvexní povrch, a tak místo v mírně odlišných směrů. Toto by Jorge Boehringer, výsledky v určitém typu zaměření, v němž jsou rozmanité systémy polymathic pronásleduje dovoleno pokrok na své vlastní sazby, dospívat, jako takové, jednotný, než roztříštěné, postřeh, i když z jiné perspektivy, která využívají naši předkové-člověk a jinak. Pan Boehringer je aktivní především jako skladatel a najdete ukázky své práce zvuk zadáním jeho jméno, nebo název "Jádro Uhlířské" do internety. Žije v Praze v současné době.
**********************************************************************************************************
http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2008/08/curious-jorge.html
http://www.virb.com/coal
http://www.last.fm/music/JorgeBoehringer
http://www.myspace.com/coreoggthecoalman
http://www.last.fm/music/Core+of+the+Coalman
http://www.myspace.com/opakptak
http://www.last.fm/music/Jorge+Boehringer
http://www.youtube.com/coreogg
http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/complist.pl?st=B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_of_the_Coalman
I am pleased to announce the release of two new Core of the Coalman/Nitro Uliře recordings:
Affinity Groups, is a self-released cd-r, recorded during last winters very long deep freeze. This recording features five highly textured tracks in which sounds arranged according to lattice-like pattern structures interweave, vibrate, and interfere with each other. Like sound propagating through the inside of a crystal or like being inside of one, the waves make disturbances in the surface and depth of a gelatenous structure in which the listener is immersed. Alternately, this music is structured aggregations of multiple similar events out of which these lattice forms emerge, at times self-organized, at other times organized by me... Or better, a metaphorical audio tour through the Geological Wing of a Natural History Museum. These tracks are the studio versions of material I have developed since I moved to Czech Republic three years ago, and represents the main material I have played on various tours during that time, here in Europe and in the US.
Affinity Groups, Core of the Coalman 7Euro (approx 9$) includes shipping
or paste this in your browser:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=49LGT77UGBSMW
New Cassette from George Chen and Steve Santa Maria's label Two Thousand Tapes features a variation on a continuous sound structure performed by Core of the Coalman many times in concerts in Oakland and San Francisco as well as in Czech Republic. Here, heavy, physical sounds drone and rub against one another in a crushing geological sexuality. New minerals are born here. This is something of a sequel to the very well recieved cassette Carnasie released by Custodian Color Zoo Containers a few years back.
(2/3)r to the 4th power, Core of the Coalman, cassette 4 Euro
or paste in:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FUD76T3WBGHFG
Note: This is my first attempt to use PayPal links directly from an email. If for some reason it doesnt work, please contact me and I will figure it out! I have tested it quite alot, and it should work! Thanks!
Core of the Coalman has other new releases on the way:
Aggregate and Crackle cdr, Chocolate Monk(UK)
Box of the Last Help, cd, Zum (USA)
Other Continues, cassette, Poot Records (UK)
You'll Need a Catapult cd, Klang Und Krack (CZ)
What/who is ...
Jorge Boehringer's viola axe and silver toned frequency drift for the vibration of the air surrounding the Aural Coils, electrically. Both of them, vibrated in phase pulses sometimes symmetrical, and other times it's life burning to pour out. Its Yam Yad much picked over when found in the company of a rough legged hawk. It's a barbershop quartet dedicated to performing baroque slink slop in concordance with thermoelectric properties, and when they are hot, they are hot. It's a theoretical cure for chronic coryza, and while the predicament is allieviated, the geocephalo-cotex is also direly affected, causing an initiative of obsessive vision: geological and musical time frames became supercooled and thus glacially motivated. Slow in form but powered and etched by sunshine continually, in the spirit of biting the hand that feeds one, Core of the Coalman is dyspeptic subtended prescient lacuna and cash money coated in peppermint oil and wrapped in a burning flag,a nest made from twigs stuck in the discarded remains of a dissected dream of textural structures evolving at their own rates and viewable from aan infinity of viewpoints and dimensions simultaneously, and all that, that sort of thing.
Core of the Coalman feedback-driven yodel triggers,descending tympanic pressures implying sexual interface, and (probably) extended upwardly mobile Carnasitic arrays, with ornaments. Its like the blurred fossil record of a biological crises during a time of intense geological speed. Know what I mean, man? its Ordovician noise. The invitations went out like 648 million years ago, it was old school. You still haven't showed up. I miss you
A compound eye may consist of thousands of individual photoreception units. The image perceived is a combination of inputs from the numerous ommatidia (individual "eye units"), which are located on a convex surface, thus point in slightly different directions. This, for Jorge Boehringer, results in a specific type of focus, in which multiple systems of polymathic pursuits are allowed to progress at their own rates, attaining, as such, a unified, rather than fractured, perceptive, though a perspective different from that enjoyed by our ancestors- human and otherwise. Mr. Boehringer is active foremost as a composer and you can find samples of his sound work by typing his name, or the name "Core of the Coalman," into your internets. He lives in Prague currently.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Czech Language version
s pomoc z Google Translator!
"Affinity Groups", je self-cd-r, zaznamenaných během posledních zim velmi dlouhou mrazu. Tato funkce nahrávání pěti vysoce dekorativní skladeb, v němž zní uspořádány podle mříž-jako vzor struktury proplést, vibrují, a navzájem ovlivňovat. Stejně jako zvuk množit přes uvnitř krystalu nebo jako být v rámci jednoho, aby vlny v důsledku narušení povrchu a hloubka gelatenous struktuře, v níž se ponoří posluchače. Střídavě, je to hudba strukturovaný agregace více podobných akcí, z nichž tyto mříže formuláře objeví, občas sebe-organizované, jindy pořádané mě ... Nebo lepší, metaforický audio procházku Geologická křídle Natural History Museum. Tyto stopy jsou studiové verze materiálu jsem vyvinul, protože jsem se přestěhoval do Česká republika před třemi lety, a představuje hlavní materiál jsem hrál na různé výlety během toho času, tady v Evropě a ve Spojených státech.
Affinity Groups, Core of the Coalman
nebo vložte tento ve vašem prohlížeči:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=49LGT77UGBSMW
New Kazeta od George Steve Chen a Santa Maria na etiketě Dva tisíce pásky funkce variace na kontinuální zvukové struktury provedené Jádro týmu Uhlířské v mnoha koncertech v Oaklandu a San Francisca, stejně jako v Česká republika. Tady těžké fyzické zní hukot a třít proti sobě v drtivé geologické sexuality. Nové minerály se zde rodí. To je něco, o pokračování velmi dobře přijatý kazeta Carnasie vydané opatrovníka Barva Zoo Kontejnery několik let zpátky.
(2/3)r to the 4th power, Core of the Coalman, cassette
nebo vložte tento ve vašem prohlížeči:
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FUD76T3WBGHFG
Poznámka: Tohle je můj první pokus o použití PayPal odkazy přímo z e-mailu. Pokud z nějakého důvodu ono doesnt práce, prosím, kontaktujte mě a já na to pozor! Mám zkoušet to docela hodně, a měl by fungovat! Díky!
Jádro Uhlířské má další novinky na cestě:
Aggregate and Crackle cdr, čokoláda Monk (UK)
Box Poslední Pomoc, cd, Zum (USA)
Other Continues, kazetový přehrávač, Poot Records (UK)
Budete potřebovat cd Katapult, Klang Und Krack (CZ)
Co / kdo je ...
Jorge Boehringer na violu sekery a stříbrné tónovaný frekvence drift pro chvění vzduchu v okolí Aural Cívky, elektricky. Oba, vibrátorem ve fázi impulsů symetrický někdy, a jindy je to život hoří vylévat. Jeho Yam Yad hodně zvedl nad tím, kdy se ve společnosti vyskytují hrubé nohama jestřába. Je to holičství kvartet věnovaný provedení barokní plížit se sběrnou ve shodě s termoelektrické vlastnosti, a pokud jsou horké, jsou horké. Je to teoretická lék na chronické rýma, i když je dilema allieviated je geocephalo-cotex úděsně také ovlivněn, což způsobuje iniciativa obsedantně vize: geologické a hudební časové rámce, a tím se stal podchladí glacially motivovaný. Pomalý v podobě, ale pohon a leptané slunečním zářením neustále, v duchu kousat ruku, která krmí jedno, Jádro Uhlířské je pesimistický zorný jasnozřivý mezera a hotovostní peníze obalené v mátu ropy a zabalené do hořící vlajka, hnízdo z větviček uvízl v zlikvidovat zbytky snu o členité texturní struktury vyvíjejí své vlastní sazby a viditelný z aan nekonečno názorů a kót najednou, a tak dále, a tak podobně.
Jádro zpětné vazby Uhlířské-řízený jódlovat spouští, sestupně bubínkové tlaky naznačuje sexuální rozhraní, a (pravděpodobně) rozšířené vzestupně mobilní Carnasitic pole, s ornamenty. Stejně jako jeho rozmazané fosilní záznam biologických krizí v době intenzivního geologických rychlosti. Vím, co chci říct, člověče? ordovik jeho hluk. Pozvánky vyšel jako před 648 miliony roků, je to staré školy. Pořád ještě neukázal. Chybíš mi
Složené oko může sestávat z tisíců jednotlivých photoreception jednotek. Vnímán obraz je kombinací vstupů z mnoha ommatidia (individuální "oko jednotky"), které jsou umístěny na konvexní povrch, a tak místo v mírně odlišných směrů. Toto by Jorge Boehringer, výsledky v určitém typu zaměření, v němž jsou rozmanité systémy polymathic pronásleduje dovoleno pokrok na své vlastní sazby, dospívat, jako takové, jednotný, než roztříštěné, postřeh, i když z jiné perspektivy, která využívají naši předkové-člověk a jinak. Pan Boehringer je aktivní především jako skladatel a najdete ukázky své práce zvuk zadáním jeho jméno, nebo název "Jádro Uhlířské" do internety. Žije v Praze v současné době.
**********************************************************************************************************
http://www.nonalignmentpact.com/2008/08/curious-jorge.html
http://www.virb.com/coal
http://www.last.fm/music/JorgeBoehringer
http://www.myspace.com/coreoggthecoalman
http://www.last.fm/music/Core+of+the+Coalman
http://www.myspace.com/opakptak
http://www.last.fm/music/Jorge+Boehringer
http://www.youtube.com/coreogg
http://artofthestates.org/cgi-bin/complist.pl?st=B
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_of_the_Coalman
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
If It's Too Loud You Are Too Old
Dear ________________,
I wanted to write to thank you again for your concerns and advice following my recent performance at ___________, and I want to take this opportunity to respond to a few of your comments.
First of all, I want to say that I entirely agree with you that in terms of volume I was louder than would be normal for the space in that room. There were several reasons for this:
1. I sided with achieving an overall physical balance of sounds in the room, regardless of the position of individual audience members. Since the music I was performing is meant to be heard in the chest and knees as much as the ears, and as it is common practice to wear earplugs at many of these concerts (as ridiculous as this practice is) I figured it would be a good idea to turn it up. Besides, you guys had just hosted the _____(big noise) Festival in ________there so I figured it would be fine to turn it up.
2. I sought and achieved a correct mix of live-acoustic and amplified sound in the space. For me to perform this music correctly it is necessary that the electronically amplified and the reproduced sounds be at least as loud and at most times louder than the acoustic viola. Due to the spacial positioning of the audience in this space, the sound system, and the performance area, a sufficient volume turned out to be a pretty loud one! Still, it was necessary to eliminate the dominance of the non-electric element in the music.
Bearing these factors in mind, perhaps it would have been wiser, upon realizing the intimacy of the space, to abandon these pieces entirely in favor or an improvisation or some other alternative. Maybe after seeing the other bands perform, I should have opted to play very very quietly like they did. Perhaps it was my poor judgment to try and present an immersive work in such a context, however, these are the pieces that I was presenting on this tour, and so I stuck to this model even though it was, admittedly, a small space.
I played the music I had prepared, which requires a sensitivity to the space, but not so much to every individual person in it. After all, I play the way I like. I don't conduct a social survey before I start to determine what each audience member might feel like that evening and then average them in the manner of Komar and Melimid to find the perfect mediocrity that satisfies the greatest number (in theory). I think these pieces are interesting. They haven't killed me yet. Since you are like me, by analogy, I assume you will like them too. That is my logic. Its a small space. Still, it is a small space inside ___________'s best known experimental music studio/theatre complex. So I figured people would know how to deal with it. With the exception of yourself, it seems most of them did.
In addition, I am sure you have been to numerous performances that occur at even higher amplitudes in even smaller spaces than yours. This is quite common today, fortunately or not. I am forced to present a good deal of my work in such contexts as many places that are not as well off as _______(rich country) and have little else to offer in the way of venues, especially for the immersive sound experiences, which I am designing. Ear plugs are standard equiptment at many venues associated with rock and "noise" music and I play a lot of concerts in such places. In my own work, I look for the line at which ear plugs should still be unnecessary when the scale and physicality of the sound I am seeking is reached. In fact, I don't think the sounds I was producing at my concert there were all that painful or dangerous, but if you wish to wear earplugs, or for that matter, go outside, please be my guest.
I am not fond of the fact that earplugs have become such standard equiptment. I believe the negative function is twofold. Firstly, in most cases people do not have good earplugs and the music is distorted, especially in the high frequencies, to a ridiculous extent. Second, musicians are playing louder because they and the audience have their ears plugged, and because of this ear plugs have become a requirement to avoid hearing damage at many concerts. I think this is ridiculous. Yet your venue presented the ______(big noise) Festival the weekend prior to my concert there. How was I to know that my show was to be a "quiet" show? Perhaps I was simply misprogramed. As you said, maybe I just played "on the wrong night." Its possible, but was that my decision? Not really. My music is generally quite large in terms of scale and in terms of amplitude in particular, promoters should know that, I sent samples. There is no secret.
Now, unfortunately, I do have a few differences of opinion regarding some other assertions you made about me and my music:
A. You observed that I kept increasing the volume as I was performing. This is, in fact, entirely inaccurate. I rather decreased the overall limit of possible volumes and worked for a balance between this and the component frequencies involved. The density increased, and yes, in the first piece so did the volume, but at no point did I raise the overall ceiling of the sound, and at all times it was well within control. As such, you may have thought it too loud, but I did not. This puts all the blame on my initial decision to play loudly, but as I explained earlier, I accept that.
B. You observed that my music is cumulative, and actually yes, in the case of a few of the pieces I am presenting on this tour, you are correct.
C. You questioned other promoters decision to present my music. This is totally indefensible and assinine. The promoter in question that you brought up organizes a lot of concerts, most of which you would probably find too loud. If you don't enjoy what I am doing than fine, don't come to my next concert, but keep out of my business. What I do with other people is not your concern.
D.Although "violin phase" by Steve Reich is indeed a wonderful piece. However, and though I am very grateful to Mr. Reich for his music, my current work bears only a passing, cursory and superficial relationship to this famous work, and only in terms of surface. These pieces, as one can hear easily with even a little attention or better, a little analysis, are structured entirely differently from the Reich piece. They employ totally divergent conceptual and constructive processes and at best can be said to share a starting point. In addition, they were, I imagine, arrived at through totally different perspectives, at least I would be very surprised to learn otherwise.
Still, you know, we are in a world of imitators. I like Reich's music and am now way concerned if a couple of pieces of mine bear a slight resemblance in passing to a few of his. He has written a lot of music, you know. Its like being told you look like a wonderful, beautiful model from the past whom you admire very much. It makes me feel quite glamorous that you think so highly of my work as to compare me to this guy. Still, in the larger body of my own work these pieces occupy a logical place and are in no way a stopping point. Besides, I enjoy playing them, and they are quite different from the work in question.
Further, this entire comment was misplaced as the only piece I played that can even be said to bear a resemblance to a Reich work was the one I used for sound check, but I didn't present this one at the concert. Additionally, this relationship is purely coincidental, and the only relation between the piece and Violin Phase is that I am playing the viola. In fact, the motive is similar to and inversion of the motive of Piano Phase, another Reich piece. Though still, this piece was arrived at independantly and from another perspective entirely. Thus if similarities ("to any persons living or dead") than it is purely coincidential. And then it is important to consider that I did NOT present this music on the concert.
E. Your final and most offensive comment was the remark implying that I am not paying attention or thinking about what I am doing musically. That one nearly got you a bloody nose, but I was to tired, in fact, to respond to your dim witted blather any more in any form. I hope by now your concerns as to whether I am thinking about what I am doing musically are satiated, though I appreciate your concern, and love above all else the pursuit of new questions. In that spirit, or should your prefer, the spirit of the bloody nose which I would still gladly give you when next we meet, I am happy to answer any more questions you have regarding my work (though you might need to wait until I have time to respond to you).
Good luck and happy listening.
Jorge Boehringer
the Core of the Coalman
I wanted to write to thank you again for your concerns and advice following my recent performance at ___________, and I want to take this opportunity to respond to a few of your comments.
First of all, I want to say that I entirely agree with you that in terms of volume I was louder than would be normal for the space in that room. There were several reasons for this:
1. I sided with achieving an overall physical balance of sounds in the room, regardless of the position of individual audience members. Since the music I was performing is meant to be heard in the chest and knees as much as the ears, and as it is common practice to wear earplugs at many of these concerts (as ridiculous as this practice is) I figured it would be a good idea to turn it up. Besides, you guys had just hosted the _____(big noise) Festival in ________there so I figured it would be fine to turn it up.
2. I sought and achieved a correct mix of live-acoustic and amplified sound in the space. For me to perform this music correctly it is necessary that the electronically amplified and the reproduced sounds be at least as loud and at most times louder than the acoustic viola. Due to the spacial positioning of the audience in this space, the sound system, and the performance area, a sufficient volume turned out to be a pretty loud one! Still, it was necessary to eliminate the dominance of the non-electric element in the music.
Bearing these factors in mind, perhaps it would have been wiser, upon realizing the intimacy of the space, to abandon these pieces entirely in favor or an improvisation or some other alternative. Maybe after seeing the other bands perform, I should have opted to play very very quietly like they did. Perhaps it was my poor judgment to try and present an immersive work in such a context, however, these are the pieces that I was presenting on this tour, and so I stuck to this model even though it was, admittedly, a small space.
I played the music I had prepared, which requires a sensitivity to the space, but not so much to every individual person in it. After all, I play the way I like. I don't conduct a social survey before I start to determine what each audience member might feel like that evening and then average them in the manner of Komar and Melimid to find the perfect mediocrity that satisfies the greatest number (in theory). I think these pieces are interesting. They haven't killed me yet. Since you are like me, by analogy, I assume you will like them too. That is my logic. Its a small space. Still, it is a small space inside ___________'s best known experimental music studio/theatre complex. So I figured people would know how to deal with it. With the exception of yourself, it seems most of them did.
In addition, I am sure you have been to numerous performances that occur at even higher amplitudes in even smaller spaces than yours. This is quite common today, fortunately or not. I am forced to present a good deal of my work in such contexts as many places that are not as well off as _______(rich country) and have little else to offer in the way of venues, especially for the immersive sound experiences, which I am designing. Ear plugs are standard equiptment at many venues associated with rock and "noise" music and I play a lot of concerts in such places. In my own work, I look for the line at which ear plugs should still be unnecessary when the scale and physicality of the sound I am seeking is reached. In fact, I don't think the sounds I was producing at my concert there were all that painful or dangerous, but if you wish to wear earplugs, or for that matter, go outside, please be my guest.
I am not fond of the fact that earplugs have become such standard equiptment. I believe the negative function is twofold. Firstly, in most cases people do not have good earplugs and the music is distorted, especially in the high frequencies, to a ridiculous extent. Second, musicians are playing louder because they and the audience have their ears plugged, and because of this ear plugs have become a requirement to avoid hearing damage at many concerts. I think this is ridiculous. Yet your venue presented the ______(big noise) Festival the weekend prior to my concert there. How was I to know that my show was to be a "quiet" show? Perhaps I was simply misprogramed. As you said, maybe I just played "on the wrong night." Its possible, but was that my decision? Not really. My music is generally quite large in terms of scale and in terms of amplitude in particular, promoters should know that, I sent samples. There is no secret.
Now, unfortunately, I do have a few differences of opinion regarding some other assertions you made about me and my music:
A. You observed that I kept increasing the volume as I was performing. This is, in fact, entirely inaccurate. I rather decreased the overall limit of possible volumes and worked for a balance between this and the component frequencies involved. The density increased, and yes, in the first piece so did the volume, but at no point did I raise the overall ceiling of the sound, and at all times it was well within control. As such, you may have thought it too loud, but I did not. This puts all the blame on my initial decision to play loudly, but as I explained earlier, I accept that.
B. You observed that my music is cumulative, and actually yes, in the case of a few of the pieces I am presenting on this tour, you are correct.
C. You questioned other promoters decision to present my music. This is totally indefensible and assinine. The promoter in question that you brought up organizes a lot of concerts, most of which you would probably find too loud. If you don't enjoy what I am doing than fine, don't come to my next concert, but keep out of my business. What I do with other people is not your concern.
D.Although "violin phase" by Steve Reich is indeed a wonderful piece. However, and though I am very grateful to Mr. Reich for his music, my current work bears only a passing, cursory and superficial relationship to this famous work, and only in terms of surface. These pieces, as one can hear easily with even a little attention or better, a little analysis, are structured entirely differently from the Reich piece. They employ totally divergent conceptual and constructive processes and at best can be said to share a starting point. In addition, they were, I imagine, arrived at through totally different perspectives, at least I would be very surprised to learn otherwise.
Still, you know, we are in a world of imitators. I like Reich's music and am now way concerned if a couple of pieces of mine bear a slight resemblance in passing to a few of his. He has written a lot of music, you know. Its like being told you look like a wonderful, beautiful model from the past whom you admire very much. It makes me feel quite glamorous that you think so highly of my work as to compare me to this guy. Still, in the larger body of my own work these pieces occupy a logical place and are in no way a stopping point. Besides, I enjoy playing them, and they are quite different from the work in question.
Further, this entire comment was misplaced as the only piece I played that can even be said to bear a resemblance to a Reich work was the one I used for sound check, but I didn't present this one at the concert. Additionally, this relationship is purely coincidental, and the only relation between the piece and Violin Phase is that I am playing the viola. In fact, the motive is similar to and inversion of the motive of Piano Phase, another Reich piece. Though still, this piece was arrived at independantly and from another perspective entirely. Thus if similarities ("to any persons living or dead") than it is purely coincidential. And then it is important to consider that I did NOT present this music on the concert.
E. Your final and most offensive comment was the remark implying that I am not paying attention or thinking about what I am doing musically. That one nearly got you a bloody nose, but I was to tired, in fact, to respond to your dim witted blather any more in any form. I hope by now your concerns as to whether I am thinking about what I am doing musically are satiated, though I appreciate your concern, and love above all else the pursuit of new questions. In that spirit, or should your prefer, the spirit of the bloody nose which I would still gladly give you when next we meet, I am happy to answer any more questions you have regarding my work (though you might need to wait until I have time to respond to you).
Good luck and happy listening.
Jorge Boehringer
the Core of the Coalman
Mobius Strip,or "Why I am Not Looping"
To loop implies things. To loop implies that something heard once will be heard again. Is that even possible? I will leave that up to you, but from a certain perspective of time and progression it most certainly is NOT. That perspective is one which views time as an irreversible continuous flowing suchness, in which we float as little mice upon our leaf-rafts, on downward and upward through through the rivers of our lives. The rivers even change speeds, there are rapids...but this is the apparent perspective, the one most of us describe experiencing most of the time with respect to time.
Still, in all practicality, we do loop. We do it, or we say we do it. We move in circles and revisit recursive materials in time. And we say we do, we describe ourselves as doing "the same" things each day, going the same places, having been somewhere before. At least we don't know how else to describe these experiences otherwise, or it is merely too much trouble. Everyone understands what you mean, after all, so there is no point in delving into a phenomenology of time just to explain to someone that you have "seen that film before" when she asks you to the theatre.
Yet, hidden inside of this is something of a paradox. After all, the very thing which gives the "repetition" its experiential appeal, at least for me, is the very fact that a repetition highlights the fact of time gone by, or time going by. If the material being presented is kept exactly the same and presented in exactly the same way, which is not at all difficult to achieve digitally, there are still myriad changes in both the presented and perceived phenomena. These changes, the moving frame of the sounds, as well as the participative aspect of the mind and body of the listener and her environment (not to mention other listeners and their behavioral interactions with the aforementioned listener) are all highlighted by the presentation of repetitive material. The solid, exact repetition of a material of enough substance to take up a certain amount of attention or perceptual space, be it sound, or a physical object of static quality, can function to highlight the otherwise under- or un-perceived qualities of many experiences. The complexity implicit in our own systems and the environmental systems complexity which we are part of is highlighted by the regularity of the presented material, which inversely becomes a frame for the environment. This is, of course, a complete reversal of the normal framing aspect of an environment with regard to the sounds played into or on top of it to make music. And yet, there it is.
We loop, or say we loop. And in music especially. My friend Mike used to say when we were at school in California "everyone here is looping and drone-ing." Still, I am not looping even when I am and I will tell you why, after a little while.
To loop in music implies that material previously heard is heard again. In a sense it implies that it is played again and again either mechanically or physically. Regardless of whether that is philosophically possible (see paragraph one) I am not doing this. Not guilty.
The recurring materials that I set into play against one another are assymetrical themselves in terms of their phrase structure. Further, they are placed against one another in irregular and rhythmically asymmetrical ways. Thus they recombine on their own once set into play and these recombinations, since not sequenced or rhythmically quantized or otherwise locked into sync with one another, drift in time, and develop a certain amount of unpredictability, an indeterminacy in their relations. This is surprising and a source of great happiness to me, since the initial phrase material is quite set. This way I get to compose and be surprised.
This is true for almost all the "lattice patterned music" that I developed over the last couple of years and performed on the tours listed in previous entries to this blog. This music can be heard on the records Affinity Groups, which is not yet released, and on Box of the Last Help, which should come out on Zum records soon, I hope.
Where overall periods of true repetition in this music, that is to say, the point at which all individual patterns and periodic patterns of interaction between patterns become periodic (repeat), where such periods actually exist they are too long to be perceived as such, and likely they have been augmented by other material and their original orientation with respect to time and spatial function (background/foreground relation) in the music will have changed prior to the point at which repetition can be perceived where overall periods of true repetition in this music exist. Thus even when the material "loops" through the use of one or more electronic devices which play the recorded material again and again and again and again, it is either that the combination of two or more of these functions to create a highly changeable or even chaotic situation in which overall periods of repetition in the whole do not exist, or that the overall period is so long that it is negligible, where overall periods of true repetition in this music exist. Further, in these instances the material presented is not heard as a loop even when it is in fact, looping, in the sense of being re-presented by one or more electronic devices which record and then play back sounds in the manner of a tape-loop, but rather the material is heard as a continually shifting pattern of changeable pieces as in the manner of a polychromic kalidescope, in which individual sheets of colour are translucent and as such when superimposed affect one another in the manners described by Wittgenstein in his book about Colour. Sounds lack opacity in general. Though they can mask one another, when presented in a musical context sounds of similar timbre and amplitude will blend into an incredible variety of translucences. And this is what is happening when I play these patterns on top of and against one another, and since the colours are always changing the overall aspect is not looping. It doesn't repeat, even if the parts inside do, and the do, a lot.
In fact, the only way this recent music of mine can even be described as looping is in the most simplistic (overly simplistic, reductive levels of description) and with reference only to a few of the tools and techniques used to play this music live. Only in terms of construction can this even begin to be described in this way. In effect, it is something else.
The overall assymetry of the superimposed parts (themselves assymetrical) results not in bland repetition (which itself can be, or produce, very interesting effects as mentioned above in terms of functioning to re-frame the perceiving mechanism of the listeners themselves) but instead the result is the unfolding of a continuous process, which may only be described as looping in the specific cases where it wraps back on itself in the manner of a mobius strip, which is indeed a special sort of loop.
Still, in all practicality, we do loop. We do it, or we say we do it. We move in circles and revisit recursive materials in time. And we say we do, we describe ourselves as doing "the same" things each day, going the same places, having been somewhere before. At least we don't know how else to describe these experiences otherwise, or it is merely too much trouble. Everyone understands what you mean, after all, so there is no point in delving into a phenomenology of time just to explain to someone that you have "seen that film before" when she asks you to the theatre.
Yet, hidden inside of this is something of a paradox. After all, the very thing which gives the "repetition" its experiential appeal, at least for me, is the very fact that a repetition highlights the fact of time gone by, or time going by. If the material being presented is kept exactly the same and presented in exactly the same way, which is not at all difficult to achieve digitally, there are still myriad changes in both the presented and perceived phenomena. These changes, the moving frame of the sounds, as well as the participative aspect of the mind and body of the listener and her environment (not to mention other listeners and their behavioral interactions with the aforementioned listener) are all highlighted by the presentation of repetitive material. The solid, exact repetition of a material of enough substance to take up a certain amount of attention or perceptual space, be it sound, or a physical object of static quality, can function to highlight the otherwise under- or un-perceived qualities of many experiences. The complexity implicit in our own systems and the environmental systems complexity which we are part of is highlighted by the regularity of the presented material, which inversely becomes a frame for the environment. This is, of course, a complete reversal of the normal framing aspect of an environment with regard to the sounds played into or on top of it to make music. And yet, there it is.
We loop, or say we loop. And in music especially. My friend Mike used to say when we were at school in California "everyone here is looping and drone-ing." Still, I am not looping even when I am and I will tell you why, after a little while.
To loop in music implies that material previously heard is heard again. In a sense it implies that it is played again and again either mechanically or physically. Regardless of whether that is philosophically possible (see paragraph one) I am not doing this. Not guilty.
The recurring materials that I set into play against one another are assymetrical themselves in terms of their phrase structure. Further, they are placed against one another in irregular and rhythmically asymmetrical ways. Thus they recombine on their own once set into play and these recombinations, since not sequenced or rhythmically quantized or otherwise locked into sync with one another, drift in time, and develop a certain amount of unpredictability, an indeterminacy in their relations. This is surprising and a source of great happiness to me, since the initial phrase material is quite set. This way I get to compose and be surprised.
This is true for almost all the "lattice patterned music" that I developed over the last couple of years and performed on the tours listed in previous entries to this blog. This music can be heard on the records Affinity Groups, which is not yet released, and on Box of the Last Help, which should come out on Zum records soon, I hope.
Where overall periods of true repetition in this music, that is to say, the point at which all individual patterns and periodic patterns of interaction between patterns become periodic (repeat), where such periods actually exist they are too long to be perceived as such, and likely they have been augmented by other material and their original orientation with respect to time and spatial function (background/foreground relation) in the music will have changed prior to the point at which repetition can be perceived where overall periods of true repetition in this music exist. Thus even when the material "loops" through the use of one or more electronic devices which play the recorded material again and again and again and again, it is either that the combination of two or more of these functions to create a highly changeable or even chaotic situation in which overall periods of repetition in the whole do not exist, or that the overall period is so long that it is negligible, where overall periods of true repetition in this music exist. Further, in these instances the material presented is not heard as a loop even when it is in fact, looping, in the sense of being re-presented by one or more electronic devices which record and then play back sounds in the manner of a tape-loop, but rather the material is heard as a continually shifting pattern of changeable pieces as in the manner of a polychromic kalidescope, in which individual sheets of colour are translucent and as such when superimposed affect one another in the manners described by Wittgenstein in his book about Colour. Sounds lack opacity in general. Though they can mask one another, when presented in a musical context sounds of similar timbre and amplitude will blend into an incredible variety of translucences. And this is what is happening when I play these patterns on top of and against one another, and since the colours are always changing the overall aspect is not looping. It doesn't repeat, even if the parts inside do, and the do, a lot.
In fact, the only way this recent music of mine can even be described as looping is in the most simplistic (overly simplistic, reductive levels of description) and with reference only to a few of the tools and techniques used to play this music live. Only in terms of construction can this even begin to be described in this way. In effect, it is something else.
The overall assymetry of the superimposed parts (themselves assymetrical) results not in bland repetition (which itself can be, or produce, very interesting effects as mentioned above in terms of functioning to re-frame the perceiving mechanism of the listeners themselves) but instead the result is the unfolding of a continuous process, which may only be described as looping in the specific cases where it wraps back on itself in the manner of a mobius strip, which is indeed a special sort of loop.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Frank and Claude
The King and his very arrogant cartographer, Honza, were lost in the Great Grey Wood. The King had on a very large and heavy hat made of gold so that all could see his shining eminence, and the cartographer kept his back very stiff and straight and was very careful to always check his teeth in the small mirror he carried with him, to ensure that they remained clean and white.
It must have been during one of these breaks in Honza's concentration, when he was looking at himself in the mirror, that he failed to notice the trail receding behind him in the mirror and soon, despite being less than a 20 minute ride from the castle, they were perfectly lost.
Later, upon returning to what they believed to be the same mountain for the fourth time, and as they were without food and very hungry both Gentlemen began to become uncomfortable and move back and forth in their saddles. Ni ether wanted to admit aloud they were lost. After all, for the King, it was perfectly unthinkable that he should be lost in his own kingdom, much less just outside the walls of his own castle. For the cartographer, it was, of course, a matter of pride.
Soon, however, the two men and their two horses visited the same breathtaking vista for the fifth time. This time, clearly something had to be done, as it was certainly becoming quite late.
"I do say", said the King, clearing his throat loudly," I feel that I have seen thither mountain before..."
"Ah yes" said the cartographer," indeed."
This type of exchange continued for several minutes, the King becoming more and more frustrated and the cartographer more and more reserved and the horses more and more and more tired (the horses had long ago grown hungry and amid the droning monotone of their two noble masters could only think of how they might get moving again, for horses dot mind distance if they are moving but if they are forced to stop and listen to men talk, they get VERY impatient very quickly).
"And what is the name of that mountain" continued the king.
"Not sure..."replied Honza, the cartographer, smoothing his mustache," but you own it, oh liege"
And on and on in like manner, still neither nobleman wishing to admit that they were totally lost. Finally, it could continue no longer, after all, a horse must get home!
"Claude" said Frank the light coloured horse with the big socks, to Claude, the dark coloured horse to his left. "You reckon its a left up there, and then a right, to get back to the castle"
"Pffffffffft" said Claude blowing his nostrils loudly and shaking his mane," surely, I could have told you that hours ago."
"Well, why didn't you speak up then?"
"well, why didn't YOU speak up then?|
"OK, ok lets just get going" and so off they went, snorting and tossing heads and tails, in the direction that they knew would take them home for sure. A left, a right, and in the distance, though not at all too distant, the castle could be seen. The King and his map-maker were beside themselves. they couldn't speak and both were a little embarrassed.
"I am the smartest man in my land" thought the King," that is why I wear this great and noble crown on my great and noble head, and still these horses seem smarter than I. What if the people hear of this, that I, the King, became lost in my own wood and had to seek help from my horse? Can such a man lead his people? Better I keep this quiet, that no one will find out"
Meanwhile, the cartographer was busy trying to take credit for the achievement of the horses. "Look here, you beast, I told you to turn left hours ago, if you hadn't gone running off hither and thither but followed my directions we never would have been lost in the first place. And were do you think you are going now?" to which neither Claude nor Frank responded, endlessly loyal and defiant to their masters, and, truth be told, much happier to be moving along again.
Finally the King spoke aloud, but to the cartographer, as everyone knew that horses can't talk:
"I shall have your head"
at which point the cartographer, struck cold to his toes, stopped his bubbling and nonstop rant.
Then, disparate, he began again
"but how could you do such an unkindness to me? for if it was not for me we should still be lost deep within the wood and you would never have found the way home?"
the King responded, his voice deep and grave
"That, as usual, is untrue. You, in your arrogance and distraction, got us lost,and besides your maps are all wrong".
"OK, ok" replied the cartographer, "but lift my head from my shoulders and you shall have to explain to everyone how you returned from the forest with the help of a talking horse. Thus really you should consider it a great favor that I keep silent."
And so the cartographer lived to make it back to the castle, but his pride burned inside of him. That he, the royal mapmaker, could be bettered by a talking horse was simply inconceivable. Angrily he stomped back and forth in front of the stables, making such a fuss and racket that the boys who worked there left, not wanting to disturb the noble man in his foul mood.
Then Honza had an idea. If Frank and Claude had helped him in the forest, surely they could keep helping him. These horses must have many secrets to tell, after all they bore the great King on every hunt and midnight tyrst. These horses could help him have the power he had always wanted. So, looking around to make sure he was unobserved Honza entered the stables.
"Frank" he whispered, "Frank...wake up"
but Frank only snorted and tossed his head.
"Dammit beast," Honza said, punching the horse in the neck" wake up"
at which point Frank suddenly opened his eyes, and deep inside them for a moment, but only a moment a fire raged. Then, instantly, he remembered his place, and being loyal, looked blankly back at the servant to the king who stood in front of him.
"Look Frank, I brought you some nice oats" said the cartographer, pushing bundles of oats into the pen where Frank and Claude lived. But Frank ignored him. He could sense that something was strange, something was not as it should be. he just snorted, tossed his head.
"All I ask," began the cartographer, "is that we make a little deal. You like oats right? I like information. We are both looking out for what is right for this kingdom, yes? So maybe you can tell me somethings about where you carry our King at night and what things you hear..."
Again, Frank just snorted and tossed his head, moving away from the oats. They smelled of trouble.
"Fine!" yelled Honza, "if you can't cooperate with me, I shall have you made into dogfood! At least perhaps your colleague is more reasonable."
but Claude, Frank's "colleague" simply tossed his head and snorted, pretending to be asleep.
The map maker was beside himself with rage. Mixing with the fatigue from the days journey and the whiskey he had drunk earlier that evening, he was no longer sure if he had really heard the horses talk or if instead it had all been a dream. He feared for his own sanity but wanted power more than anything. "Speak!" he commanded them. "Damn you! Speak!"
but still the horses kept silent.
Honza grabbed a nearby broom and began striking Claude violently on the head again and again. Frank tried to put his body in the way of the broom but being tied to a pole managed instead to catch the pull force of the assault in the teeth.
Still, both horses stayed silent. After beating them for a few minutes, the map maker showed his teeth and snarled:
"last chance, speak, speak or BURN!" and being greeted with silence he spilled the oil from his lantern onto the hay beneath where the horses were tied. He lifted the lantern high above his head, ready in a moment to smash it down onto the oil soaked hay, his eyes glowing with murder. Frank and Claude, though frightened, stood their ground. They looked back at him with their deep eyes. Without hatred, they were his superiors.
And at that moment they were saved. In rushed the stable boy and poured water all over the fiend and his lantern. And in rushed the Sheriff and, wrestling him to the ground, placed handcuffs on the would-be horse murderer.
"Madman," he said, " why are you trying to burn the King's barn? The stable boy heard you in here talking to the horses and getting angry, so he called me to come. What is wrong with you, fool? You will be hanged in the morning for certain."
And so he was hanged the next day, and as the stable boy drove the cart with the body of the cartographer's body to the prisoner's cemetery (for, being a traitor, he could no longer be buried in the King's cemetery) he asked the horses:
"So, what was all that about last night? What did you say to make him so upset?"
Now the horses had long been friends with the stable boy and had come to love him very much and so when no one was around they talked openly with him.
"I said nothing" said Claude, "I just pretended to be asleep"
"Me either" said Frank, tossing his head and snorting.
"So what was the problem?" asked the boy
"dunno" said Frank, "maybe he was crazy, "thinking horses could talk"
Later that day, while Claude and Frank were chewing things in the pasture, the King came to see them.
"So," said the King, "I must thank you for showing me the nature of the incompetence and treacherous fool I had in my court. I owe you greatly, and from now on you will receive special oats every midday."
The horses said nothing, ignoring him, as is the usual behavior for them.
"But I must ask you" asked the King" how is it that you never spoke to me before, after all, I am your great and noble king?"
There was a long pause, and then Claude looked up from the grass, looked into the Kings blue eyes with his own dark infinite eyes, and said "you never asked".
And so it was true. The King went home, and everyone went to sleep.
It must have been during one of these breaks in Honza's concentration, when he was looking at himself in the mirror, that he failed to notice the trail receding behind him in the mirror and soon, despite being less than a 20 minute ride from the castle, they were perfectly lost.
Later, upon returning to what they believed to be the same mountain for the fourth time, and as they were without food and very hungry both Gentlemen began to become uncomfortable and move back and forth in their saddles. Ni ether wanted to admit aloud they were lost. After all, for the King, it was perfectly unthinkable that he should be lost in his own kingdom, much less just outside the walls of his own castle. For the cartographer, it was, of course, a matter of pride.
Soon, however, the two men and their two horses visited the same breathtaking vista for the fifth time. This time, clearly something had to be done, as it was certainly becoming quite late.
"I do say", said the King, clearing his throat loudly," I feel that I have seen thither mountain before..."
"Ah yes" said the cartographer," indeed."
This type of exchange continued for several minutes, the King becoming more and more frustrated and the cartographer more and more reserved and the horses more and more and more tired (the horses had long ago grown hungry and amid the droning monotone of their two noble masters could only think of how they might get moving again, for horses dot mind distance if they are moving but if they are forced to stop and listen to men talk, they get VERY impatient very quickly).
"And what is the name of that mountain" continued the king.
"Not sure..."replied Honza, the cartographer, smoothing his mustache," but you own it, oh liege"
And on and on in like manner, still neither nobleman wishing to admit that they were totally lost. Finally, it could continue no longer, after all, a horse must get home!
"Claude" said Frank the light coloured horse with the big socks, to Claude, the dark coloured horse to his left. "You reckon its a left up there, and then a right, to get back to the castle"
"Pffffffffft" said Claude blowing his nostrils loudly and shaking his mane," surely, I could have told you that hours ago."
"Well, why didn't you speak up then?"
"well, why didn't YOU speak up then?|
"OK, ok lets just get going" and so off they went, snorting and tossing heads and tails, in the direction that they knew would take them home for sure. A left, a right, and in the distance, though not at all too distant, the castle could be seen. The King and his map-maker were beside themselves. they couldn't speak and both were a little embarrassed.
"I am the smartest man in my land" thought the King," that is why I wear this great and noble crown on my great and noble head, and still these horses seem smarter than I. What if the people hear of this, that I, the King, became lost in my own wood and had to seek help from my horse? Can such a man lead his people? Better I keep this quiet, that no one will find out"
Meanwhile, the cartographer was busy trying to take credit for the achievement of the horses. "Look here, you beast, I told you to turn left hours ago, if you hadn't gone running off hither and thither but followed my directions we never would have been lost in the first place. And were do you think you are going now?" to which neither Claude nor Frank responded, endlessly loyal and defiant to their masters, and, truth be told, much happier to be moving along again.
Finally the King spoke aloud, but to the cartographer, as everyone knew that horses can't talk:
"I shall have your head"
at which point the cartographer, struck cold to his toes, stopped his bubbling and nonstop rant.
Then, disparate, he began again
"but how could you do such an unkindness to me? for if it was not for me we should still be lost deep within the wood and you would never have found the way home?"
the King responded, his voice deep and grave
"That, as usual, is untrue. You, in your arrogance and distraction, got us lost,and besides your maps are all wrong".
"OK, ok" replied the cartographer, "but lift my head from my shoulders and you shall have to explain to everyone how you returned from the forest with the help of a talking horse. Thus really you should consider it a great favor that I keep silent."
And so the cartographer lived to make it back to the castle, but his pride burned inside of him. That he, the royal mapmaker, could be bettered by a talking horse was simply inconceivable. Angrily he stomped back and forth in front of the stables, making such a fuss and racket that the boys who worked there left, not wanting to disturb the noble man in his foul mood.
Then Honza had an idea. If Frank and Claude had helped him in the forest, surely they could keep helping him. These horses must have many secrets to tell, after all they bore the great King on every hunt and midnight tyrst. These horses could help him have the power he had always wanted. So, looking around to make sure he was unobserved Honza entered the stables.
"Frank" he whispered, "Frank...wake up"
but Frank only snorted and tossed his head.
"Dammit beast," Honza said, punching the horse in the neck" wake up"
at which point Frank suddenly opened his eyes, and deep inside them for a moment, but only a moment a fire raged. Then, instantly, he remembered his place, and being loyal, looked blankly back at the servant to the king who stood in front of him.
"Look Frank, I brought you some nice oats" said the cartographer, pushing bundles of oats into the pen where Frank and Claude lived. But Frank ignored him. He could sense that something was strange, something was not as it should be. he just snorted, tossed his head.
"All I ask," began the cartographer, "is that we make a little deal. You like oats right? I like information. We are both looking out for what is right for this kingdom, yes? So maybe you can tell me somethings about where you carry our King at night and what things you hear..."
Again, Frank just snorted and tossed his head, moving away from the oats. They smelled of trouble.
"Fine!" yelled Honza, "if you can't cooperate with me, I shall have you made into dogfood! At least perhaps your colleague is more reasonable."
but Claude, Frank's "colleague" simply tossed his head and snorted, pretending to be asleep.
The map maker was beside himself with rage. Mixing with the fatigue from the days journey and the whiskey he had drunk earlier that evening, he was no longer sure if he had really heard the horses talk or if instead it had all been a dream. He feared for his own sanity but wanted power more than anything. "Speak!" he commanded them. "Damn you! Speak!"
but still the horses kept silent.
Honza grabbed a nearby broom and began striking Claude violently on the head again and again. Frank tried to put his body in the way of the broom but being tied to a pole managed instead to catch the pull force of the assault in the teeth.
Still, both horses stayed silent. After beating them for a few minutes, the map maker showed his teeth and snarled:
"last chance, speak, speak or BURN!" and being greeted with silence he spilled the oil from his lantern onto the hay beneath where the horses were tied. He lifted the lantern high above his head, ready in a moment to smash it down onto the oil soaked hay, his eyes glowing with murder. Frank and Claude, though frightened, stood their ground. They looked back at him with their deep eyes. Without hatred, they were his superiors.
And at that moment they were saved. In rushed the stable boy and poured water all over the fiend and his lantern. And in rushed the Sheriff and, wrestling him to the ground, placed handcuffs on the would-be horse murderer.
"Madman," he said, " why are you trying to burn the King's barn? The stable boy heard you in here talking to the horses and getting angry, so he called me to come. What is wrong with you, fool? You will be hanged in the morning for certain."
And so he was hanged the next day, and as the stable boy drove the cart with the body of the cartographer's body to the prisoner's cemetery (for, being a traitor, he could no longer be buried in the King's cemetery) he asked the horses:
"So, what was all that about last night? What did you say to make him so upset?"
Now the horses had long been friends with the stable boy and had come to love him very much and so when no one was around they talked openly with him.
"I said nothing" said Claude, "I just pretended to be asleep"
"Me either" said Frank, tossing his head and snorting.
"So what was the problem?" asked the boy
"dunno" said Frank, "maybe he was crazy, "thinking horses could talk"
Later that day, while Claude and Frank were chewing things in the pasture, the King came to see them.
"So," said the King, "I must thank you for showing me the nature of the incompetence and treacherous fool I had in my court. I owe you greatly, and from now on you will receive special oats every midday."
The horses said nothing, ignoring him, as is the usual behavior for them.
"But I must ask you" asked the King" how is it that you never spoke to me before, after all, I am your great and noble king?"
There was a long pause, and then Claude looked up from the grass, looked into the Kings blue eyes with his own dark infinite eyes, and said "you never asked".
And so it was true. The King went home, and everyone went to sleep.
Ancient Mammoth
ancient mammoth
remain aloft
let not thy
eyelids drop
though heavy let me keep
the movement steady
the footprints deep
and roots that grow
through rock and ice
growing warmer
with ancient voice
whose ringing out
melts blocks of ice
and melting
dispells sleep
remain aloft
let not thy
eyelids drop
though heavy let me keep
the movement steady
the footprints deep
and roots that grow
through rock and ice
growing warmer
with ancient voice
whose ringing out
melts blocks of ice
and melting
dispells sleep
Deep Mine Nitro Uhlíře Time Tunnel parts 1-e
Havent been really putting any writing up here for a while, because I have been busy for the most part but now I will begin to put some new things here...here is, more or less, the record of my tour from the end of last summer...there were some changes, some additions and things, but this was basically it.
Deep Mine Nitro Uhlíře Time Tunnel parts 1-e
letni konzerti
dates in chronological order, bands in no particular order, according to my memory or momentary proclivities
as such:
August 12
Tabor, Czech Republic
Core of the Coalman/Dead Labor Process/Crank Sturgeon/Hans Svoboda
August 15
Praha, Czech Republic
Core of the Coalman/Dead Labor Process/Steve Weenie
August 20
Edinburgh, Scotland
Henry's Cellar Bar (grind sight open eye)
Bo Ningen/Core of the Coalman/Fordell Research Unit
August 22
Glasgow gig cancelled due to miscommunication (I am pretty bummed about this but I might play a fest in Birmignham on this day)
August 25
Cambridge (organized by Bad Timing)
The Portland, 129 Chesterton Road, Cambridge, CB4 3BA.
Part Wild Horses Manes on Both Sides/Core of the Coalman/Motherfucking
August 27
Liverpool
Pilgrim
Blues Control/Tropa Macaca/Core of the Coalman
August 29th/30th
Manchester
Rowf!Rowf!Rowf! Festival
August 31
Leeds
Victoria Hotel
Blues Control/Tropa Macaca/Core of the Coalman
Sept 2
Hull
Core of the Coalman + other acts TBA
Sept 4th
maybe Blackpool? crossing fingers and things
Sept 5
Nottingham
Rammel Club@Chameleon
Blues Control/Tropa Macaca/Core of the Coalman
Sept 6
London
Upset the Rhythm @ Barden's Boudoir
with (seeing a pattern here?)
Blues Control/Tropo Macaca/Core of the Coalman
Sept 10
Brighton/Hove
The Greenhouse Effect
Murphy&Nyoukis/Teignmouth Electron/Core of the Coalman/Sunshine Variety
Sept 11
Hamburg, Germany
Sued-Balkon
Hosho/Core of the Coalman
Sept 13
Berlin, Germany
Fuel@ Schokoladen Club
Core of the Coalman and other acts TBA
Sept 16
Hamburg, Germany
Unlimited Liability
Core of the Coalman and other acts TBA
Sept 17
Berlin, Germany
Sinclub, Kruetzberg
Core of the Coalman & other acts TBA
Sept 18
Tillburg, NL
ZXZW Festival
I play at 8 I think in the cellar bar v39
Hey Greg, if you are reading this we should meet up and hang out because I think you are playing nearly the same day (but I could be wrong, it happens alot)
Sept 19th TOTALLY OPEN BUT REALLY IT WOULD BE RAD TO PLAY SOMEWHERE so drop me a message
Sept 20
Helsinki, Finland
(subject to small changes)
Ptarmigan
Core of the Coalman and Nicola Morton's Dog Cloning Workshop
Sept 22
Stockholm
and hopefully 23 in Sweden someplace TBA
Sept 25/26
Oslo, Norway
Sound of Mu
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 27
Trondheim, Norway
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 28
Koln, Germany
Tsunami Club
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 29
Strasborg or Metz
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 30
Hannover
Der Salon of Silly Art Fick
at Silke Arp Bricht
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Oct 1
Paris
Le Generale? unclear where show is actually
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 2
Angers
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 3
Lyon
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 4
Marseille
Le Embobnieuse
Chad Popple/ Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 5
Bordeaux
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/ Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 6 WE WOULD LOVE TO PLAY SOMEPLACE IN BETWEEN HERE AND GENEVA OR THEREABOUTS
Oct 7 Milano? but really same situation
Oct 8
Geneva
Cave 12
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 9
Antwerpen in all hope
unclear where show is actually but its on I hope
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 10
Liege
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/Buital Orgasm/other acts TBA
Oct 11
Gent
unclear where show is actually but its on I think
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 12
Maastricht? still dont understand if this one exists
Core of the Coalman and ???
Oct 15
Impakt Festival present by Kraak
Theatre Kikker
Deep Mine Nitro Uhlíře Time Tunnel parts 1-e
letni konzerti
dates in chronological order, bands in no particular order, according to my memory or momentary proclivities
as such:
August 12
Tabor, Czech Republic
Core of the Coalman/Dead Labor Process/Crank Sturgeon/Hans Svoboda
August 15
Praha, Czech Republic
Core of the Coalman/Dead Labor Process/Steve Weenie
August 20
Edinburgh, Scotland
Henry's Cellar Bar (grind sight open eye)
Bo Ningen/Core of the Coalman/Fordell Research Unit
August 22
Glasgow gig cancelled due to miscommunication (I am pretty bummed about this but I might play a fest in Birmignham on this day)
August 25
Cambridge (organized by Bad Timing)
The Portland, 129 Chesterton Road, Cambridge, CB4 3BA.
Part Wild Horses Manes on Both Sides/Core of the Coalman/Motherfucking
August 27
Liverpool
Pilgrim
Blues Control/Tropa Macaca/Core of the Coalman
August 29th/30th
Manchester
Rowf!Rowf!Rowf! Festival
August 31
Leeds
Victoria Hotel
Blues Control/Tropa Macaca/Core of the Coalman
Sept 2
Hull
Core of the Coalman + other acts TBA
Sept 4th
maybe Blackpool? crossing fingers and things
Sept 5
Nottingham
Rammel Club@Chameleon
Blues Control/Tropa Macaca/Core of the Coalman
Sept 6
London
Upset the Rhythm @ Barden's Boudoir
with (seeing a pattern here?)
Blues Control/Tropo Macaca/Core of the Coalman
Sept 10
Brighton/Hove
The Greenhouse Effect
Murphy&Nyoukis/Teignmouth Electron/Core of the Coalman/Sunshine Variety
Sept 11
Hamburg, Germany
Sued-Balkon
Hosho/Core of the Coalman
Sept 13
Berlin, Germany
Fuel@ Schokoladen Club
Core of the Coalman and other acts TBA
Sept 16
Hamburg, Germany
Unlimited Liability
Core of the Coalman and other acts TBA
Sept 17
Berlin, Germany
Sinclub, Kruetzberg
Core of the Coalman & other acts TBA
Sept 18
Tillburg, NL
ZXZW Festival
I play at 8 I think in the cellar bar v39
Hey Greg, if you are reading this we should meet up and hang out because I think you are playing nearly the same day (but I could be wrong, it happens alot)
Sept 19th TOTALLY OPEN BUT REALLY IT WOULD BE RAD TO PLAY SOMEWHERE so drop me a message
Sept 20
Helsinki, Finland
(subject to small changes)
Ptarmigan
Core of the Coalman and Nicola Morton's Dog Cloning Workshop
Sept 22
Stockholm
and hopefully 23 in Sweden someplace TBA
Sept 25/26
Oslo, Norway
Sound of Mu
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 27
Trondheim, Norway
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 28
Koln, Germany
Tsunami Club
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 29
Strasborg or Metz
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Sept 30
Hannover
Der Salon of Silly Art Fick
at Silke Arp Bricht
Core of the Coalman other acts TBA
Oct 1
Paris
Le Generale? unclear where show is actually
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 2
Angers
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 3
Lyon
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 4
Marseille
Le Embobnieuse
Chad Popple/ Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 5
Bordeaux
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/ Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 6 WE WOULD LOVE TO PLAY SOMEPLACE IN BETWEEN HERE AND GENEVA OR THEREABOUTS
Oct 7 Milano? but really same situation
Oct 8
Geneva
Cave 12
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 9
Antwerpen in all hope
unclear where show is actually but its on I hope
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 10
Liege
unclear where show is actually but its on
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/Buital Orgasm/other acts TBA
Oct 11
Gent
unclear where show is actually but its on I think
Chad Popple/Core of the Coalman/other acts TBA
Oct 12
Maastricht? still dont understand if this one exists
Core of the Coalman and ???
Oct 15
Impakt Festival present by Kraak
Theatre Kikker
Monday, December 8, 2008
CORE OF THE COALMAN+PLEASE THE TREES FRIDAY IN TABOR!!!
....
THIS FRIDAY IN TABOR CORE OF THE COALMAN and PLEASE THE TREES.
MC ORION 12/12/08 21:00
and next friday 19/12:Core of the Coalman, OTK and
Deerhoof
OTK and Core of the Coalman
www. silver-rocket. org/news/910
..> $('addToCalendar').observe('click', function (e) { e.stop(); var dialog = new LFM.Dialog({ resource: LFM.
ParentResource, classname: 'embedDialog', title: "Add to your calendar", content: "
*
o
Friday 19 December 2008 at 9:00pm
Meet Factory
Ke Sklárně 15
Praha
Czech Republic
Show on Map
Web: www. meetfactory. cz
http://nl. youtube. com/watch?v=ZNRwX1wH6xs&fmt=18
Starcastic & Silver Rocket presents:
DEERHOOF (USA, Kill Rock Stars), OTK (CZ, Silver Rocket), Core of the Coalman
Praha - Meet Factory, 19.
prosince 2008 www. meetfactory. cz
Geniální diletanti Deerhoof letos vydali na Kill Rock Stars vynikající desku "Offend Maggie", kterou jen potvrdili svoji výjimečnou pozici na současný scéně. Tahle kapela se nezastaví před ničím a její ikonoklastickej přístup k muzice je stejně neodolatelnej jako nebezpečnej. Deerhoof se při dekonstrukci rocku občas dostanou k hravejm melodiím, občas vás proženou hlukovou spirálou. Na jejich zvuku už na první poslech fascinuje absolutní svoboda, s kterou se pouštějí do dalších a dalších krkolomnejch dobrodružství. Pověstnej souboj nejhlasitějšího bubeníka na světě s nejtišší zpěvačkou planety máte poprvý možnost vidět i v Praze. Předkapelou Deerhoof budou OTK, protože - co si budeme nalhávat - tenhle rok byl ve znamení "Okolo" a OTK nehráli v Praze dlouho žádnej pořádnej koncert. A vánoční spojení geniálních diletantů s diletantskejma géniema musí fungovat... Večer otevře projekt Core Of The Coalman.
www. myspace. com/deerhoof
www. myspace. com/otka
http://www. myspace. com/coreoggthecoalman
9:23 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove
....
THIS FRIDAY IN TABOR CORE OF THE COALMAN and PLEASE THE TREES.
MC ORION 12/12/08 21:00
and next friday 19/12:Core of the Coalman, OTK and
Deerhoof
OTK and Core of the Coalman
www. silver-rocket. org/news/910
..> $('addToCalendar').observe('click', function (e) { e.stop(); var dialog = new LFM.Dialog({ resource: LFM.
ParentResource, classname: 'embedDialog', title: "Add to your calendar", content: "
*
o
Friday 19 December 2008 at 9:00pm
Meet Factory
Ke Sklárně 15
Praha
Czech Republic
Show on Map
Web: www. meetfactory. cz
http://nl. youtube. com/watch?v=ZNRwX1wH6xs&fmt=18
Starcastic & Silver Rocket presents:
DEERHOOF (USA, Kill Rock Stars), OTK (CZ, Silver Rocket), Core of the Coalman
Praha - Meet Factory, 19.
prosince 2008 www. meetfactory. cz
Geniální diletanti Deerhoof letos vydali na Kill Rock Stars vynikající desku "Offend Maggie", kterou jen potvrdili svoji výjimečnou pozici na současný scéně. Tahle kapela se nezastaví před ničím a její ikonoklastickej přístup k muzice je stejně neodolatelnej jako nebezpečnej. Deerhoof se při dekonstrukci rocku občas dostanou k hravejm melodiím, občas vás proženou hlukovou spirálou. Na jejich zvuku už na první poslech fascinuje absolutní svoboda, s kterou se pouštějí do dalších a dalších krkolomnejch dobrodružství. Pověstnej souboj nejhlasitějšího bubeníka na světě s nejtišší zpěvačkou planety máte poprvý možnost vidět i v Praze. Předkapelou Deerhoof budou OTK, protože - co si budeme nalhávat - tenhle rok byl ve znamení "Okolo" a OTK nehráli v Praze dlouho žádnej pořádnej koncert. A vánoční spojení geniálních diletantů s diletantskejma géniema musí fungovat... Večer otevře projekt Core Of The Coalman.
www. myspace. com/deerhoof
www. myspace. com/otka
http://www. myspace. com/coreoggthecoalman
9:23 PM - 0 Comments - 0 Kudos - Add Comment - Edit - Remove
Friday, November 28, 2008
Odd Associations Between Spaces and Written/Read Language
Want to know what I think is really weird? I think it is really weird that my brain assigns random photographic images of real (or really close to real) spaces that I pass through or by in everyday life to material that I am reading or writing. What I mean is that I will be reading and I will realize that that specific article or book has attached to it, for no apparent reason a specific frozen view, one perspective, of the parking lot of the grocery store by my house. Why?
The spaces attached to the reading (or at times written) material are always unremarkable places I have merely passed through, for example: the place the bus waits before turning when taking me to the metro station- there is a long concrete wall there with some plants hanging over it and this view is paired with Ada by Vladimier Nabakov. Ben Piekut's new musicological study "Testing, Testing....New York Experimentalism 1964" gets different spaces assigned to different chapters, for instance Chapter 3, about Bill Dixon and the Jazz Composer's Guild, gets the odd grassy square between some of the block buildings here near Malovicka, but the other chapters received different, now forgotten associations.
It seems to me that I have always done this. The only characteristic thing about the associations is that they are always unremarkable spaces, usually spaces I am passing through regularly during the time I am reading the book (not while reading, but in the same day or so) and the other thing they have in common is that they are forgotten as soon as I leave the book. Why does the brain merge these things which have nothing in common. It is rather nice, for nostalgia's sake, yet it is very strange, don't you think?
The spaces attached to the reading (or at times written) material are always unremarkable places I have merely passed through, for example: the place the bus waits before turning when taking me to the metro station- there is a long concrete wall there with some plants hanging over it and this view is paired with Ada by Vladimier Nabakov. Ben Piekut's new musicological study "Testing, Testing....New York Experimentalism 1964" gets different spaces assigned to different chapters, for instance Chapter 3, about Bill Dixon and the Jazz Composer's Guild, gets the odd grassy square between some of the block buildings here near Malovicka, but the other chapters received different, now forgotten associations.
It seems to me that I have always done this. The only characteristic thing about the associations is that they are always unremarkable spaces, usually spaces I am passing through regularly during the time I am reading the book (not while reading, but in the same day or so) and the other thing they have in common is that they are forgotten as soon as I leave the book. Why does the brain merge these things which have nothing in common. It is rather nice, for nostalgia's sake, yet it is very strange, don't you think?
border states
order/disorder
order and disorder/disorder and order
order from disorder/disorder from order
order in disorder/disorder in order
order in disorder in an individual/disorder in order in an individual
order from disorder in an individual/disorder from order in an individual
order in disorder from inside itself/disorder from order from inside itself
order in disorder from outside itself/disorder from order from outside itself
order and disorder/disorder and order
order from disorder/disorder from order
order in disorder/disorder in order
order in disorder in an individual/disorder in order in an individual
order from disorder in an individual/disorder from order in an individual
order in disorder from inside itself/disorder from order from inside itself
(from inside of its structure or its structure in interaction with itself)
order in disorder from outside itself/disorder from order from outside itself
(in terms of interaction with an environment, an other or others)
order from disorder en masse/disorder from order en masse
(in terms of an interaction with a similarly structured plurality of great magnitude)
order from disorder from being seen/disorder from order from being seen
order from disorder in being seen/disorder from order in being seen
order in disorder from being seen/disorder in order from being seen
order in disorder in being seen/disorder in order from being seen
order in disorder from looking/disorder in order from looking
order in disorder in looking/disorder in order in looking
order in disorder in looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order in looking at order in disorder
order from disorder in looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order in looking at order in disorder
order in disorder from looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order from looking at order in disorder
order from disorder from looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order from looking at order in disorder
order in disorder in not looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order in not looking at order in disorder
order from disorder in not looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order in not looking at order in disorder
order in disorder from not looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order from not looking at order in disorder
order from disorder from not looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order from not looking at order in disorder
order in disorder in looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order in looking at order for disorder
order from disorder in looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order in looking at order for disorder
order in disorder from looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order from looking at order for disorder
order from disorder from looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order from looking at order for disorder
order in disorder in not looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order in not looking at order for disorder
order from disorder in not looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order in not looking at order for disorder
order in disorder from not looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order from not looking at order for disorder
order from disorder from not looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order from not looking at order for disorder
order in disorder in looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order in looking at disorder in order
order from disorder in looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order in looking at disorder in order
order in disorder from looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order from looking at disorder in order
order from disorder from looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order from looking at disorder in order
order in disorder in not looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order in not looking at disorder in order
order from disorder in not looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order in not looking at disorder in order
order in disorder from not looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order from not looking at disorder in order
order from order from not looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order from not looking at disorder in order
order in disorder in looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order in looking at disorder for order
order from disorder in looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order in looking at disorder for order
order in disorder from looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order from looking at disorder for order
order from disorder from looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order from looking at disorder for order
order in disorder in not looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order in not looking at disorder for order
order from disorder in not looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order in not looking at disorder for order
order in disorder from not looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order from not looking at disorder for order
order from order from not looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order from not looking at disorder for order
order in disorder in looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order in looking in order for disorder
order from disorder in looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order in looking in order for disorder
order in disorder from looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order from looking in order for disorder
order from disorder from looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order from looking in order for disorder
order in disorder in not looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order in not looking in order for disorder
order from disorder in not looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order in not looking in order for disorder
order in disorder from not looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order from not looking in order for disorder
order from disorder from not looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order from not looking in order for disorder
order in disorder in looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order in looking for order in disorder
order from disorder in looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order in looking for order in disorder
order in disorder from looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order from looking for order in disorder
order from disorder from looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order from looking for order in disorder
order in disorder in not looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order in not looking for order in disorder
order from disorder in not looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order in not looking for order in disorder
order in disorder from not looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order from not looking for order in disorder
order from disorder from not looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order from not looking for order in disorder
order in disorder in looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order in looking in disorder for order
order from disorder in looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order in looking in disorder for order
order in disorder from looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order from looking in disorder for order
order from disorder from looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order from looking in disorder for order
order in disorder in not looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order in not looking in disorder for order
order from disorder in not looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order in not looking in disorder for order
order in disorder from not looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order from not looking in disorder for order
order from order from not looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order from not looking in disorder for order
order in disorder in looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order in looking for disorder in order
order from disorder in looking for disorder in order/
disorder from order in looking for disorder in order
order in disorder from looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order from looking for disorder in order
order from disorder from looking for disorder in order/
disorder from order from looking for disorder in order
order in disorder in not looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order in not looking for disorder in order
order from disorder in not looking for disorder in order/
disorder from order in not looking for disorder in order
order in disorder from not looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order from not looking for disorder in order
order from disorder in being seen/disorder from order in being seen
order in disorder from being seen/disorder in order from being seen
order in disorder in being seen/disorder in order from being seen
order in disorder from looking/disorder in order from looking
order in disorder in looking/disorder in order in looking
order in disorder in looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order in looking at order in disorder
order from disorder in looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order in looking at order in disorder
order in disorder from looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order from looking at order in disorder
order from disorder from looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order from looking at order in disorder
order in disorder in not looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order in not looking at order in disorder
order from disorder in not looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order in not looking at order in disorder
order in disorder from not looking at order in disorder/
disorder in order from not looking at order in disorder
order from disorder from not looking at order in disorder/
disorder from order from not looking at order in disorder
order in disorder in looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order in looking at order for disorder
order from disorder in looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order in looking at order for disorder
order in disorder from looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order from looking at order for disorder
order from disorder from looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order from looking at order for disorder
order in disorder in not looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order in not looking at order for disorder
order from disorder in not looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order in not looking at order for disorder
order in disorder from not looking at order for disorder/
disorder in order from not looking at order for disorder
order from disorder from not looking at order for disorder/
disorder from order from not looking at order for disorder
order in disorder in looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order in looking at disorder in order
order from disorder in looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order in looking at disorder in order
order in disorder from looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order from looking at disorder in order
order from disorder from looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order from looking at disorder in order
order in disorder in not looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order in not looking at disorder in order
order from disorder in not looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order in not looking at disorder in order
order in disorder from not looking at disorder in order/
disorder in order from not looking at disorder in order
order from order from not looking at disorder in order/
disorder from order from not looking at disorder in order
order in disorder in looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order in looking at disorder for order
order from disorder in looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order in looking at disorder for order
order in disorder from looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order from looking at disorder for order
order from disorder from looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order from looking at disorder for order
order in disorder in not looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order in not looking at disorder for order
order from disorder in not looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order in not looking at disorder for order
order in disorder from not looking at disorder for order/
disorder in order from not looking at disorder for order
order from order from not looking at disorder for order/
disorder from order from not looking at disorder for order
order in disorder in looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order in looking in order for disorder
order from disorder in looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order in looking in order for disorder
order in disorder from looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order from looking in order for disorder
order from disorder from looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order from looking in order for disorder
order in disorder in not looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order in not looking in order for disorder
order from disorder in not looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order in not looking in order for disorder
order in disorder from not looking in order for disorder/
disorder in order from not looking in order for disorder
order from disorder from not looking in order for disorder/
disorder from order from not looking in order for disorder
order in disorder in looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order in looking for order in disorder
order from disorder in looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order in looking for order in disorder
order in disorder from looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order from looking for order in disorder
order from disorder from looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order from looking for order in disorder
order in disorder in not looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order in not looking for order in disorder
order from disorder in not looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order in not looking for order in disorder
order in disorder from not looking for order in disorder/
disorder in order from not looking for order in disorder
order from disorder from not looking for order in disorder/
disorder from order from not looking for order in disorder
order in disorder in looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order in looking in disorder for order
order from disorder in looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order in looking in disorder for order
order in disorder from looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order from looking in disorder for order
order from disorder from looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order from looking in disorder for order
order in disorder in not looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order in not looking in disorder for order
order from disorder in not looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order in not looking in disorder for order
order in disorder from not looking in disorder for order/
disorder in order from not looking in disorder for order
order from order from not looking in disorder for order/
disorder from order from not looking in disorder for order
order in disorder in looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order in looking for disorder in order
order from disorder in looking for disorder in order/
disorder from order in looking for disorder in order
order in disorder from looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order from looking for disorder in order
order from disorder from looking for disorder in order/
disorder from order from looking for disorder in order
order in disorder in not looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order in not looking for disorder in order
order from disorder in not looking for disorder in order/
disorder from order in not looking for disorder in order
order in disorder from not looking for disorder in order/
disorder in order from not looking for disorder in order
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
