Saturday, April 28, 2012

8 Skeptical Truths, 1.8 Odder Mysteries

I have decided that this blog will remain the semi-secret, pseudophilosophical one, or the one for rants, whereas this one, I guess, the more modern one with all the nice links, will be where I post most of the art-related things.

The really secret one will just stay that way, but that is ok because there is no content there.  Or maybe I will use it for the new
ah, right, its secret, so never mind.

ok, here is my latest list of what I have to sort of base reality on to not go completely crazy, what with everything and all.  I am very tired.  I can't sleep at all.  So if this is typed strangely, that is fine with me, hopefully it will be fine with you, whoever you are.

These are in no particular order:

1. Time goes in one direction, mostly.  I know, I know, I have seen "Into the Wormhole" with Morgan Freedman, and I have been informed that according to various theories that I enjoy (theories which I do not understand due to my rudimentary grasp of mathematics) that other possibilities are suggested.  Ok, I am not ruling it out, but in my experience, and I have had a lot of weird experiences, it seems to go in one direction.  See "The Speed of Time" , and its cousins, for my idea of why. Anyway, I would probably liked if it where more navigable, or maybe not, I like this sense of freedom from determinism, even if it is an illusion.  Still, until I experience something like time travel, awake, I am going to operate as though we are in this broken symmetry, going...(though with a certain amount of elasticity, see number 3)

2.The future is complex, yet at times events can be predicted, or even influenced by our actions.  We all do it.  Hungry?  eat a sandwich.  This means in the future (5 minutes from now) you will no longer feel hungry, most likely.  Obviously we can try and influence bigger things too.  Sometimes even using "odd-er means of influence" I would like to investigate those more deeply, because they seem to be everywhere, but as I do not understand the nature of any of that, it is fairly well outside the bounds of this skeptical cage I am building to lock my perception of reality into in order to not freak fucking out.
"otter influences"

3.Subjectively, time does not move at a steady rate, and in fact its elasticity pretty controllable.  Objectively, it is hard to say whether it even exists or not, there are many many famous arguments for both "perspectives".  Even when trying to view it "externally" using mechanical means, our subjective bias is enough to make it "wobble".  Now I will stop using so many quotation marks, because they are making me feel like an asshole.

4.There seems to be no direct evidence for a god, and I have had no direct experience of a god.  Nor would it seem comprehensible that if one of those existed it would need my adoration.

5.The question of fate, that is, whether or not the future already exists is paradoxical.  I like listening to experts talk about new theories around this (see number 1) however, in our daily lives we have every appearance of a certain degree of "free will".  At least that is something.  I am going with that, because (see number 2) otherwise I would starve waiting for the universe to feed me.  The "odd-er moments" where I feel these interactions (like deja vu or some dream things) in which one is led to think that maybe things are structured on some other level of hierarchy invisible to us, or that time is a folded dimension and we are sometimes touching future layers briefly, or that there can be (Jung) acausal connections from which meaning arises, or that (Schopenhauer) that such coincidences or synchronicities are do to a common causal root located previously (sometimes very far in the past), or that through the chaotic dynamics of statistical determinism in complex systems seemingly disparate things are brought together that are not really at all disparate, or  or or...these cause me to wonder what is really going on, and I want, like I said to investigate, but in the meantime I must behave as though I have free will, otherwise I would be very upset that things were set up this way because it just isn't fair, is it?
otter moments, when not caused by us/me, seem to happen to us/me.  is this caused by the collective aggregate of individual actions of others?  It is surprising that the willful action of a single individual can emerge out of this complex environment at all, and yet sometimes they do, and can even change the whole course of the system.  I would like to investigate the cause of this.  I don't think there is the same sort of oddness to this particular topic, but complexity is odd enough, and maybe some of those other phenomena are products, or bi-products of that complexity.  I would like to know how much direct influence we can have over this, with respect to our own lives.  I mean direct, not by trying some magic.  That is fun, but it hasn't worked for me yet.

7. The present influences, if not creates the future.  That includes direct actions, those experiences that happen to us (see last one, above) and our reactions to those actions, to the environment.  One must define one's goals and act accordingly, reacting with firmness and flexibility (language borrowed from nonskeptical source) to one's environment.  One must be aware of what is operating in one's environment in order to try and predict it's future state and act accordingly.  This is where many people, less skeptical than I am today, start to use the "odd-er informations and oracles etc"

here is a big one, it was acting according to its environment when this picture was taken:

8. It would be curious to know, and this is probably a repetition of something said earlier, if there is some way to encourage more positive influence/feedback from one's environment.  If there were strategies of thought or behavior that would make certain outcomes more likely, in a general sense.  These exist in games, right?

9.Other minds, other people.  Though at times predictable (rationally or through "odder means") seem in my experience largely unknowable, though we can share happiness together.  I can take the metaphor of my own mind and paste it on other people, but it only goes so far until their behavior convinces me that our minds are not really all that similar.  sigh.  Its lonely, but then at least I have some privacy in here.

togetherness seems to exist.

So the real question once I move god and paradoxes about fate off my epidemiological shelf, and put the very interesting issues about the direction, perceptibly, and existence of time on hold (that is kind of appropriate), and disregarding for now the sometimes seductive "odder aspects" which seem so incomplete and unknowable that it is hard to say that they exist or what they are, the real question for me is, why is it that I happen to be talking to myself in first person?  Why am I here now?  There is the solipsistic thing, which is super weird, you know, where we are all "in here" in first person, really for ourselves in some way the only one fully there.  What do I do with that?

If I go to sleep then maybe I won't exist at all (in terms of this self-consciousness I am discussing) and that won't be so bad.  I will have to stop writing, which is probably best anyway.  I will go to sleep.  I will think about otters.

After a long pause, I will play a Core of the Coalman set this Tuesday at Final Club in Praha.  I am playing new things.  First some steady and moving states made with generative sheets of wind (to replace that which seems to have vanished unexpectedly), and the usual viola, resonant filters, and other electronic stuff.  I am also playing a new guitar piece I am about to send Job Collin for a tape on his Winebox Press label.  The tuning of this is special to a lot of the music I have been working on recently (to replace the vibration, or whatever, uh, nevermind..)

if you want to read more about fabulous fucking me, best is to check the links on the top of this page, there is a lot of music, some videos etc there

then, of course, the compulsory FootBlock page:

there is also a page for the event here

The headlining band, Jarse, from Finland are totally amazing.  I think that Jari Souminen, who played solo here under this name last year, is one of my favorite musicians.  Now they are a duo, with drums (Jari played mostly keyboards and lights last time).  I am very excited to hear this!

Here is text they wrote about it:

A power duo from south coast of Finland, Jarse has been preparing for a psychedelic revolution since 2009, drawing inspiration from the psychedelic music from all decades, from dark prehistorical age to the distant future. In 2011 first official Jarse release, 7” single Alas (Fonal Records) saw daylight. It holds a record of being one of the fastest productions in the history of Fonal records, process from composing to the test pressings took less than two weeks. As the single was cut live at the tiny bedroom in eastern Helsinki with 13 session musicians, it also holds the record of being physically the tightest session in history of audio recording. To celebrate these achievements in summer 2011 Jarse played 6 week long European tour through central Europe, Scandinavia and even Iceland. Performances in pitch dark venues with a custom built flicker machine producing hallucinogenic vibrations left astonished audiences behind. While Jarse was forced to do this tour with a one member lineup, currently Jarse will manifesting their jaw-dropping version of modern day psychedelia as a two piece unit. The history of members of Jarse contains many notable bands such as Shogun Kunitoki, Rauhan Orkesteri, Kiila, Pymathon etc. Year 2012 will see the release of first Jarse full length album that has been perfected slowly since early 2010 in their remote cottage studio in Lapland, just under the arctic circle.

They have a facebook page


It goes like this:


od 20:00

za 150

v pražském Finalu

(Příběnická 8).

or alternately:


8:00 pm, 150kc

Final Club, Praha

Pribenicka 8

this show was produced by Klangundkrach and Letmo Productions

Innerly independent people can afford to be generous, and are therefore empathic towards other people.  Self-centered behavior, especially the chronic type, seems to come from fear and often is reflected in desperation or violence.  Its output is often visibly lacking in empathy.

But which approach is "better" for the individual?

Though in general I am for Sade rather than Rousseau (at least in literary terms), and don't want to talk about human nature (should it even exist) or "states of nature", not in the least.

Still, I see people, companies, and governments entering the lives of other people and destroying them, only to leave again having gotten what they wanted.  It is a very efficient strategy.  Ironically too, it seems to be most often individuals that do this, and individuals who are the ones who at any moment can refuse to do what their company is telling them to do.

this Rousseau is ok:

It is difficult to think of a real advantage to empathy for the individual, but I think that the chronically self-centered, unempathic person must eventually find themselves very alone and without the inner strength that naturally develops in the truly innerly independent individual.

Thus, there could be a selfish case for selflessness on some level.

I wonder what it would look like on a social level if this happened to a whole society, for example to capitalist society, as a whole?  I look forward to that funeral.  Maybe, like Gatsby, no one will come to the funeral.  They won't even be able to hire anybody to be there.

Would society simply medicate itself with things to make it not feel badly?  But I think it is really time to reject that, to put aside these tranquilizing and sedating strategies and religion too, and all systems of fake meaning and padded experience, and embrace the universe with whatever insecure joy we have inside of ourselves, and express that.

"So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past." Fitz

On a side note:  I think empathy is much larger than guilt.  It can even make people feel better, which guilt rarely does.  Somehow, the two have been conflated too often, and we forget that the "contact high" we get from other people is derived from an empathic basis.

I also don't think empathy and guilt are the same thing.  I think that guilt can sometimes be caused by a species of empathy:

("I shouldn't kidnapped and eaten my neighbors children because they are people just like me")

but that it is often caused instead by obsessive behavior:

("I am such a bad person because I smoke bags and bags of potato chips and they are bad for me")

or religious mania:

("I am such a bad person because the god who supposedly created me, who I have no evidence of the existence of whatsoever, created me with sexual feelings, and then told me I am not supposed to express or use them" )

or even selfishness - when mixed with religious mania:

("Now that we have used our insurance company to steal all the money from the orphanage after the hurricane, we will never get into heaven, we had better donate something to charity")

or when selfishness enters into a temporary partnership with some degree of empathy between players, but which eventually gives way to one side being overcome by selfishness, then feeling guilty about it:

("Maybe I shouldn't have stolen the last of her painkillers while she was sleeping after the operation.")

still, the religious guilt has got to be the worst, and that really needs to go

 Jean Koppen: "Crucifixes are best conceived handles to flush our toilets"

this one, I think, from 54 Rue du Chateau, Paris where Tanguy, Prevert, and Duchamp lived

Guilt aside I wish that people would just tell the damn truth.