Self-reference will drive you crazy. The only way you can check if you're crazy is to psychoanalyze yourself (you could get someone else to do it, but if they tell you you're crazy, how do you know that you're not just crazy and imagining them saying that? If they tell you you're not crazy, same thing). But, invariably, over-analyzing one's sanity is the only certain way to drive yourself insane. So sanity is impossible to determine in a sane way.
This is why I am hesitant to start criticizing and analyzing the things I love. Because really, aren't the people and things we love a reflection of ourselves? If you're ask to describe yourself, you always start by listing your passions, your loves, you dreams, your likes and dislikes. And yet, while we all loathe to reflect on our own lives, we couldn't be quicker to criticize these things we love (the very things that define us!). Perhaps it is the way in which we love things that defines us, not so much what we like. If I say "I like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy", does that describe me in the same way that "Adams' style makes my whole body smile; his jokes, although seemingly silly and simple, are in fact delicate and elaborate in a way that makes me forget, for a minute, that the rest of the world exists, and laugh shamelessly as if I were in a group of my closest friends" does?
Then why is it that I feel like I'm being personally attacked when someone says, "I don't like [Wayne's] voice, it bug's me", or "robots do math, it doesn't require creativity"? That's just someone else's opinion, their way of discribing themselves. It has nothing at all to do with me! I think the problem lies in the fact that there are only a certain number of interesting things in the world for us to comment on, and so we all have to share the same things, and so to describe ourselves we have to say why we love/hate these same things. The question I pose is this: Is there a way to fully describe oneself using wholly internal characteristics? Is there a way I can define myself without referring to things I like or don't like? Can I create Me from Me?
If you're curious what got me started thinking on this (which I'm sure you aren't, but I'll tell you anyway), I was just learning today one of the most beautiful facts in mathematics, Gauss' Theorema Egregium. It basically says that you can decide what kind of surface your on just by making measurements on that surface. Ever hear some science-guy say that 'space (or space-time) is curved'? "Curved around what?!", you might ask. I mean, it's all of space and time that's being curved, what other direction is there for this thing to be curved around? Don't we need to go out into this crazy 5-D space to see that? Well, the answer is no. You can see that space is curved just by making measurements in space. So why can't the same be true about people? I mean we obviously interact with this 'other-dimension' (the world), but why should it be that we need to look into this other world to see ourselves?
Friday, November 16, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
THIS THURSDAY!!
They are Sprial Beach of Toronto. They'll be playing in Guelph this Thursday (E bar 10pm $6 with food item $8 otherwise) which is called a double CD release show for some reason (Their album was released Oct. 16th). So go see them and buy their stuff.
More exciting news about this band is their show on December 1st at the The Centre of Gravity Theatre in Toronto. I can't seem to find any information about this performance anywhere but their own site but the band is calling it an all night performance with several of Toronto's finest bands. Tickets are supposed to be on sale At Rotate This but nothing is up yet.
I'll keep checking until I find out though!
They are Sprial Beach of Toronto. They'll be playing in Guelph this Thursday (E bar 10pm $6 with food item $8 otherwise) which is called a double CD release show for some reason (Their album was released Oct. 16th). So go see them and buy their stuff.
More exciting news about this band is their show on December 1st at the The Centre of Gravity Theatre in Toronto. I can't seem to find any information about this performance anywhere but their own site but the band is calling it an all night performance with several of Toronto's finest bands. Tickets are supposed to be on sale At Rotate This but nothing is up yet.
I'll keep checking until I find out though!
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Please Confuse My Every Decision
I was going to post more about math, but I feel like this blog isn't about music enough. Mostly because stupid Keane isn't posting. Stupid Keane.
Speaking of Keane! He's an awesome guy. He just sent me Of Montreal's new album Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer? And it's quite good. That's not all I have to say. It's really weird and at some points unapproachable, like Labyrinthian Pomp. It's just weird. I think it's trying to be funky, but just misses the mark, for me. However, I can't get enough of Gronlandic Edit. I think the bass line is incredibly funky, and when grating high note singing is immediately soothed by the neat harmonies. But I know that this song is too weird for a lot of people, so I guess I can't criticize them for being weird.
For the most part this album comes across as odd and funky and so it's what I want my music to be. (Holy shit, how can you not like A Sentence of Sorts? It's so groovy!). I guess the moral of the story is you can still make a great album that has a few bad apple songs on it. But bands, please don't. I like albums where I like all the songs! So next time, leave out the creepy shitty songs, and give me more funk.
On another note, we're going to see Born Ruffians and Caribou on Saturday. I've seen Born Ruffians before, and if you haven't, I recommend them. It's like if one of Frank Black and Issac Brock was lucky enough to be born a lady, and they had a funky love child. Plus Caribou! I've never seen him before, but apparently he has his Ph. D. in math! A fellow algebraic number theorist / musician, I never thought I'd see the day. Plus, he studied under a guy, who studied under a guy, who studied under a guy, who studied under Sir Andrew Wiles! Does that mean that by seeing him play, I helped solve Fermat's Last Theorem? Probably.
Speaking of Keane! He's an awesome guy. He just sent me Of Montreal's new album Hissing Fauna, Are You The Destroyer? And it's quite good. That's not all I have to say. It's really weird and at some points unapproachable, like Labyrinthian Pomp. It's just weird. I think it's trying to be funky, but just misses the mark, for me. However, I can't get enough of Gronlandic Edit. I think the bass line is incredibly funky, and when grating high note singing is immediately soothed by the neat harmonies. But I know that this song is too weird for a lot of people, so I guess I can't criticize them for being weird.
For the most part this album comes across as odd and funky and so it's what I want my music to be. (Holy shit, how can you not like A Sentence of Sorts? It's so groovy!). I guess the moral of the story is you can still make a great album that has a few bad apple songs on it. But bands, please don't. I like albums where I like all the songs! So next time, leave out the creepy shitty songs, and give me more funk.
On another note, we're going to see Born Ruffians and Caribou on Saturday. I've seen Born Ruffians before, and if you haven't, I recommend them. It's like if one of Frank Black and Issac Brock was lucky enough to be born a lady, and they had a funky love child. Plus Caribou! I've never seen him before, but apparently he has his Ph. D. in math! A fellow algebraic number theorist / musician, I never thought I'd see the day. Plus, he studied under a guy, who studied under a guy, who studied under a guy, who studied under Sir Andrew Wiles! Does that mean that by seeing him play, I helped solve Fermat's Last Theorem? Probably.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Science Vs. Religion, Who Will Win?
There was recently a debate at my school as to whether science and religion are mutually exclusive; can a scientist believe in God? I have heard of similar debates about the age of the universe: millions of years old, like scientists 'know', or about 5000 years old, like Christians 'know'. It always surprises me to hear a scientist infer that people of faith are buffoons for believing this kind of thing. The argument usually going something like, "I can't believe people still believe that! Science has already proven that!" This is, of course, circular logic. It's similar to saying, "science is correct because science says so", or "if science is correct, then science is correct." These are scientists! They are supposed to have a basic understanding of mathematics. Apparently they don't teach logic in science class.
The point is that science is no more correct than religion is. If I assume that religion is true, then I can prove that the universe is 5000 years old. In any system of thought, one must start with a set of things that are assumed to be true, called axioms. Most of science is based on an axiom of induction, which says that if you do something many times and get the same result, you know that the same result will all ways happen. For example, if every day of your life, you get out of bed and the floor supports your weight, you know that this morning it will. This is usually a good assumption, but can run into trouble sometimes. Imagine you roll a die 109 times and every time it comes up 6, 4 or 2. Does this mean that the die can only roll even numbers? Probably not. It's a question of how many times you do it, and there's probability axioms about that, but I won't get into it.
The crux of the issue is really that you can't ever know whether your axioms are correct. You can't even know whether your axioms are consistent with each other (this was first proved by Kurt Godel [pronounced like good-el] in 1931). It all comes down to what you believe is true. So if you're religious, and the Bible seems more correct than the axioms of science, then it's perfectly logical for you to conclude that the universe is 5000 years old.
For myself, I know that I exist. I know that any proposition is either true or false but not both. I think that other people exist, but I know that I can't prove it.
The point is that science is no more correct than religion is. If I assume that religion is true, then I can prove that the universe is 5000 years old. In any system of thought, one must start with a set of things that are assumed to be true, called axioms. Most of science is based on an axiom of induction, which says that if you do something many times and get the same result, you know that the same result will all ways happen. For example, if every day of your life, you get out of bed and the floor supports your weight, you know that this morning it will. This is usually a good assumption, but can run into trouble sometimes. Imagine you roll a die 109 times and every time it comes up 6, 4 or 2. Does this mean that the die can only roll even numbers? Probably not. It's a question of how many times you do it, and there's probability axioms about that, but I won't get into it.
The crux of the issue is really that you can't ever know whether your axioms are correct. You can't even know whether your axioms are consistent with each other (this was first proved by Kurt Godel [pronounced like good-el] in 1931). It all comes down to what you believe is true. So if you're religious, and the Bible seems more correct than the axioms of science, then it's perfectly logical for you to conclude that the universe is 5000 years old.
For myself, I know that I exist. I know that any proposition is either true or false but not both. I think that other people exist, but I know that I can't prove it.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Tunnel Vision
C:/run/rant.exe
This is going to sound really preachy and give the impression that I have a superiority complex in some respect, but this message is going out to all you kids out there who are stuck in a musical genre just to fit into your group of friends.
I grew up like most of you listening to the music that my friends listen to. After all, that's just the way society works; you are attracted to people that have similar interests to you. But when it gets to the point where you're listening music just for the sake of going along with some arbitrary status quo that your group of friends have set for themselves, it just doesn't make any sense.
For example, if your group of friends enjoy the hardcore scene and are into bands such as Cannibal Corpse, Opeth, and Kill All Squirrels (okay I made that last one up), all power to you if you actually enjoy it. I am asking you to actually think about it though: do you actually enjoy this kind of music, or are you listening to it so you can fit in with your friends?
Admittedly, I caught myself doing something similar to this in high school. In order for me to fit in more with my group of friends, I found myself listening to a lot of alternative punk rock bands (if that's even the correct label for the genre) that I didn't necessarily like at the time (and have subsequently deleted from my library). Now, I'm finding that I am basing my musical tastes on what I actually like, rather than what I think other people will think of me if I listen to them. That's why I can get away with a play-list that includes Natalie Cole, The Blood Brothers, Public Enemy, and Pete Murray. This is the part where I was worried about sounding like an elitist; by no means am I saying you should listen to these bands because I like them, I am just saying that I've diversified my musical tastes because I've opened up somewhat.
Obviously, if you don't like a kind of music, no one is forcing you to listen to it. Just don't judge a book by its cover, or in this case, an album by its CD jacket sleeve. I guess my whole point of this is to just try and be open minded about music and not let yourself get into a sort of tunnel vision where you'll only listen to one kind of music and look down on other music that might not be in your group (seriously, give Justin a chance, you might actually find yourself dancing to his stuff).
/end rant.exe
This is going to sound really preachy and give the impression that I have a superiority complex in some respect, but this message is going out to all you kids out there who are stuck in a musical genre just to fit into your group of friends.
I grew up like most of you listening to the music that my friends listen to. After all, that's just the way society works; you are attracted to people that have similar interests to you. But when it gets to the point where you're listening music just for the sake of going along with some arbitrary status quo that your group of friends have set for themselves, it just doesn't make any sense.
For example, if your group of friends enjoy the hardcore scene and are into bands such as Cannibal Corpse, Opeth, and Kill All Squirrels (okay I made that last one up), all power to you if you actually enjoy it. I am asking you to actually think about it though: do you actually enjoy this kind of music, or are you listening to it so you can fit in with your friends?
Admittedly, I caught myself doing something similar to this in high school. In order for me to fit in more with my group of friends, I found myself listening to a lot of alternative punk rock bands (if that's even the correct label for the genre) that I didn't necessarily like at the time (and have subsequently deleted from my library). Now, I'm finding that I am basing my musical tastes on what I actually like, rather than what I think other people will think of me if I listen to them. That's why I can get away with a play-list that includes Natalie Cole, The Blood Brothers, Public Enemy, and Pete Murray. This is the part where I was worried about sounding like an elitist; by no means am I saying you should listen to these bands because I like them, I am just saying that I've diversified my musical tastes because I've opened up somewhat.
Obviously, if you don't like a kind of music, no one is forcing you to listen to it. Just don't judge a book by its cover, or in this case, an album by its CD jacket sleeve. I guess my whole point of this is to just try and be open minded about music and not let yourself get into a sort of tunnel vision where you'll only listen to one kind of music and look down on other music that might not be in your group (seriously, give Justin a chance, you might actually find yourself dancing to his stuff).
/end rant.exe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)