“music takes us out of the actual and whispers to us dim secrets that startle our wonder as to who we are, and for what, whence, and whereto.” -ralph waldo emerson
is there anything music can't do to our emotions? regardless of the range in genres you've deemed acceptable for your listening pleasure, there collectively exists an immense broadcast of songs, tunes, jingles, jams, slams, wails, ballads and grooves, which will take anyone, anywhere, anytime to any emotional state they wish to feel. it's remarkable and intensely powerful.
with an ipod or mp3 device we have the ability to cram literally thousands of songs into a hand held computer, which we can enjoy at any moment we choose (presuming of course that we remembered to charge the battery). now, i'm relatively new to the world of ipod ownership, less than a year now. i lugged around a discman for years, along with however many cds i could cram into my pockets. unless i had a backpack, then i could carry a case!... ipods are the best. some awful, obscene amount of song titles and album names, all neatly packaged in a silver rectangle that fits in my front pocket.
but recently the whole "coincidental playlist" that ipods seem to adopt on occasion, has unravelled into either a running joke from a cosmos that mocks, or an ongoing declaration of the inevitability of artificial intelligence. it more often than not, seriously seems as if my ipod (put on random) actually selects a list of songs that it thinks i should listen to. i mean obviously our taste in music will reflect in our digital libraries, and who i am and what emotional states i choose to feed from will affect the the ratio of songs to my preferred types of feeling. but with 50+ GB of tracks playing at random, genres ranging from jazz through metal, country to classical, indie, experimental, hip-hop and disco, my ipod still manages to run through an uncanny myriad of tunes that will have me questioning just how intelligent these little machines are.
none the less, i am thankful for the music. so what, if the constant stimulation propels me to a point where my life feels more like a movie or a marketing device, than a life. so what, if i consume pieces of relative creation and use them to define my presence without ever giving a piece of myself to world i am undeniably a part of. so what, if i let the world create me instead of creating a world i'd like to see. so what, right?
'cause you're thankful for the music.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
what is love?
love is a fickle bitch.
first off, just what the hell is it exactly? is it like most other emotions, which exist as chemicals released at (un)appropriate times? is it simply an idea we have fabricated, in an attempt to understand and communicate overwhelming floods of those chemicals? or is it some form of kinetic energy that flows through each of us, connecting best with similar frequencies? should we give ourselves over to it? or keep it close to our own hearts, and handle it with reserve?
there are three standard sources one can turn to when asking questions of such scope and magnitude: science, religion and art. but each has their flaws, or outright biases.
science gets a hard enough time for "playing god" as it is. if scientists were to tell us there is an "answer" to love, there might just be rioting.
religion bases everything on faith, and if i'm already questioning the fundamental elements of love, you can bet that my idea of faith was questioned some time ago.
and art is subject to far too much interpretation and emotions itself, to really give any clear-cut sort of answer as to what love could be.
so we're back where we started, asking questions that we're also going to have to answer. we're no better off than we were when the question was asked. or are we?
love is a fickle bitch.
first off, just what the hell is it exactly? is it like most other emotions, which exist as chemicals released at (un)appropriate times? is it simply an idea we have fabricated, in an attempt to understand and communicate overwhelming floods of those chemicals? or is it some form of kinetic energy that flows through each of us, connecting best with similar frequencies? should we give ourselves over to it? or keep it close to our own hearts, and handle it with reserve?
there are three standard sources one can turn to when asking questions of such scope and magnitude: science, religion and art. but each has their flaws, or outright biases.
science gets a hard enough time for "playing god" as it is. if scientists were to tell us there is an "answer" to love, there might just be rioting.
religion bases everything on faith, and if i'm already questioning the fundamental elements of love, you can bet that my idea of faith was questioned some time ago.
and art is subject to far too much interpretation and emotions itself, to really give any clear-cut sort of answer as to what love could be.
so we're back where we started, asking questions that we're also going to have to answer. we're no better off than we were when the question was asked. or are we?
love is a fickle bitch.
a greeting?
how does one welcome a faceless mass of human interaction? what is the proper way to greet a wandering stranger, when there will be no real meeting and we shall continue as strangers? what does one say when faced with such anonymity?
hello, i suppose.
i sincerely hope you are having a wonderful day, if not, let's just hope it turns around.
welcome to my page.
hello, i suppose.
i sincerely hope you are having a wonderful day, if not, let's just hope it turns around.
welcome to my page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)