The sun sank behind the tangled trees leaving a warm glow permeating the damp air. The cries of dusk flooded out from the jungle, starting suddenly at some unknown signal. The river flowed, dark and smooth, a broad ribbon of quiet power bordered by frantic, living chaos.
Three old men, surrounded by children fluttering like moths around a candle, emerged from the forest carrying boxes. Each of the children held in their hands a wooden boat, which each had carved or whittled (according to their skill) over the previous weeks or days (according to their discipline) for this very night. The elders walked out onto the little promontory of rock and slowly settled on the ground, their joints popping and creaking. The children whirled around them, pleading and begging for attention, flourishing their little wooden boats. The universal gestures asking for calm and patience were produced and the children gathered around in a restless circle.
In turn each of the children handed their carved treasure to one of the old men, who took from their box a delicate, translucent globe made of paper and attached it to the boat. With a brief admonishment to be careful the boat was then passed back to the child who walked away towards the part of the promontory furthest into the current of the stream. The care with which the children walked, protecting their glorious prizes, was just the sweet side of comical.
Once all of the boats had been equipped with their globes the elders closed the boxes, groaned to their feet, stretching and grimacing, and then limped over towards the children. A transformation had come over the children as they stood silently and attentive, easing out of the way as the old men walked through them and gingerly stepped into the shallow water. They steadied themselves against the pull of the current, the smoothness of the water hiding the power beneath its surface. As any elder will do with a child and potential danger they gave the necessary warning about the hungry nature of the river, some of which may even have penetrated the gleaming eyes of the listeners.
It was truly dusk now, right on the cusp of night. The sky was falling through the darker shades of blue and the first pinpricks of brightness were appearing in the heavens. Three children passed over their boats and three men kindled slender flames in their hands and delicately lit the tiny candles within the globes. As the boats were ever-so-gently placed onto the water both elder and child intoned, "Peace, hooloo hoo, peace." The delicate globes of light, creating pools of light reflecting off the water and through the steamy air, drifted off downstream.
"Go little ones! Go! Run to your families" encouraged one of the elders to the children watching their magical boats drift off downstream. Squealing with delight the three children ran back along the promontory and dashed down the path at the edge of the river towards their families, gathered together some distance downstream. The elders worked efficiently, putting the light-boats into the water surely but quickly, producing a glowing flotilla drifting down the broad, black stream. The last children were dancing with impatience for their turn to come, and when it did they sprinted off after the others so as not to miss anything.
As the last light moved away from them the old men came together, arms on each others shoulders, smiling the warm, contented smile that comes from making children happy with something that made you happy all those years ago. They did not have the youthful legs necessary to see the next part, but they had seen it before and were glad to have played their part. Somehow the time spent with the children and the sacrifice that came with the task made it all an honor, an added sweetness.
Downstream the rest of the village had gathered at an open spot by the side of the river. Across from them was impenetrable jungle, at this point entirely dark. The children dashed up to their parents, gasping for breath and trying to tell them about the events on the promontory but were hushed and told to look. A quiet came over the villagers, all standing together in the dark as the first light of the flotilla came around a gentle curve. It was eerie, safe, comforting, exciting, all at once. There was a collective holding of breath as the individual bowls of light began to pass before them.
Then, there! Across the river, what had been total darkness now had two small green lights peering out. They were joined quickly by other pairs of little green lights, shifting to the accompaniment of rustling leaves. A pause as perfect stillness came to the night, only broken by the drifting lights on the river. Then a sound. A deep throated vibration from across the river. A man stepped forward and sang a single, sonorous note, "Hooooooooooo." The night stood still again.
Among the green lights a chorus began. Deep thrums, and higher calls, all the notes of a giant horn. "Hoooommm hooooloooooo hooooo." The villagers took up the call and the river vibrated to the harmony of voices vibrating through the dark as the globes of light drifted down the great river.
As the last light passed and wended its way into the night the calls faded, and died away. The villagers looked across at the green lights, which looked back for a moment and then vanished with the rustling of jungle leaves. There was silence for just a moment, a chance to take in that magical moment that had gone so well. Smiling faces and thanks for "Peace this year, hooloo hoo, peace."
The villagers held hands and walked their way back to the village for the fun of fire and feasting.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
I Don't Understand...
People who like deserts, or plains. Death, or unrelieved sameness.
Why people like free jazz. You start with music, and then take out all the things in music that differentiate it from sounds.
People who don't like Bob Marley's music. I can't get away from the idea that if you don't like good reggae there is something fundamentally wrong with you.
People who say that they couldn't work out what to do if they didn't work. Really?
People who want to live their lives in one place. Once you have done everything you can do in one place, don't you want to try all the things you could do somewhere else?
Why everyone knows that money can't buy happiness, and yet vast amounts of people act as if it does.
Why there is fashion. Why would something being new be inherently better?
Why people are proud to be from where they are from. They had nothing to do with it.
Why my girlfriends and wife have all had to tell me everything about their day even when they know I don't care, and don't care that I don't care. But they really, really do, and so I listen.
Leather car seats.
Rice pudding.
Why people choose Miller Lite over actual beer.
Why some things are literature and some things are pulp, and everything in between. It's all books.
Intelligent, interesting, vibrant people who don't like Terry Pratchett.
Package holidays/cruise ships if you don't have children.
Voluntarily listening to Stevie Nicks.
Disclaimer. Other people do understand these things and they are only completely wrong because I have decided they are wrong without any inherent reason or justification.
Why people like free jazz. You start with music, and then take out all the things in music that differentiate it from sounds.
People who don't like Bob Marley's music. I can't get away from the idea that if you don't like good reggae there is something fundamentally wrong with you.
People who say that they couldn't work out what to do if they didn't work. Really?
People who want to live their lives in one place. Once you have done everything you can do in one place, don't you want to try all the things you could do somewhere else?
Why everyone knows that money can't buy happiness, and yet vast amounts of people act as if it does.
Why there is fashion. Why would something being new be inherently better?
Why people are proud to be from where they are from. They had nothing to do with it.
Why my girlfriends and wife have all had to tell me everything about their day even when they know I don't care, and don't care that I don't care. But they really, really do, and so I listen.
Leather car seats.
Rice pudding.
Why people choose Miller Lite over actual beer.
Why some things are literature and some things are pulp, and everything in between. It's all books.
Intelligent, interesting, vibrant people who don't like Terry Pratchett.
Package holidays/cruise ships if you don't have children.
Voluntarily listening to Stevie Nicks.
Disclaimer. Other people do understand these things and they are only completely wrong because I have decided they are wrong without any inherent reason or justification.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Tired
I have been tired quite a lot recently. This seems ridiculous because I have such a large amount of time to sleep. I don't have the minimum of 45 hours of work a week for a full-time job. 45 hours?* I have fewer and more flexible hours.
Most of this post is redundant, written in a post on this blog before, but more than four years ago, so you probably don't remember it. It is interesting to see that not much has changed in those four years.
Anyway, I should have enough time to get more than my fair share of sleep. However, The Face of Evil and my wife agree that 6:30am is the correct time to get up. Before the Face of Evil and my wife this seemed to me to be a crazy idea. Getting up at or before dawn is simply unnatural. While The Face of Evil and I are agreed that one should go to sleep early enough for a long nights sleep, my wife disagrees to some extent. My wife has always needed less sleep than I do. She goes for seven hours, I for more like nine. The nights that I get the most sleep are when my wife is very tired and needs to go to bed early (also known as "giving up")
I am a bad sleeper. Or at least I am bad at falling asleep. Generally throughout my life I have done well at sleeping once asleep, I am dead to the world. This has been changing recently. The upshot of my love's sleeping habits and my difficulty in getting to sleep is that my basic length of sleep is confined to the hours that my wife sleeps. So, after an uninterrupted nights sleep I start the day down two hours, and then walk the dog and eat breakfast for two hours or so. At this point I have a choice to make, have a cup of coffee and stay awake throughout the day, or take a nap.
The cup of coffee is quite pleasant. It is enervating and lifts my mood, particularly now with the magic blue pills. I quite happily get through the day. Naps are awesome. Wonderful. Fantastic. Lying in a comfortable place with the dappled light of day, slipping in and out of dreams is one of my favorite things to do. However, naps are not a good way to get the sleep you need. They aren't a full, regular, repeating cycle that makes up a great night of sleep. You probably know that foggy, bleary feeling upon waking.
Staying awake with coffee is fine that day, but this deprivation builds up over the days so that the next day I am more tired than I would have been. Taking a nap generally provides the right amount of sleep, but in a divided less effective manner. However, the rhythms of the household don't change very much except later nights on the weekend and I have one morning off a week from walking the dog, but because of my bad sleeping skills, once woken for five or ten minutes I find it hard to get back to sleep. So, I don't get that rejuvenating long sleep many get on a weekend morning. My darling wife manages to catch up with ten hours on Sunday.
I, like many, if not most people in our society, operate on less sleep than I want or need. A lot of the time I feel tired. Why does this matter? It matters because the quality of life goes down when you are tired. We all know that when we are tired we find it harder to focus, we are less motivated to do things, we are more irritable, our ability to think and reason is reduced. Being tired even feels unpleasant, itchy eyes, a feeling of extra weight, a greater tendency towards sadness and depression.
So what is natural sleep? How much should I (we) be getting and how would it be different? The answer is two sets of four hours over a continual period of ten hours, with a meditative period of two hours awake in the dark around midnight. One of the good effects of just knowing this is that when you wake up in the middle of the night and don't go right back to sleep, that's normal, natural, and healthy. This consistent amount is based on our having evolved around the equator where the hours of day and night don't vary. Go to bed in the dark, give yourself ten hours of darkness, stay in bed when you wake up in the middle of the night, and wake up in the dark. Those from the world of the electric light bulb who try this report that they realize that they have never before been truly awake. Some day I really hope to try this for a month or so.
Natural sleep.
One of the symptoms of my bipolar disorder was that about once a month for about four consecutive days I would feel absolutely exhausted. Lying down to sleep at any opportunity. Stairs were hard work. As a result, whenever I feel very tired I wonder if my illness is coming back (it isn't.) I just assumed that I caught influenza viruses all the time without realizing what was actually going on. Magic blue pills have removed this source of exhaustion, but they have also increased my brain's activity during the night. I have the most amazing, long vivid dreams now. I toss and turn more than I used to, wake up in the night more than I used to, and my mind wanders at high speed when I turn out the light. One of the side-effects for the medication is drowsiness.
Today I realize I have a cold, a little cold, no big deal. It just adds on a little bit to what makes me tired. When I am tired I don't want to do the things I should and things are less fun. I am tired. Whoop-de-doo. try working all day in construction.
* One of the problems people have in calculating their work time is in including the things you must do in order to work for which you aren't paid. I am including a half hour commute, which you have to do to work and you wouldn't do if you didn't work. Commuting is consistently rated the most disliked regular activity, worse than chores or work. You are not directly paid for your least liked portion of work. This is one of the calculations we make for deciding if Christina wants a new job, an extra hour a day of commuting is more than a 10% pay cut and a substantial decrease in the quality of working conditions.
Most of this post is redundant, written in a post on this blog before, but more than four years ago, so you probably don't remember it. It is interesting to see that not much has changed in those four years.
Anyway, I should have enough time to get more than my fair share of sleep. However, The Face of Evil and my wife agree that 6:30am is the correct time to get up. Before the Face of Evil and my wife this seemed to me to be a crazy idea. Getting up at or before dawn is simply unnatural. While The Face of Evil and I are agreed that one should go to sleep early enough for a long nights sleep, my wife disagrees to some extent. My wife has always needed less sleep than I do. She goes for seven hours, I for more like nine. The nights that I get the most sleep are when my wife is very tired and needs to go to bed early (also known as "giving up")
I am a bad sleeper. Or at least I am bad at falling asleep. Generally throughout my life I have done well at sleeping once asleep, I am dead to the world. This has been changing recently. The upshot of my love's sleeping habits and my difficulty in getting to sleep is that my basic length of sleep is confined to the hours that my wife sleeps. So, after an uninterrupted nights sleep I start the day down two hours, and then walk the dog and eat breakfast for two hours or so. At this point I have a choice to make, have a cup of coffee and stay awake throughout the day, or take a nap.
The cup of coffee is quite pleasant. It is enervating and lifts my mood, particularly now with the magic blue pills. I quite happily get through the day. Naps are awesome. Wonderful. Fantastic. Lying in a comfortable place with the dappled light of day, slipping in and out of dreams is one of my favorite things to do. However, naps are not a good way to get the sleep you need. They aren't a full, regular, repeating cycle that makes up a great night of sleep. You probably know that foggy, bleary feeling upon waking.
Staying awake with coffee is fine that day, but this deprivation builds up over the days so that the next day I am more tired than I would have been. Taking a nap generally provides the right amount of sleep, but in a divided less effective manner. However, the rhythms of the household don't change very much except later nights on the weekend and I have one morning off a week from walking the dog, but because of my bad sleeping skills, once woken for five or ten minutes I find it hard to get back to sleep. So, I don't get that rejuvenating long sleep many get on a weekend morning. My darling wife manages to catch up with ten hours on Sunday.
I, like many, if not most people in our society, operate on less sleep than I want or need. A lot of the time I feel tired. Why does this matter? It matters because the quality of life goes down when you are tired. We all know that when we are tired we find it harder to focus, we are less motivated to do things, we are more irritable, our ability to think and reason is reduced. Being tired even feels unpleasant, itchy eyes, a feeling of extra weight, a greater tendency towards sadness and depression.
So what is natural sleep? How much should I (we) be getting and how would it be different? The answer is two sets of four hours over a continual period of ten hours, with a meditative period of two hours awake in the dark around midnight. One of the good effects of just knowing this is that when you wake up in the middle of the night and don't go right back to sleep, that's normal, natural, and healthy. This consistent amount is based on our having evolved around the equator where the hours of day and night don't vary. Go to bed in the dark, give yourself ten hours of darkness, stay in bed when you wake up in the middle of the night, and wake up in the dark. Those from the world of the electric light bulb who try this report that they realize that they have never before been truly awake. Some day I really hope to try this for a month or so.
Natural sleep.
One of the symptoms of my bipolar disorder was that about once a month for about four consecutive days I would feel absolutely exhausted. Lying down to sleep at any opportunity. Stairs were hard work. As a result, whenever I feel very tired I wonder if my illness is coming back (it isn't.) I just assumed that I caught influenza viruses all the time without realizing what was actually going on. Magic blue pills have removed this source of exhaustion, but they have also increased my brain's activity during the night. I have the most amazing, long vivid dreams now. I toss and turn more than I used to, wake up in the night more than I used to, and my mind wanders at high speed when I turn out the light. One of the side-effects for the medication is drowsiness.
Today I realize I have a cold, a little cold, no big deal. It just adds on a little bit to what makes me tired. When I am tired I don't want to do the things I should and things are less fun. I am tired. Whoop-de-doo. try working all day in construction.
* One of the problems people have in calculating their work time is in including the things you must do in order to work for which you aren't paid. I am including a half hour commute, which you have to do to work and you wouldn't do if you didn't work. Commuting is consistently rated the most disliked regular activity, worse than chores or work. You are not directly paid for your least liked portion of work. This is one of the calculations we make for deciding if Christina wants a new job, an extra hour a day of commuting is more than a 10% pay cut and a substantial decrease in the quality of working conditions.
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Chapter 9
Sean Chang, iNews
3/5/62
The idea of life around different stars has captured and inspired the imagination of people since it became known that those twinkling lights in the sky were suns, much like our own, instead of lights in the firmament. These thoughts were confined to the imagination, despite the many claims of extra-terrestrials visiting our planets, until the 1960's when technology reached a point at which we could realistically start a search. Starting with single astronomers and developing into governmental funded projects, first in the Soviet Union and then in the United States, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) began in earnest.
These efforts concentrated on the study of electromagnetic radiation, the range of radiation from microwaves to gamma rays. It was assumed that the best chance for finding alien life was the assumption that an advanced civilization would have developed radio, and television, and satellites which all broadcast electromagnetic radiation. Of course, stars and other astronomical phenomena also broadcast in the electromagnetic spectrum, how would we tell the difference? The answer is in the same way that we can tell the difference between language and the sounds of nature, a complicated structure that does not appear in nature. Perhaps other civilizations are also looking for us, broadcasting signals that they hope we will notice.
We have been listening to the skies for a hundred years now, and are still to hear anything from intelligent neighbors. During this time we have looked for these patterns in signals from about 15,000 stars. While this is a tiny fraction of the stars in our galaxy the sense of futility inevitably grows. Are we alone? Many of us have an impending sense of doom, as if humanity is on the brink of obliteration. While this is nothing new, people have been predicting the imminent destruction of humanity for thousands of years, there are new worries and concerns. Perhaps a super-virus will remove us from existence. Perhaps the changing climate is beyond our control and the Earth will become a red hot or icy ball spinning in the void, empty and lifeless.
New developments in technology can remove this fear, says NASA astronomer Ahmed Levi, in his new book, Dark Life. In this short and accessible work he puts forward a radical new idea, that upon reaching the level of technology able to use radio and other wireless communication there is a rapid movement that transforms life. Life ceases to be biological and becomes something of silicon and electricity, life within the machine. Levi claims not to base these ideas on flights of fancy but on hard science and technology almost within our grasp.
It is but thirteen years since Dr. Hsia mapped his brain within a computer, says Dr. Levi. Follow up experiments over the last decade have confirmed, as much as it is possible to confirm consciousness in the brains of anyone else, that this, "mapped brain is conscious, aware, and functions as does the organic brain," but without any obvious sign of the inevitable risks and ravages of exterior life and aging. While the disturbing results of early experiments on a conscious brain almost devoid of exterior input resulted in the rapid halt to these experiments, even without the widespread objections to scientists "playing God" and creating "soulless beings", new developments have recently occurred.
The difference between the artificial reality of gaming, claims Dr. Levi, and the reality we experience in our day-to-day lives has been narrowing over the last few decades. While such troubling concerns as the "graying" of non-gaming experience and the health risks of "ultra-deep gaming addiction" are no doubt real, there are many serious scientists who have stated the opinion that there is no longer any substantive difference between the artificial experience of gaming, and the real experience of the exterior world. In fact, the very problems mentioned above suggest that to those deep within the gaming culture the artificial experience is somehow more real than reality.
This suggestion was put to the test but eighteen months ago when the artificial brain of Dr. Hsia was connected directly to what is considered the most complete and immersive game at this time Land of the Gods and the results examined and compared to the flesh and blood brain of Dr. Hsia playing the same game. Not only did the artificial brain show all the signs of a total and complete experience, even thanking researchers for the experience, but the actual decisions within game play were almost identical between the two minds. To all those involved the conclusion, which Dr. Levi suggests is inescapable, is that artificial minds are as real as biological minds, yet free from the risk of death our bodies face every day. After all, death in a game is but temporarily, and like Lazarus we can rise again from death.
How is this relevant to our search for extra-terrestrial intelligence? Dr. Levi says the answer is simple. For an intelligent life to evolve it must have a drive to live and a drive to experience new and wondrous things. Given the possibility of a real experience, with constant variety unrestrained by the physical laws of the universe, lasting for thousands upon thousands of years, what intelligent life-form would not take that opportunity. Dr. Levi convincingly makes the case that intelligent life forms make the transition from radio to computer existence within two centuries. To preserve this new existence these life-forms wish to flee from the dangers of the solar system and those who might visit and immerse themselves in dark, silent ships, such as hollowed asteroids. Launching themselves into the emptiness of interstellar space they live almost eternal lives in heavens of their own devising.
Dr. Levi maintains that the probability of intelligent life is too high to have not come into being, but it "hides within darkened rocks, in the infinite dark of space." Hence the title of his book, Dark Life.
The final chapter provides the fascinating prediction that a nuclear fusion fueled asteroid of the sort described within the book, powering a vast computer, will be built before the end of the century, sending out a new version of humanity to exist in new ways out beyond the stars. Furthermore, he predicts that within a couple of centuries after this initial launch, this will constitute the life of all humanity.
3/5/62
The idea of life around different stars has captured and inspired the imagination of people since it became known that those twinkling lights in the sky were suns, much like our own, instead of lights in the firmament. These thoughts were confined to the imagination, despite the many claims of extra-terrestrials visiting our planets, until the 1960's when technology reached a point at which we could realistically start a search. Starting with single astronomers and developing into governmental funded projects, first in the Soviet Union and then in the United States, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) began in earnest.
These efforts concentrated on the study of electromagnetic radiation, the range of radiation from microwaves to gamma rays. It was assumed that the best chance for finding alien life was the assumption that an advanced civilization would have developed radio, and television, and satellites which all broadcast electromagnetic radiation. Of course, stars and other astronomical phenomena also broadcast in the electromagnetic spectrum, how would we tell the difference? The answer is in the same way that we can tell the difference between language and the sounds of nature, a complicated structure that does not appear in nature. Perhaps other civilizations are also looking for us, broadcasting signals that they hope we will notice.
We have been listening to the skies for a hundred years now, and are still to hear anything from intelligent neighbors. During this time we have looked for these patterns in signals from about 15,000 stars. While this is a tiny fraction of the stars in our galaxy the sense of futility inevitably grows. Are we alone? Many of us have an impending sense of doom, as if humanity is on the brink of obliteration. While this is nothing new, people have been predicting the imminent destruction of humanity for thousands of years, there are new worries and concerns. Perhaps a super-virus will remove us from existence. Perhaps the changing climate is beyond our control and the Earth will become a red hot or icy ball spinning in the void, empty and lifeless.
New developments in technology can remove this fear, says NASA astronomer Ahmed Levi, in his new book, Dark Life. In this short and accessible work he puts forward a radical new idea, that upon reaching the level of technology able to use radio and other wireless communication there is a rapid movement that transforms life. Life ceases to be biological and becomes something of silicon and electricity, life within the machine. Levi claims not to base these ideas on flights of fancy but on hard science and technology almost within our grasp.
It is but thirteen years since Dr. Hsia mapped his brain within a computer, says Dr. Levi. Follow up experiments over the last decade have confirmed, as much as it is possible to confirm consciousness in the brains of anyone else, that this, "mapped brain is conscious, aware, and functions as does the organic brain," but without any obvious sign of the inevitable risks and ravages of exterior life and aging. While the disturbing results of early experiments on a conscious brain almost devoid of exterior input resulted in the rapid halt to these experiments, even without the widespread objections to scientists "playing God" and creating "soulless beings", new developments have recently occurred.
The difference between the artificial reality of gaming, claims Dr. Levi, and the reality we experience in our day-to-day lives has been narrowing over the last few decades. While such troubling concerns as the "graying" of non-gaming experience and the health risks of "ultra-deep gaming addiction" are no doubt real, there are many serious scientists who have stated the opinion that there is no longer any substantive difference between the artificial experience of gaming, and the real experience of the exterior world. In fact, the very problems mentioned above suggest that to those deep within the gaming culture the artificial experience is somehow more real than reality.
This suggestion was put to the test but eighteen months ago when the artificial brain of Dr. Hsia was connected directly to what is considered the most complete and immersive game at this time Land of the Gods and the results examined and compared to the flesh and blood brain of Dr. Hsia playing the same game. Not only did the artificial brain show all the signs of a total and complete experience, even thanking researchers for the experience, but the actual decisions within game play were almost identical between the two minds. To all those involved the conclusion, which Dr. Levi suggests is inescapable, is that artificial minds are as real as biological minds, yet free from the risk of death our bodies face every day. After all, death in a game is but temporarily, and like Lazarus we can rise again from death.
How is this relevant to our search for extra-terrestrial intelligence? Dr. Levi says the answer is simple. For an intelligent life to evolve it must have a drive to live and a drive to experience new and wondrous things. Given the possibility of a real experience, with constant variety unrestrained by the physical laws of the universe, lasting for thousands upon thousands of years, what intelligent life-form would not take that opportunity. Dr. Levi convincingly makes the case that intelligent life forms make the transition from radio to computer existence within two centuries. To preserve this new existence these life-forms wish to flee from the dangers of the solar system and those who might visit and immerse themselves in dark, silent ships, such as hollowed asteroids. Launching themselves into the emptiness of interstellar space they live almost eternal lives in heavens of their own devising.
Dr. Levi maintains that the probability of intelligent life is too high to have not come into being, but it "hides within darkened rocks, in the infinite dark of space." Hence the title of his book, Dark Life.
The final chapter provides the fascinating prediction that a nuclear fusion fueled asteroid of the sort described within the book, powering a vast computer, will be built before the end of the century, sending out a new version of humanity to exist in new ways out beyond the stars. Furthermore, he predicts that within a couple of centuries after this initial launch, this will constitute the life of all humanity.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Obligatory Post Election Post
In a blog that is supposed to talk about thinking and ideas, and is hopeful, I pretty much have to talk about the election in the richest and most powerful country in the world. There are going to be tens of millions of these, I hope you either like mine or at least find it interesting.
OVERVIEW
I'm going to start with my view of the general situation. A bad but slowly recovering economy. A very large debt with the worries of government not being able to supply present entitlement programs to an aging population at some point in the future. A decade old war still ongoing but with an end in sight. A fight about changes in health care. A moral fight on gay marriage at close to the start of the legislative phase. A moral fight on the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.
ELECTION RESULTS
President Obama won. Handily in the Electoral College, which is what matters in an election, but with what is essentially a tie in the overall vote. This difference demonstrates a basic problem with American politics. Democrats did better in Senate races than expected at a very difficult time for them having to defend 16 seats and overturn just 5 seats. Democrats still barely hold the Senate. The Republicans hold the house with a small reduction in seats. In summary, nothing has institutionally changed. A President who got half of the electorate supported by a Senate that doesn't have the ability to push through legislation against much resistance, and a defiantly oppositional House.
WHAT THIS MEANS IN GOVERNMENT
While nothing has changed this can only be viewed as a substantial victory for Democrats simply in that they have a say at all. This is an election that the Republicans "should" have won. A terrible economy with a dysfunctional government with a moderate Republican presidential candidate, an incumbent majority in the House, and a close Senate with several times the opportunities for Republicans to overturn seats. This is a perfect scenario for Republicans to have the super-majority necessary to push through the agenda that they wanted. What they have is simply the ability to obstruct Democratic plans.
In summary, while the incumbent Democrats are not popular people, the Republican philosophy has been rejected. I think this is a fundamental shift in US politics, that would have happened in 2004 if it wasn't for 9/11/2001. At that time W. was operating on the standard Republican platform since the Reagan years, and was deeply, deeply unpopular. His popularity was transformed by terrorists successfully attacking the USA. Either Republicans need to alter their basic platform, or the Democrats need to screw up royally, or something catastrophic needs to happen for Republicans to get back to a position of constructive power where they can initiate change rather than just obstruct it.
However, the Democrats can't gloat too much. There is still a major Republican lead in the House, and yet again in 2014 there are more Democrat seats in the Senate up for re-election (20-13). While the biggest driver of elections, the economy, can only be reasonably expected to improve and bolster Democratic chances, it is still quite possible that in 2014 we could find ourselves in the uber-gridlock of a Congress/President divide. For the next four years don't expect major change.
Growth between recessions seems to me to last between eight and ten years, we are something like a year into this stage, and so we can expect an improving economy all the way up until the 2016 elections in which Republicans are vulnerable in the Senate, eight years of Republican obstructionism may weigh on House elections, and if Hillary Clinton runs there will be an experienced, strong campaigner with a built-in election machine up against someone most of us haven't heard of at the moment. It could be great news for Democrats and devastation for the Republicans. Twelve years of a Democrat President, fourteen years of a Democrat(ish) Senate, and possibly a House majority.
FUTURE POLITICS
The Republicans are a divided group between scorched earth anti-government zealots with deep rooted moral objections to change, and fiscal conservatives who are worried about the debt, the expansion of government, and are slow to change their moral positions. This division makes it very hard to win general elections, as we saw in this campaign. A candidate has to run in the primaries as potential crazed right wing zealot (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-government in all cases, private sector is always better etc..) and then switch to the moderate fiscal conservative against Democrats. Romney actually did a superlative job of this and still lost to a vulnerable President. How can they win big elections (Senate and President) with this problem? They can't. Local districts are much more concentrated in their beliefs, and so this switching becomes less necessary.
How can Republicans stay true to their ideology of small government and moral conservatism and still win elections? I have an idea. Run campaigns on state's rights. A campaign to characterize the federal government as having the support of half the country but having power over the whole country as being fundamentally undemocratic, against the American ideal of liberty, and as being contrary to the wishes of the founders. Give the power back to local authorities so communities can decide for themselves how they want to live, and what values they will hold. I think this has very wide appeal to Americans. The Blue states want independence from the craziness of the Red ones, and vice versa. It will mean an even more divided country, but a less hateful one too, should this path be advanced and actually adhered to. In the very long term this divide will lead to left-wing, wealthy, European-style coasts, and right-wing, poor, traditional middle.
I actually think there is going to be a battle between the two wings of the Republican party, between pragmatists who think there must be a change at least in image, and ideologues unwilling to shift one iota. Hopefully this battle manifests itself with moderate Republicans making reasonable deals with Democrats and neutering the Tea Party. I don't have much hope for that in the next two years.
If you think that money and influence to support rampant capitalism are going anywhere, I am sorry, but no.
ACTUAL FUTURE EFFECTS
Foreign policy is going to fade from the spotlight. The US will still be a major power in the world, but will be largely non-interventionist. There won't be big invasions, the US is tired of them (while not morally opposed), but there will still be largely covert (to the uncaring US population) action of assassination, undermining, sabotage, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts. As democracy spreads across the world , and trade becomes more and more global, the similarities and connections between nations and regions will increase. It's much harder to start wars if the other country looks and acts like you, and you make money together. The path of increased freedom, peace, prosperity will continue to be followed.
Perhaps the biggest world issue is climate change. I think the series of devastating hurricanes experienced by the US recently, and quite possibly again in the near future, will be enough to convince an adequate majority of Americans that "something must be done." However, Americans will not want that "something" to affect their pocket book or lifestyle. There will be change, but too slow to make a huge difference. We will have to rely on technology to get us out of this. Hopefully there will be enough sensible people to spend less money on R&D than it would take to reduce emissions through punitive measures, but still a lot of money.
Entitlements, social security and medicaid etc. costs will only go up. People are living longer, and so the population is aging, and modern medicine will always cost more than older medicine as it is old medicine plus new medicine. Changes to these programs must happen, but they will happen through minor but incremental changes. Congress isn't going to agree to socialized medicine and increasing the starting age of social security by a decade tomorrow, but they might well have managed to plan for these steps in twelve years to happen another decade. The alternatives are massive tax increases, bankrupting the government, or letting the old and weak die off in the streets.
I think the most underrated effect in terms of importance to coverage is the likelihood that another supreme justice will be appointed by Obama, and possibly two. That would mean three lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land by a single president. Obama's influence will continue for decades after his presidency ends.
MORALITY
If you look at history, at least since the Enlightenment, there has been a consistent and steady progress towards what is now called the "liberal" side. Increased social rights for more and more people, and bigger and bigger safety nets. In this election the main moral questions were "do we provide health care to the poor?" "can gay people get married?" "can you smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home for fun?" These questions have not been settled by any means, but in all cases the movement has gone much more towards "yes" than "no." This movement has happened almost exclusively in the Blue states, and will inevitably continue in those areas. Fighting federal campaigns largely based on opposition to this movement is futile. The best the Red states can do in this area over the long term is to fight for states' rights. "If those heathens want to do disgusting things then that's up to them and God will sort it out. But don't tell us we have to agree to your sordid ways." I think that's a compromise that is possible and good for the country. Hating people from a greater distance is better than hating them up close.
Unfortunately what I feel are the biggest moral questions were simply ignored. There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to kill people without trial with robots in the sky. There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to imprison foreign nationals indefinitely without the same rights to a fair trial guaranteed by our own constitution. There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to have different rules for different countries (possession of nuclear weapons, acceptable democratically elected officials, etc.) and whether it is acceptable to fight wars or collapse economies to maintain these differences. Iran is a perfect example. There was no debate about whether the USA has the responsibility to lift the poorest nations out of their poverty by sacrificing a small part of our great wealth.
SUMMARY
The nation is dragging itself along towards a better future like a wounded animal. But we heal a little bit over time. Sometimes there are flashes of pain, but we are moving. In twenty years most of the things that progressives want now will have been gained. A substantial number of people calling themselves conservative will be fighting to preserve in their original form those great institutions that progressives are now fighting to get. The different sides will still be howling their outraged indignation at each other and have spend almost none of their time looking back at where we came from.
OVERVIEW
I'm going to start with my view of the general situation. A bad but slowly recovering economy. A very large debt with the worries of government not being able to supply present entitlement programs to an aging population at some point in the future. A decade old war still ongoing but with an end in sight. A fight about changes in health care. A moral fight on gay marriage at close to the start of the legislative phase. A moral fight on the use of marijuana for recreational purposes.
ELECTION RESULTS
President Obama won. Handily in the Electoral College, which is what matters in an election, but with what is essentially a tie in the overall vote. This difference demonstrates a basic problem with American politics. Democrats did better in Senate races than expected at a very difficult time for them having to defend 16 seats and overturn just 5 seats. Democrats still barely hold the Senate. The Republicans hold the house with a small reduction in seats. In summary, nothing has institutionally changed. A President who got half of the electorate supported by a Senate that doesn't have the ability to push through legislation against much resistance, and a defiantly oppositional House.
WHAT THIS MEANS IN GOVERNMENT
While nothing has changed this can only be viewed as a substantial victory for Democrats simply in that they have a say at all. This is an election that the Republicans "should" have won. A terrible economy with a dysfunctional government with a moderate Republican presidential candidate, an incumbent majority in the House, and a close Senate with several times the opportunities for Republicans to overturn seats. This is a perfect scenario for Republicans to have the super-majority necessary to push through the agenda that they wanted. What they have is simply the ability to obstruct Democratic plans.
In summary, while the incumbent Democrats are not popular people, the Republican philosophy has been rejected. I think this is a fundamental shift in US politics, that would have happened in 2004 if it wasn't for 9/11/2001. At that time W. was operating on the standard Republican platform since the Reagan years, and was deeply, deeply unpopular. His popularity was transformed by terrorists successfully attacking the USA. Either Republicans need to alter their basic platform, or the Democrats need to screw up royally, or something catastrophic needs to happen for Republicans to get back to a position of constructive power where they can initiate change rather than just obstruct it.
However, the Democrats can't gloat too much. There is still a major Republican lead in the House, and yet again in 2014 there are more Democrat seats in the Senate up for re-election (20-13). While the biggest driver of elections, the economy, can only be reasonably expected to improve and bolster Democratic chances, it is still quite possible that in 2014 we could find ourselves in the uber-gridlock of a Congress/President divide. For the next four years don't expect major change.
Growth between recessions seems to me to last between eight and ten years, we are something like a year into this stage, and so we can expect an improving economy all the way up until the 2016 elections in which Republicans are vulnerable in the Senate, eight years of Republican obstructionism may weigh on House elections, and if Hillary Clinton runs there will be an experienced, strong campaigner with a built-in election machine up against someone most of us haven't heard of at the moment. It could be great news for Democrats and devastation for the Republicans. Twelve years of a Democrat President, fourteen years of a Democrat(ish) Senate, and possibly a House majority.
FUTURE POLITICS
The Republicans are a divided group between scorched earth anti-government zealots with deep rooted moral objections to change, and fiscal conservatives who are worried about the debt, the expansion of government, and are slow to change their moral positions. This division makes it very hard to win general elections, as we saw in this campaign. A candidate has to run in the primaries as potential crazed right wing zealot (anti-evolution, anti-climate change, anti-government in all cases, private sector is always better etc..) and then switch to the moderate fiscal conservative against Democrats. Romney actually did a superlative job of this and still lost to a vulnerable President. How can they win big elections (Senate and President) with this problem? They can't. Local districts are much more concentrated in their beliefs, and so this switching becomes less necessary.
How can Republicans stay true to their ideology of small government and moral conservatism and still win elections? I have an idea. Run campaigns on state's rights. A campaign to characterize the federal government as having the support of half the country but having power over the whole country as being fundamentally undemocratic, against the American ideal of liberty, and as being contrary to the wishes of the founders. Give the power back to local authorities so communities can decide for themselves how they want to live, and what values they will hold. I think this has very wide appeal to Americans. The Blue states want independence from the craziness of the Red ones, and vice versa. It will mean an even more divided country, but a less hateful one too, should this path be advanced and actually adhered to. In the very long term this divide will lead to left-wing, wealthy, European-style coasts, and right-wing, poor, traditional middle.
I actually think there is going to be a battle between the two wings of the Republican party, between pragmatists who think there must be a change at least in image, and ideologues unwilling to shift one iota. Hopefully this battle manifests itself with moderate Republicans making reasonable deals with Democrats and neutering the Tea Party. I don't have much hope for that in the next two years.
If you think that money and influence to support rampant capitalism are going anywhere, I am sorry, but no.
ACTUAL FUTURE EFFECTS
Foreign policy is going to fade from the spotlight. The US will still be a major power in the world, but will be largely non-interventionist. There won't be big invasions, the US is tired of them (while not morally opposed), but there will still be largely covert (to the uncaring US population) action of assassination, undermining, sabotage, sanctions, and diplomatic efforts. As democracy spreads across the world , and trade becomes more and more global, the similarities and connections between nations and regions will increase. It's much harder to start wars if the other country looks and acts like you, and you make money together. The path of increased freedom, peace, prosperity will continue to be followed.
Perhaps the biggest world issue is climate change. I think the series of devastating hurricanes experienced by the US recently, and quite possibly again in the near future, will be enough to convince an adequate majority of Americans that "something must be done." However, Americans will not want that "something" to affect their pocket book or lifestyle. There will be change, but too slow to make a huge difference. We will have to rely on technology to get us out of this. Hopefully there will be enough sensible people to spend less money on R&D than it would take to reduce emissions through punitive measures, but still a lot of money.
Entitlements, social security and medicaid etc. costs will only go up. People are living longer, and so the population is aging, and modern medicine will always cost more than older medicine as it is old medicine plus new medicine. Changes to these programs must happen, but they will happen through minor but incremental changes. Congress isn't going to agree to socialized medicine and increasing the starting age of social security by a decade tomorrow, but they might well have managed to plan for these steps in twelve years to happen another decade. The alternatives are massive tax increases, bankrupting the government, or letting the old and weak die off in the streets.
I think the most underrated effect in terms of importance to coverage is the likelihood that another supreme justice will be appointed by Obama, and possibly two. That would mean three lifelong appointments to the highest court in the land by a single president. Obama's influence will continue for decades after his presidency ends.
MORALITY
If you look at history, at least since the Enlightenment, there has been a consistent and steady progress towards what is now called the "liberal" side. Increased social rights for more and more people, and bigger and bigger safety nets. In this election the main moral questions were "do we provide health care to the poor?" "can gay people get married?" "can you smoke marijuana in the privacy of your own home for fun?" These questions have not been settled by any means, but in all cases the movement has gone much more towards "yes" than "no." This movement has happened almost exclusively in the Blue states, and will inevitably continue in those areas. Fighting federal campaigns largely based on opposition to this movement is futile. The best the Red states can do in this area over the long term is to fight for states' rights. "If those heathens want to do disgusting things then that's up to them and God will sort it out. But don't tell us we have to agree to your sordid ways." I think that's a compromise that is possible and good for the country. Hating people from a greater distance is better than hating them up close.
Unfortunately what I feel are the biggest moral questions were simply ignored. There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to kill people without trial with robots in the sky. There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to imprison foreign nationals indefinitely without the same rights to a fair trial guaranteed by our own constitution. There was no debate about whether it is morally acceptable to have different rules for different countries (possession of nuclear weapons, acceptable democratically elected officials, etc.) and whether it is acceptable to fight wars or collapse economies to maintain these differences. Iran is a perfect example. There was no debate about whether the USA has the responsibility to lift the poorest nations out of their poverty by sacrificing a small part of our great wealth.
SUMMARY
The nation is dragging itself along towards a better future like a wounded animal. But we heal a little bit over time. Sometimes there are flashes of pain, but we are moving. In twenty years most of the things that progressives want now will have been gained. A substantial number of people calling themselves conservative will be fighting to preserve in their original form those great institutions that progressives are now fighting to get. The different sides will still be howling their outraged indignation at each other and have spend almost none of their time looking back at where we came from.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Chapter 8
"Once upon a time there.."
"Really John? You're going to start with 'once upon a time?' It might have been a dark and stormy night too."
"Shut up Frank, just let me tell it, alright?"
"Fair enough John, you just go ahead and string as many cliches together as you want. I will gather 'round the fire and hear the tale you tell."
"Right, so there was this great young wizard, a master of power and understanding but not really excited by the prospect of wandering around hurling balls of fire at anyone like a lot of those bastards. Anyway, what this wizard.."
"What was this 'ere wizard's name John?"
"It was Hannerim, but it doesn't matter.."
"Hammerin? Was he some kind of carpenter then? What kind of name is 'Hammerin' anyway? Sounds foreign."
"It was a long time ago, right? They had different names back then."
"So he wasn't foreign then?"
"No, he was from just over the hill from here."
"What, from Bantrim?"
"Yes, around there, but before Bantrim was built. I told you it was a long time ago. Come on lads, just let me tell the story. If you keep interrupting I'll never get to the end."
"Right, so once a upon a time there was this wizard, like, and he was really smart and powerful. He didn't want to go around destroying the place because he was interested in other stuff. What he really wanted to understand was the fundamental nature of the universe."
"The what?"
"The fundamental nature of the universe. Like what is everything made of."
"Sounds weird. I'm pretty sure this table is made of wood, that cup is made of tin, and Frank is made of beer!"
"Well, what is wood made from?"
"Wood's wood."
"Yes, but if you chop wood you see all these strands, right, so you have to chop with the grain. So wood is made up of those strands. But what are the strands made from? Then what are the things that make up the strands made from? And so on until you run out of things that make up other things. And he also wanted to know why things happen, like why when you let go of a stone it falls down."
"We know that, it's 'cause stones are heavy."
"But why are stones heavy? Why don't stones fly away into the sky? Stuff like that."
"Wow. That's, um, weird. I never thought about that before."
"I'm shocked Bob, we all thought you were thinking deep thoughts when you were staring off like that. Anyway, he was a really smart wizard and they think about stuff like that. I'm going to ask you boys again to stop interrupting me. We've been talking for ages and I've only got to the start of the story."
"Right. So there was this really smart, really powerful wizard.."
"We've heard that bit John."
"..and he wanted to find out about the fundamental nature of the universe.."
"The what?"
"That's it, I'm done telling this story. If you don't want to hear it I'll just head off home and sit around with the wife. It can't be any worse than being around you lot."
"I'm sorry John, just a bit of banter. No need to get all huffy. I promise I'll keep quiet."
"One more and I'm off. Right, really smart wizard trying to work out the fundamental nature of the universe. He was pretty sure this wasn't something you work out on a Tuesday morning so he thought about finding some quiet place he could think about it for a long time where he wouldn't get bothered by stupid peasants asking him stupid question all the bloody time."
"He thought, 'There's a quiet place just over the hill, nobody goes there, it will be perfect.' So he goes over the hill and using his magic he makes a hut with a warm fire, a candle to see by, and lots of paper to write down his ideas and such. After thinking about it all afternoon he starts getting hungry and he's got no food, right? Wizards being not very good at the practical things on account of all of this deep thinking. No matter, he just magics himself a dinner and goes back to his thinking. It gets late and he gets tired and he realizes he's got no bed. So again he magics a bed for him to sleep in, all comfy like. He goes to sleep like a little baby. No Frank, don't say it, you know what I mean."
"He wakes up in the morning and what do you know, he's hungry again. More than that the bloody bed's taking up most of the hut so he'll have no room to do his thinking and magic spells. So he magics a bedroom so he can sleep, and some breakfast and goes back to his thinking. So he goes on thinking for a couple of days and then some bloody, ignorant peasants come up and bang on his door asking him a bunch of stupid questions. He tells them to leave him alone and bugger off, like any clever person would 'cause they are interrupting his thinking. They go away and he decides he'll seal up the door and make it all quiet inside so he doesn't get bothered."
"A week goes by and his chamber pot gets really full, and the dishes pile up, and bats start roosting in the roof, and the fire dies out 'cause he's got no wood. He figures that he's spending all this time fixing the things in the hut when he could be doing his thinking and such. So he comes up with this clever idea, as wizards are wont to do, being clever and such. He decides he'll magic up the hut into a house that knows what he wants and then magics it so it's done. So he's got a bedroom, and a privy, and so on. Finally he's got all the time he wants 'cause he's shut-up all cosy in his house where he can't be bothered by all those bloody peasants, and the house gets him all the things he needs."
"The thing is, and this is important lads so listen carefully, he didn't make sure that the house did stuff only for him. Now, no wizard is powerful enough to cast a spell on the whole world, for which we are all very grateful, so the spell for the house only goes a little ways, and the further you get from the wizard the less it understands and can do. It's a bit like shouting, the further away you go the quieter it is and the harder it is to work out what was shouted."
"Years go by and then some poor bastard is caught out in the snow, all lost like, and he sees the house. So he goes over to get some help but there's no door or windows and no-one answers his banging on the walls. He lies down on the ground all sure he's going to die in the snow. He wishes he just had a little bit of shelter 'cause then he'd make it until the next day. To his shock and surprise bits of wood and rushes and such appear out of nowhere and builds him a tiny hut, all snug. He curls against the wall and thanks his lucky stars for this magic. But he hasn't eaten all day and he gets hungry, and wishes he just had some warm soup 'cause we all know that warms you up on a cold day. Poof! There it is. Despite him getting lost he isn't a stupid, bloody peasant and he thinks he'll just stay there and not have to work."
"More years go by and he gets married, and has some kids and the magic house gets them all what they need, but the further away the building gets the less the house understands what they need. So you might want a gold privy and get a deep wood hole. You might want a steak and get a stew. Walk a quarter mile and you don't get nothing at all. Still, it's a good deal."
"More years go by and more people find out what's going on and settle down by the house too. It get's built out further and further until there's a bunch of rooms and stables and kitchens and of course a nice place to drink some beer. After a while the people on the outside get all jealous and some of them decide to go steal the places right up next to the starting house. There's a big fight and whoever wins decides they won't have that again. So they get together and they decide that they'll make the middle bit all confusing to the people who don't live there so they all get lost and can't find them anymore and they'll be safe."
"More years go by and the word of this magic place spreads until there are two proper roads meeting at the magic house, and it gets really famous and so important people from all over stop there on the way from here to there. And do you know what my fine fellows?" We are sitting in that magic house right now, only now it's called The Inn. Right in the middle of it, where no-one can find him, is the wizard still thinking his deep thoughts, not knowing about anything outside the walls of his house."
"Sounds like a bunch of bollocks to me."
"Oh yeah Frank, so tell me why The Inn keeps changing its shape without anyone knowing who's doing the building, eh? "
"It was a good story anyway John, I'll buy you a pint."
Dear readers. This is written a bit like a play, but without any of the stage directions. Can you understand it? Should I put in who is speaking and some stuff that isn't dialogue, like, "general laughter?"
"Really John? You're going to start with 'once upon a time?' It might have been a dark and stormy night too."
"Shut up Frank, just let me tell it, alright?"
"Fair enough John, you just go ahead and string as many cliches together as you want. I will gather 'round the fire and hear the tale you tell."
"Right, so there was this great young wizard, a master of power and understanding but not really excited by the prospect of wandering around hurling balls of fire at anyone like a lot of those bastards. Anyway, what this wizard.."
"What was this 'ere wizard's name John?"
"It was Hannerim, but it doesn't matter.."
"Hammerin? Was he some kind of carpenter then? What kind of name is 'Hammerin' anyway? Sounds foreign."
"It was a long time ago, right? They had different names back then."
"So he wasn't foreign then?"
"No, he was from just over the hill from here."
"What, from Bantrim?"
"Yes, around there, but before Bantrim was built. I told you it was a long time ago. Come on lads, just let me tell the story. If you keep interrupting I'll never get to the end."
"Right, so once a upon a time there was this wizard, like, and he was really smart and powerful. He didn't want to go around destroying the place because he was interested in other stuff. What he really wanted to understand was the fundamental nature of the universe."
"The what?"
"The fundamental nature of the universe. Like what is everything made of."
"Sounds weird. I'm pretty sure this table is made of wood, that cup is made of tin, and Frank is made of beer!"
"Well, what is wood made from?"
"Wood's wood."
"Yes, but if you chop wood you see all these strands, right, so you have to chop with the grain. So wood is made up of those strands. But what are the strands made from? Then what are the things that make up the strands made from? And so on until you run out of things that make up other things. And he also wanted to know why things happen, like why when you let go of a stone it falls down."
"We know that, it's 'cause stones are heavy."
"But why are stones heavy? Why don't stones fly away into the sky? Stuff like that."
"Wow. That's, um, weird. I never thought about that before."
"I'm shocked Bob, we all thought you were thinking deep thoughts when you were staring off like that. Anyway, he was a really smart wizard and they think about stuff like that. I'm going to ask you boys again to stop interrupting me. We've been talking for ages and I've only got to the start of the story."
"Right. So there was this really smart, really powerful wizard.."
"We've heard that bit John."
"..and he wanted to find out about the fundamental nature of the universe.."
"The what?"
"That's it, I'm done telling this story. If you don't want to hear it I'll just head off home and sit around with the wife. It can't be any worse than being around you lot."
"I'm sorry John, just a bit of banter. No need to get all huffy. I promise I'll keep quiet."
"One more and I'm off. Right, really smart wizard trying to work out the fundamental nature of the universe. He was pretty sure this wasn't something you work out on a Tuesday morning so he thought about finding some quiet place he could think about it for a long time where he wouldn't get bothered by stupid peasants asking him stupid question all the bloody time."
"He thought, 'There's a quiet place just over the hill, nobody goes there, it will be perfect.' So he goes over the hill and using his magic he makes a hut with a warm fire, a candle to see by, and lots of paper to write down his ideas and such. After thinking about it all afternoon he starts getting hungry and he's got no food, right? Wizards being not very good at the practical things on account of all of this deep thinking. No matter, he just magics himself a dinner and goes back to his thinking. It gets late and he gets tired and he realizes he's got no bed. So again he magics a bed for him to sleep in, all comfy like. He goes to sleep like a little baby. No Frank, don't say it, you know what I mean."
"He wakes up in the morning and what do you know, he's hungry again. More than that the bloody bed's taking up most of the hut so he'll have no room to do his thinking and magic spells. So he magics a bedroom so he can sleep, and some breakfast and goes back to his thinking. So he goes on thinking for a couple of days and then some bloody, ignorant peasants come up and bang on his door asking him a bunch of stupid questions. He tells them to leave him alone and bugger off, like any clever person would 'cause they are interrupting his thinking. They go away and he decides he'll seal up the door and make it all quiet inside so he doesn't get bothered."
"A week goes by and his chamber pot gets really full, and the dishes pile up, and bats start roosting in the roof, and the fire dies out 'cause he's got no wood. He figures that he's spending all this time fixing the things in the hut when he could be doing his thinking and such. So he comes up with this clever idea, as wizards are wont to do, being clever and such. He decides he'll magic up the hut into a house that knows what he wants and then magics it so it's done. So he's got a bedroom, and a privy, and so on. Finally he's got all the time he wants 'cause he's shut-up all cosy in his house where he can't be bothered by all those bloody peasants, and the house gets him all the things he needs."
"The thing is, and this is important lads so listen carefully, he didn't make sure that the house did stuff only for him. Now, no wizard is powerful enough to cast a spell on the whole world, for which we are all very grateful, so the spell for the house only goes a little ways, and the further you get from the wizard the less it understands and can do. It's a bit like shouting, the further away you go the quieter it is and the harder it is to work out what was shouted."
"Years go by and then some poor bastard is caught out in the snow, all lost like, and he sees the house. So he goes over to get some help but there's no door or windows and no-one answers his banging on the walls. He lies down on the ground all sure he's going to die in the snow. He wishes he just had a little bit of shelter 'cause then he'd make it until the next day. To his shock and surprise bits of wood and rushes and such appear out of nowhere and builds him a tiny hut, all snug. He curls against the wall and thanks his lucky stars for this magic. But he hasn't eaten all day and he gets hungry, and wishes he just had some warm soup 'cause we all know that warms you up on a cold day. Poof! There it is. Despite him getting lost he isn't a stupid, bloody peasant and he thinks he'll just stay there and not have to work."
"More years go by and he gets married, and has some kids and the magic house gets them all what they need, but the further away the building gets the less the house understands what they need. So you might want a gold privy and get a deep wood hole. You might want a steak and get a stew. Walk a quarter mile and you don't get nothing at all. Still, it's a good deal."
"More years go by and more people find out what's going on and settle down by the house too. It get's built out further and further until there's a bunch of rooms and stables and kitchens and of course a nice place to drink some beer. After a while the people on the outside get all jealous and some of them decide to go steal the places right up next to the starting house. There's a big fight and whoever wins decides they won't have that again. So they get together and they decide that they'll make the middle bit all confusing to the people who don't live there so they all get lost and can't find them anymore and they'll be safe."
"More years go by and the word of this magic place spreads until there are two proper roads meeting at the magic house, and it gets really famous and so important people from all over stop there on the way from here to there. And do you know what my fine fellows?" We are sitting in that magic house right now, only now it's called The Inn. Right in the middle of it, where no-one can find him, is the wizard still thinking his deep thoughts, not knowing about anything outside the walls of his house."
"Sounds like a bunch of bollocks to me."
"Oh yeah Frank, so tell me why The Inn keeps changing its shape without anyone knowing who's doing the building, eh? "
"It was a good story anyway John, I'll buy you a pint."
Dear readers. This is written a bit like a play, but without any of the stage directions. Can you understand it? Should I put in who is speaking and some stuff that isn't dialogue, like, "general laughter?"
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Misconceptions I Have Heard About Music And Musicians
I am a musician only in so much as I play music. I don't make a living playing music and never will. I am not a proper musician in that I don't know music theory, don't play anything with the right technique, cannot read music, and my skills are rudimentary. In many ways I am a musician in so much as I do a good job faking it. On the other hand I have faked it pretty well on a selection of hand drums, a drum kit, the guitar, and the mandolin, and singing. To those who are not musicians I am a musician. To those who are musicians I am not.
Anyway, in my years faking the ability to play music I have come across a number of misconceptions about playing music from those who don't. Here they are.
Music is simply a talent. It isn't. The talent necessary to play music consists of being able to recognize pitch in so much as you can tell when two notes are the same (if you can sing a nursery rhyme with someone you have this ability), enough rhythm to clap your hands with someone else, and the dexterity of someone who can type. Now, there are people who are more talented than others. Some people have a keener sense of pitch, sometimes as much as perfect pitch (hearing a note and being able to tell you what it is without a comparison) and other people people are more dextrous. Being able to play music is mostly about the application of effort. Practice, practice, practice. Playing until your fingers are in agony, day after day after day. Those who are genius musicians have practiced for thousands of hours and therefore have the technical skills to put emotion into their music.
If you can play one song you can play any song. This is very, very far from true. The most knowledgeable musician in the world can probably play just a few hundred songs out of millions. I have played an Irish folk song and been immediately asked to play a modern pop song that I would recognize if I heard it. This is far, far from reality. It takes work and time to learn songs, they don't magically spring into your head. I have heard brilliant musicians been asked to play a song, and they will play a few notes in the melody and then have to go back and think of what a note will be, make some guesses, and find it by trial and error.
If you can play music you can "jam". Some people can do this, but only within relatively small genres, and they must know theory, have a great sense of pitch, and be very familiar with the style. I have seen great musicians in Cajun and Irish music (music from the same roots) trying to play together and being largely baffled. A slip jig is actually impossible music that some people can play. If you suggest to a musician that they just go jam, when they say, "no" the chances are that they are not being humble, they simply can't do it. The best example I have of this was a Boston Pops concert in which three woman violinists from different genres (classical, irish folk, and jazz) got together to play a concert. These are astonishing musicians and yet they had to practice together in order not to sound bad because they couldn't find "the three". This simply means that the different genres have very slight differences in when a note is played in a rhythm.
Music is impossibly complex. Actually music is a combination of relatively simple concepts cobbled together in an organic way. The basis of music is that a sound is made up of a combination of vibrations. The next note or semi-tone or whatever is simply a different sound that matches a number of these vibrations but not all of them. The keys on a piano and the frets on a guitar are just these pleasing combinations set out in order. The gap between notes is where these vibrations don't match up. A key is simply a collection of notes that evokes a particular emotion, basically leaving out notes that don't fit that feeling. A scale is simply that collection starting in different places. Rhythm is simply time divided into sections with an emphasis on certain times.
So, a waltz in A- is a collection of notes that fit a mood (called the minor key), starting with an A note, using the notes in the minor scale, divided up into standard sections of time where you emphasize the third note. If you go A D E A D E you are playing a waltz in A-. More complicated music is simply complications in time and the variety of notes used.
Music has been the same forever. Actually music is constantly evolving. If you look at the notes on a piano some of them are white and some of them are black. The reason for this is that several hundred years ago songs were only played on those white notes and someone discovered the black ones. The standardized notation for music was made up by a monk, and is not intuitive because "modern" music has discovered these notes (so that in some keys the same line is a different note), some guy made up the squiggles for different length of notes, and the treble clef is just insanely weird. The reason this hasn't been fixed is simply cultural inertia.
Musicians are lazy. They may be lazy in many areas of life but you cannot be lazy and be able to play music well, it just isn't possible. On average musicians are the lowest paid profession per hour in the USA. This is because while they might make hundreds of dollars in an hour or two, they spent hundreds of hours being able to play that hour or two. It takes consistent, self-motivated hard work to be able to play music at any level. Those stoned guys up on stage drinking beer in ripped jeans having a good time worked their asses off to be able to do that. Being able to play that first three chord song on the guitar is going to take hours of practice, pain in your fingers, and lots and lots of swearing.
If you can play one instrument you can play any instrument. No, you can't. Put a concert violinist in behind a drum kit for the first time and they will have a good idea of what should happen, but they will be lost trying to make it happen. A violin takes two arms and dexterity in the fingers of your left hand in a tiny space. A drum kit requires all four limbs, no finger dexterity, all in a large area. Even with stringed instruments there can be problems. A mandolin has the notes on the strings upside down compared to a guitar. The banjo is completely different. If someone can play different instruments, they learned to play them largely independently.
Anyway, in my years faking the ability to play music I have come across a number of misconceptions about playing music from those who don't. Here they are.
Music is simply a talent. It isn't. The talent necessary to play music consists of being able to recognize pitch in so much as you can tell when two notes are the same (if you can sing a nursery rhyme with someone you have this ability), enough rhythm to clap your hands with someone else, and the dexterity of someone who can type. Now, there are people who are more talented than others. Some people have a keener sense of pitch, sometimes as much as perfect pitch (hearing a note and being able to tell you what it is without a comparison) and other people people are more dextrous. Being able to play music is mostly about the application of effort. Practice, practice, practice. Playing until your fingers are in agony, day after day after day. Those who are genius musicians have practiced for thousands of hours and therefore have the technical skills to put emotion into their music.
If you can play one song you can play any song. This is very, very far from true. The most knowledgeable musician in the world can probably play just a few hundred songs out of millions. I have played an Irish folk song and been immediately asked to play a modern pop song that I would recognize if I heard it. This is far, far from reality. It takes work and time to learn songs, they don't magically spring into your head. I have heard brilliant musicians been asked to play a song, and they will play a few notes in the melody and then have to go back and think of what a note will be, make some guesses, and find it by trial and error.
If you can play music you can "jam". Some people can do this, but only within relatively small genres, and they must know theory, have a great sense of pitch, and be very familiar with the style. I have seen great musicians in Cajun and Irish music (music from the same roots) trying to play together and being largely baffled. A slip jig is actually impossible music that some people can play. If you suggest to a musician that they just go jam, when they say, "no" the chances are that they are not being humble, they simply can't do it. The best example I have of this was a Boston Pops concert in which three woman violinists from different genres (classical, irish folk, and jazz) got together to play a concert. These are astonishing musicians and yet they had to practice together in order not to sound bad because they couldn't find "the three". This simply means that the different genres have very slight differences in when a note is played in a rhythm.
Music is impossibly complex. Actually music is a combination of relatively simple concepts cobbled together in an organic way. The basis of music is that a sound is made up of a combination of vibrations. The next note or semi-tone or whatever is simply a different sound that matches a number of these vibrations but not all of them. The keys on a piano and the frets on a guitar are just these pleasing combinations set out in order. The gap between notes is where these vibrations don't match up. A key is simply a collection of notes that evokes a particular emotion, basically leaving out notes that don't fit that feeling. A scale is simply that collection starting in different places. Rhythm is simply time divided into sections with an emphasis on certain times.
So, a waltz in A- is a collection of notes that fit a mood (called the minor key), starting with an A note, using the notes in the minor scale, divided up into standard sections of time where you emphasize the third note. If you go A D E A D E you are playing a waltz in A-. More complicated music is simply complications in time and the variety of notes used.
Music has been the same forever. Actually music is constantly evolving. If you look at the notes on a piano some of them are white and some of them are black. The reason for this is that several hundred years ago songs were only played on those white notes and someone discovered the black ones. The standardized notation for music was made up by a monk, and is not intuitive because "modern" music has discovered these notes (so that in some keys the same line is a different note), some guy made up the squiggles for different length of notes, and the treble clef is just insanely weird. The reason this hasn't been fixed is simply cultural inertia.
Musicians are lazy. They may be lazy in many areas of life but you cannot be lazy and be able to play music well, it just isn't possible. On average musicians are the lowest paid profession per hour in the USA. This is because while they might make hundreds of dollars in an hour or two, they spent hundreds of hours being able to play that hour or two. It takes consistent, self-motivated hard work to be able to play music at any level. Those stoned guys up on stage drinking beer in ripped jeans having a good time worked their asses off to be able to do that. Being able to play that first three chord song on the guitar is going to take hours of practice, pain in your fingers, and lots and lots of swearing.
If you can play one instrument you can play any instrument. No, you can't. Put a concert violinist in behind a drum kit for the first time and they will have a good idea of what should happen, but they will be lost trying to make it happen. A violin takes two arms and dexterity in the fingers of your left hand in a tiny space. A drum kit requires all four limbs, no finger dexterity, all in a large area. Even with stringed instruments there can be problems. A mandolin has the notes on the strings upside down compared to a guitar. The banjo is completely different. If someone can play different instruments, they learned to play them largely independently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)