Kristof comes close here. He "gets" it, like in his last piece, but his closing exhortation that "we can do better!" is moronic.
Again, the intellectual conceit rears its ugly head. One liners like that at the end of the piece miss the point. Nothing is going to happen. No interested party is going to police themselves when there is no real accountability anywhere.
The Republicans know this; that's why they don't bother trying to control people. It's a less rosy view on human nature, to be sure, but it's one that's not buried in denial the way Kristof's is.
Still it's nice to hear that experts have no idea what they're talking about. Being an expert myself at so many things, I've known this for years. But people looove to look to experts to tell them what is and what isn't. People love to be led, which is why the founders of this country wrote obsessively about the need for vigilance when confronting tyranny. What many of them were unable to see, however, blinded by the enlightenment, was that the tyranny on the outside isn't nearly so dangerous as the servitude and passivity on the inside.
Tyrants don't just pop out of nowhere- they are the expression of the collective will every bit as much as an elected president. The difference is that the president can get voted out after a while and so is more on guard to public sentiment than the tyrant who rules by the sword.
But democracy or not, we still have tyrants everywhere. They've just moved out of government and into science, education, and medicine. These are the people who tell us all what to do- even the presidents. They are experts who rule by the study rather than monarchs who rule by the blade. But the effect on people is no different. It is arbitrary enslavement.
As for me, I've more or less stopped minding this. Truth is squishy, and there's no sense in trying to flatten it out. That's not what it's there for. Truth is ammunition and can be fabricated and manufactured to fit any weapon. It is only the pre-programmed biases of the observer that interfere with his being shot down (by a particular argument). Being pre-programmed, however, the observer is almost never aware of this, and so he receives the expert's "wisdom" as if it were truth.
And round and round it goes. . .why not take a ride? People will believe anything.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
MC
A quick plug:
My new friend Mac is an unusual fellow. He is actually the character that broke the back of my idea to give up and start writing a blog about all of the weird people I know and have met over the years.
Mac Kohler is an enigmatic polymath and the one person I know who I might actually admit in public to being smarter than me.
So we have a good time. The story of how I met Mac is an interesting one, but I will save it for another time. As will I some of Mac's more fascinating quirks and talents.
But I am posting a link to a lovely post on his blog. The topic of "Rope Springs Eternal" is mainly the art and play of bondage, which I feel probably lies without the scope of this blog. But this particular story has more to do with nature itself, and I find it a good read without reference to Mac's other "passions." (that's a double entendre, not a slur)
So please enjoy, and say hello to Mac's blog for me. If you can remember what the operative verb is by the time you get to the end of a given sentence, you will have a good time.
So long for now.
My new friend Mac is an unusual fellow. He is actually the character that broke the back of my idea to give up and start writing a blog about all of the weird people I know and have met over the years.
Mac Kohler is an enigmatic polymath and the one person I know who I might actually admit in public to being smarter than me.
So we have a good time. The story of how I met Mac is an interesting one, but I will save it for another time. As will I some of Mac's more fascinating quirks and talents.
But I am posting a link to a lovely post on his blog. The topic of "Rope Springs Eternal" is mainly the art and play of bondage, which I feel probably lies without the scope of this blog. But this particular story has more to do with nature itself, and I find it a good read without reference to Mac's other "passions." (that's a double entendre, not a slur)
So please enjoy, and say hello to Mac's blog for me. If you can remember what the operative verb is by the time you get to the end of a given sentence, you will have a good time.
So long for now.
This makes me laugh so hard I fall out of my chair
"Uh, U-huh." - that's what makes it art.
Literally, it's been like 20 times, and it still cracks me up.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Quick critique
I'd say that one paragraph in the middle about the system not being broken could use some elaboration. Under the current system there really is no way to know that the good ideas move forward and the lesser ones get trampled. The open democratic review allowed to government is the only real way to approach a larger "truth."
The author hints at this in his final paragraph- that we must discover our "inner" scientists. That doing this on the scale required to adequately judge science's results is practically speaking impossible. No single person has access to the body of materials (to say nothing of the time) to conduct all the experiments required to make an informed judgment - that is why it is so insidious.
Perhaps a version of "League of Women Voters" could emerge to challenge scientific dogma on behalf of the voter/scientific recipient. But such interest groups would lack a core constituency the way AARP or the Sierra Club do, for example.
The real solution is to dispense with the illusion of scientific truth in the first place and find some other more subjective anchoring for our world view. As I mentioned above, the "truth" arrived at by science is only temporary anyway- so far there have been no scientific experiments that have not been undermined by some later ones. The terminus of that sequence of undermining comes in the quantum physics movement which suggests that our experience is, in fact, at least as subjective as it is objective (as ying as yang, you could say). Yet we persist in the delusion of "eternal objectivity" which is science's claim on "truth" and therefore authority.
This is the where the system is, in fact, broken, just as the Medieval "indulgences" indicated the brokenness of the old Catholic system of truth. The West favors the masculine over feminine - "truth" over subjectivity. This is so much a part of our culture that when we decide to 'liberate' women, we allow them to be formed only in the model of men. We do not honor their changeable subjectivity in its own right. The prejudice is do ingrained in our culture that we hardly even see it as such, but rather convince ourselves that it is a moral virtue to be non-feminine, orderly, "correct," and rational. It would almost seem immoral to Westerners to value such things as chaos, irrationality, and subjectivity. Yet taken to the extreme, our masculine-driven scientific machine shows itself to be wholly subjective, confused, and irrational.
This is the classic Chinese case for balance, as the Yang cedes to the Ying in its extreme. We, having little or no place for the Ying, have nothing for the Yang to flow into, and so it just breaks, as science has already broken.
As you can imagine, if we were to all of a sudden "dispense" with science, what would emerge under our feet would be total chaos. We have so linked our fate to the fashions of the university mind that we are lost without them. So we will fight to maintain our system and further harden the yang principle against the ying until nature simply rebels uncontrollably and balance is restored.
The hippies have been predicting this, Krugman-like, for years. Thomas Friedman recently made the case that Mother Nature and the Stock Market conspired to bring about the catastrophic downturn of 2008. Could be. My personal feeling is that while we attempt to squish the irrational principle into oblivion, she nonetheless lives through our daily lives unseen. She takes the form of sickness, obesity, unhappiness, malaise, and futility that mark so much of modern life. So perhaps nature's revenge has been upon us all along. Perhaps, then, it is us who have chosen to notice her now, rather than squeeze that much harder.
The author hints at this in his final paragraph- that we must discover our "inner" scientists. That doing this on the scale required to adequately judge science's results is practically speaking impossible. No single person has access to the body of materials (to say nothing of the time) to conduct all the experiments required to make an informed judgment - that is why it is so insidious.
Perhaps a version of "League of Women Voters" could emerge to challenge scientific dogma on behalf of the voter/scientific recipient. But such interest groups would lack a core constituency the way AARP or the Sierra Club do, for example.
The real solution is to dispense with the illusion of scientific truth in the first place and find some other more subjective anchoring for our world view. As I mentioned above, the "truth" arrived at by science is only temporary anyway- so far there have been no scientific experiments that have not been undermined by some later ones. The terminus of that sequence of undermining comes in the quantum physics movement which suggests that our experience is, in fact, at least as subjective as it is objective (as ying as yang, you could say). Yet we persist in the delusion of "eternal objectivity" which is science's claim on "truth" and therefore authority.
This is the where the system is, in fact, broken, just as the Medieval "indulgences" indicated the brokenness of the old Catholic system of truth. The West favors the masculine over feminine - "truth" over subjectivity. This is so much a part of our culture that when we decide to 'liberate' women, we allow them to be formed only in the model of men. We do not honor their changeable subjectivity in its own right. The prejudice is do ingrained in our culture that we hardly even see it as such, but rather convince ourselves that it is a moral virtue to be non-feminine, orderly, "correct," and rational. It would almost seem immoral to Westerners to value such things as chaos, irrationality, and subjectivity. Yet taken to the extreme, our masculine-driven scientific machine shows itself to be wholly subjective, confused, and irrational.
This is the classic Chinese case for balance, as the Yang cedes to the Ying in its extreme. We, having little or no place for the Ying, have nothing for the Yang to flow into, and so it just breaks, as science has already broken.
As you can imagine, if we were to all of a sudden "dispense" with science, what would emerge under our feet would be total chaos. We have so linked our fate to the fashions of the university mind that we are lost without them. So we will fight to maintain our system and further harden the yang principle against the ying until nature simply rebels uncontrollably and balance is restored.
The hippies have been predicting this, Krugman-like, for years. Thomas Friedman recently made the case that Mother Nature and the Stock Market conspired to bring about the catastrophic downturn of 2008. Could be. My personal feeling is that while we attempt to squish the irrational principle into oblivion, she nonetheless lives through our daily lives unseen. She takes the form of sickness, obesity, unhappiness, malaise, and futility that mark so much of modern life. So perhaps nature's revenge has been upon us all along. Perhaps, then, it is us who have chosen to notice her now, rather than squeeze that much harder.
I'm just gonna copy & paste this one in full
By now, gentle reader, you should know of my disdain for the scientific establishment- particularly in its medical aspect. I am pleased that the Washington Post has been brave enough to publish this article. Hope you enjoy.
If you want to read it on their own site and get some of the links, you can do so by clicking here.
D-Blog
When Science Is a Siren Song
By David A. Shaywitz
Saturday, March 14, 2009; Page A15
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.
The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.
So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity?
ad_icon
Within academia's ivied walls (where I spent more than two decades), the view is a bit different. The university is not a peaceable kingdom, and life is far more Hobbesian. Henry Kissinger was on to something when he observed that "university politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." In contrast to the academia-vs.-industry trope, hubris, self-interest and ambition are not checked at the university door; arguably, they are essential for admission and required for professional success.
University researchers are in a constant battle for recognition and the rewards associated with success: research space, speaking engagements, funding and autonomy. Consequently, while academic research is often described as "curiosity-driven," the reality is messier, as (curiously) many researchers tend to pursue the trendiest technologies and explore topics that happen to be associated with the most generous levels of research support.
Moreover, since academic success is determined almost exclusively by the number and prestige of research publications, the incentives to generate results are exceedingly powerful and can encourage investigators to see patterns that may not exist, to disregard contradictory observations that might be important, to overvalue data that might be preliminary or unreliable, and to embrace conclusions that deserve to be viewed with far greater skepticism.
Does all this mean the system is broken? Surprisingly, no. Ultimately, science tends to be self-correcting, and flawed ideas are eventually recognized and disregarded. There really does seem to be a marketplace of ideas, and many good ideas eventually gain traction and persist, while many attractive but incorrect hypotheses eventually fall under the weight of compelling evidence. The system is far from perfect -- especially with regard to the exploitation of the most junior (and most vulnerable) researchers, who support much of this ecosystem -- but like capitalism, it may represent the best available option.
What we must focus on, and fix, right now is the way science is understood outside the academy. Above all, university research needs to be recognized for what it is: an intensely competitive business, employing people who are desperately seeking recognition and frequently leveraging preliminary data that deserve to be taken with a large grain of salt.
We also need to get past the facile industry-university dichotomy, a false contrast that is as misleading as it is convenient.
University research is not a pure enterprise; its researchers have feet of clay and are subject to an array of professional biases.
Consequently, our myopic obsession with industry conflicts of interest may have the unintended consequence of distracting us from some of the more important sources of prejudice and concern.
The realistic view of science carries important policy implications. The Bush administration may have erred on occasion by disregarding even the best science. However, it is critical that Obama -- who pledged in his inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place" and who vowed just this week to "harness the power of science to achieve our goals" -- not reach for the other extreme and embrace politically attractive but preliminary reports because they happen to be wrapped in garlands of knowledge.
Researchers are unlikely to become less self-serving -- just as reporters are unlikely to become less opportunistic in their hunt for news. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to develop a more skeptical ear, to approach received wisdom cautiously and to pay more attention to data than to narrative.
Only by discovering our inner scientist can we fully delight in the hope of new research without being seduced by its charms.
The writer, who worked as an endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at Harvard University, is now a management consultant in New Jersey.
If you want to read it on their own site and get some of the links, you can do so by clicking here.
D-Blog
When Science Is a Siren Song
By David A. Shaywitz
Saturday, March 14, 2009; Page A15
When a group of British academic researchers reported last spring that women fond of eating breakfast cereal were more likely to give birth to boys, the story was lapped up by journalists the world over. "Skip breakfast for a daughter, eat up your cereals for a son," advised the Economist, just one of many publications to seize on the report.
The problem with this fascinating study? It appears to be wrong. An analysis led by Stan Young of the National Institute for Statistical Sciences found that the original conclusion was based on poor statistics and is probably the result of chance.
So far, Young's rebuttal, published in January, has received little notice. That it is ignored by many of the media outlets that lavished attention on the original report isn't surprising; in fact, the most remarkable thing is how ordinary that lack of attention may be. A lot of science, it turns out, can't withstand serious scrutiny. Thoughtful analysis by John Ioannidis suggests that more than half of published scientific research findings can't be replicated by other researchers.
Part of the problem is that we've been conditioned to trust university research. It is based, after all, on the presumably lofty motives of its practitioners. What's not to like about science carried out by academics who have nobly dedicated their lives to understanding the unknown, furthering knowledge and serving humanity?
ad_icon
Within academia's ivied walls (where I spent more than two decades), the view is a bit different. The university is not a peaceable kingdom, and life is far more Hobbesian. Henry Kissinger was on to something when he observed that "university politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." In contrast to the academia-vs.-industry trope, hubris, self-interest and ambition are not checked at the university door; arguably, they are essential for admission and required for professional success.
University researchers are in a constant battle for recognition and the rewards associated with success: research space, speaking engagements, funding and autonomy. Consequently, while academic research is often described as "curiosity-driven," the reality is messier, as (curiously) many researchers tend to pursue the trendiest technologies and explore topics that happen to be associated with the most generous levels of research support.
Moreover, since academic success is determined almost exclusively by the number and prestige of research publications, the incentives to generate results are exceedingly powerful and can encourage investigators to see patterns that may not exist, to disregard contradictory observations that might be important, to overvalue data that might be preliminary or unreliable, and to embrace conclusions that deserve to be viewed with far greater skepticism.
Does all this mean the system is broken? Surprisingly, no. Ultimately, science tends to be self-correcting, and flawed ideas are eventually recognized and disregarded. There really does seem to be a marketplace of ideas, and many good ideas eventually gain traction and persist, while many attractive but incorrect hypotheses eventually fall under the weight of compelling evidence. The system is far from perfect -- especially with regard to the exploitation of the most junior (and most vulnerable) researchers, who support much of this ecosystem -- but like capitalism, it may represent the best available option.
What we must focus on, and fix, right now is the way science is understood outside the academy. Above all, university research needs to be recognized for what it is: an intensely competitive business, employing people who are desperately seeking recognition and frequently leveraging preliminary data that deserve to be taken with a large grain of salt.
We also need to get past the facile industry-university dichotomy, a false contrast that is as misleading as it is convenient.
University research is not a pure enterprise; its researchers have feet of clay and are subject to an array of professional biases.
Consequently, our myopic obsession with industry conflicts of interest may have the unintended consequence of distracting us from some of the more important sources of prejudice and concern.
The realistic view of science carries important policy implications. The Bush administration may have erred on occasion by disregarding even the best science. However, it is critical that Obama -- who pledged in his inaugural address to "restore science to its rightful place" and who vowed just this week to "harness the power of science to achieve our goals" -- not reach for the other extreme and embrace politically attractive but preliminary reports because they happen to be wrapped in garlands of knowledge.
Researchers are unlikely to become less self-serving -- just as reporters are unlikely to become less opportunistic in their hunt for news. Ultimately, it is up to each of us to develop a more skeptical ear, to approach received wisdom cautiously and to pay more attention to data than to narrative.
Only by discovering our inner scientist can we fully delight in the hope of new research without being seduced by its charms.
The writer, who worked as an endocrinologist and stem cell researcher at Harvard University, is now a management consultant in New Jersey.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Brazil
I haven't watched this movie since college, but when I was a kid, it was one of my absolute favorites. For the time, the sets and costumes were extraordinary, and even in my youth I could already relate to the "rage against the machine" mentality of the story.
Looking back some 15 years later, I'm pleased that there's not too much that's new to me other than the dream sequences fitting nicely into a Jungian context. But what I love, what I *love* is that all of the terrorists have American accents (that is deNero and the girl lead). Obviously they meant it in the pre-9/11 context when Americans were seen as the rebels to the British social straight-jacket. But it's really funny hearing Robert de Nero in his best NYC Medallion voice saying "bloody ducts."
Great stuff.
Looking back some 15 years later, I'm pleased that there's not too much that's new to me other than the dream sequences fitting nicely into a Jungian context. But what I love, what I *love* is that all of the terrorists have American accents (that is deNero and the girl lead). Obviously they meant it in the pre-9/11 context when Americans were seen as the rebels to the British social straight-jacket. But it's really funny hearing Robert de Nero in his best NYC Medallion voice saying "bloody ducts."
Great stuff.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Sunday, March 8, 2009
On Structure and Simpsons
Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em.
Tell 'em.
Give three examples to back up your point - but only in cursory form.
Tell 'em what you told 'em.
Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about point 1.
Flesh out point 1 using at least three sentences to elaborate.
Tell 'em you told 'em about point 1.
Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about point 2.
Flesh out point 2 using at least three sentences to elaborate.
Tell 'em you told 'em about point 2.
Tell 'em what you're going to tell 'em about point 3.
Flesh out point 3 using at least three sentences to elaborate.
Tell 'em you told 'em about point 3.
Remind 'em what you were going to tell 'em in the first place.
Remind 'em of the three points you made in the middle paragraphs.
Remind 'em that you told 'em.
The End
When I was living in Colorado I was living deep in the woods - far from the things of man. So one of the things I brought with me was a satellite dish. This helped a lot with the whole passing of the time thing.
What I discovered with my satellite dish was that I could watch between 3 and 6 different Simpsons episodes a day, and that really there was very little else I wanted to watch.
I was slow on the uptake with this show. I was a fan during its incipient days on Tracy Ullman but lost touch soon after when it got its own thing going. So most of my experience with the show has been through re-runs.
What's interesting about watching the show in such deep concentration is that the structure of the episodes emerges more clearly. There is some variation, but by and large the structure is consistent.
It is a kind of A.D.D. rhapsodic, if you had to name it. Almost every episode starts with the family doing some project- they go to a movie, they go shopping, they buy a gadget- whatever. A logical story begins to unfold that should have a clear beginning, middle, and an end.
And then, inevitably, the story line breaks away into a tangent, and then that tangent usually carries the piece the rest of the way.
Because the moment to moment content is so funny, the piece can support this random, unsupported structure. Indeed, it is a wonderful underpinning echo to the main characters' own lack of directionality and focus.
And I really like this.
As a writer, I am a big fan of the preamble. I enjoy words for their own sake and for their own melody and mouthfeel. As I stated in an earlier post, I don't really believe in proving things- particularly not by scientific examples which are entirely transposable and/or Protean. I prefer to argue by exhortation or by acclaim. This seems to work a lot better. My old history teacher whose name I forget used to tell me that it was the spoken word that was more powerful than the written word, and on this I agree. The written word has weight over time, but time has no power, only wisdom. Hitler could not have pulled off what he did by writing bi-weekly columns in Die Zeitung. It was the power of his oratory that moved the masses. Facts be damned.
I'm still a demagogue at heart, I suppose. I find substantiation tedious and finally lacking in real power. I am alright with the world coming undone periodically by the whims of dictators. They are, after all, only speaking for their constituents. It's their endurance that I don't like. Demagogues should come and go- to cling to power is unseemly, and that is where the real destruction lies.
With music, my feelings are a little different. Pardon the inconsistency here. Schenkerian structures still make the most sense to me, and even the most beautiful melody becomes intolerable if it is unsupported by a reliable urlinie.
This is why atonal music sucks. There is no beginning and no end. Its demarcations are arbitrary and unmoving. The only way someone like Stravinsky gets away with it is by writing very short pieces with highly simplistic, repetitive forms (ABAB, for example, or even just ABA). In this way, the melody can reveal its charm but the piece will be over before one grows sick of it. This is how we get through Stravinsky's most successful pieces, the Rite of Spring, for example, and the lovely Suites for Orchestra.
His less successful pieces (or tracts from the more successful ones) are those in which he tries to out-endure himself with tiring tidbits.
But for most modern music it is far worse. Randomness, not in the service of satire, is simply random and unappealing. The Simpsons writers have mastered form and moved beyond it, using, like Stravinsky, the short form (this would not carry in a movie). The typical modern composer has no such mastery of classical form and simply tries to weasel his way out of it by blowing it up altogether. This is why we listen to Britney.
I, myself, am bored with much form, largely due to its lack of playfulness and its sinister left-brain bias. I think that a message that unfolds through story, narrative, and circuitousness penetrates deeper into the mind and convinces more through art than through logic.
The form outlined at the beginning of this page is almost a satire itself, were it not the prescribed way of making one's case in academic circles. But nothing comes of this write-by-numbers style other than the gold-star or check-plus of a bored or addled professor. Surely we can do better.
In keeping with my purpose, I have left out any specific examples of Simpson episodes to back up my case. This is due almost entirely to laziness and not principle- something I am happy to admit at present. But I urge you, my reader, to follow up on this essay and do your own homework. Turn on channel 11 and see for yourself the acute twist that each episode's plot takes. Pick out your favorites and send me a link. Although right now, I am surrounded by so many things of man, that I am sure more TV is something I can do without.
D-Blog
Why I don't believe in proof
When I was a young musician, I took a radical stance vis a vis musical performance and interpretation. In order to defend my stance against an entrenched and complacent musical culture, I took to the books. I read and I read discovering precedent after precedent, proof after proof for my views by which I hoped to convince my colleagues to pull their heads out of the cave and see the light.
This was an exhausting endeavor - not the reading, but the convincing. I hadn't yet learned that convincing people with logic is the least effective way of changing behavior, my faith in civilized debate and persuasion notwithstanding.
Still I got pretty good at it. I could quote Baillot, Quantz, Carl Phillip Emmanuel, Mozart, pere, Gemianini, and all the others. From Gregorian chant treatises to Gustav Mahler I had ample description by the masters of what I divined to be authentic and universal musical technique. I believed myself to be unassailable from a scholarly perspective, and incontestable from a musical one.
And yet budging the classical behemoth, as I expected, was not as easily forthcoming. That would have to come from my performances.
And yet I was certain that I needed this intellectual stubbornness and groundedness in order to make my musical case valid in the eyes of my many critics. Whether I won most of them over or not, I don't know.
But I knew for sure what i was describing was "right," and I had my loyalist adherents who would validate through their own example, and whilt that was not really enough for me at the time, that is where I left things.
Looking back, my experience taught me much. Trying to convince people of something is a fool's errand. Power, zeitgeist, and the motion of the spheres is what changes people's minds far more than intellectual reasoning. Even for those who are willing to be intellectually persuaded by a reasoned argument find themselves in conflict with their bodies unless the reasoner pushes all of the correct biological buttons of superior alpha-leader. That most intellectuals are entirely disconnected from their bodies makes this point in practice less relevant, it is nonetheless difficult to effect change without moving the body and the passions of the heart.
So this is where I find value now. In passion over reason, with reason, of course being given its due, but only in moderation,
For this brings me to my point. That, if you want to, you can prove anything with reason.
In studying music, quotes from historical authorities were a primary source of precedent (the mother's milk, of, you know, making your point and being right, according to Donna). There were so many wonderful quotes from the masters regarding rubato, tempo variation, portamento, vibrato, ornamentation, and such, that making my case was easy.
In my searches, I found, interestingly, others using my very same quotations to make opposite points. These, of course, were bastardizations of the original meaning and context of the quote (I was sure I was right about that), and I was always able to disprove my disprovers. It was fun, a kind of intellectual warfare on the villainous and the dogmatic.
But eventually I stumbled on one quote that has always stuck with me. Doc, my teacher and mentor at the time, referred me to an article in Organ Times from the 70's extolling the virtues of (if memory serves) the tracker organ and legato playing. I don't remember anything about the article, except for the quote from the opening paragraph:
"You can prove anything with quotations."
Well, despite my being right about everything, I would have to admit that this was true. Precedent is handy, but it is really just a tool to fool the foolish and bring more ballast into your argument's camp.
Truth, finally, is not a fixed thing. It is the word written by the winners that is locked into history. That truth will then be shimmied from side to side by scholars (winners of tenure) and their updated views will be disseminated to the public by journalists and educators (winners of Pulitzers and Board of Education elections). What is "true" in the classical sense is anybody's guess and in the end is not so much important as the reality. What happens and what "is", and what is "true" or what is "right" have almost nothing to do with one another. And bio-fascism (as Mac might put it) is entirely indifferent to truth but entirely in the service of the winner.
So let's be clear about this. Proofs by quotation are not only logically unsound, they are also historically subordinate to the wielding of power.
Fine.
But the same goes - and triply so - to proofs by science. You can prove anything with quotations, but you can prove *anything* with scientific experiments. We are trained to believe this is not true, that science has miraculously sucked all of the subjectivity out of life and that truth can be revealed - the real truth this time - by objectively observing the results of a laboratory experiment.
This is the 9th grade version.
The grown-up version asks the following questions of the so-called objective scientist: Who decided to do the experiment in the first place? Why did you do that experiment and not another? And more to the crux: Who is paying for the experiment? Where did you get the equipment and the laboratory itself? How are you able to do scientific experiments and not have to work for a living? And finally: What experiments and what results will get you into peer-reviewed journals and therefore advance your careers?
You see science is a marvelous concept- objectivity, reason, detached observation - but in the world there is no way - no way - to firewall science from money, economics, policy, and politics. None.
Why are there studies about the number of antioxidants in pomegranate juice? Do you think somebody was just curious? No, there was a financial profit to be had by backing up a product advertisement with "scientific facts." Why are there infinite studies on diabetes treatment and yet virtually none on the cures available to all through a plant-based diet? Because there is a fortune to be made in diabetes treatment and virtually none in eating asparagus.
And then there's the truly frightening statistic. We would love to think of egg-head scientists as being fully committed to truth and objectivity. But what about career advancement for them? How do they get their name in the right journal so they can get the authority to do more experiments?
Here it just gets ugly. After all, what the hell is a peer review, anyway? How are we to challenge our assumptions if our work is only reviewed by our peers? Would we tolerate this from congress, from legal representation? Never. And yet we defer to the expertise of scientific boys' clubs to tell us what is right.
But here's the kicker. None of us can disprove the findings of scientists. Why? Because we can't afford to. None of us has access to the lab, to the materials, to the journals, to the equipment. We can not, on our own, collaborate and compare with researchers around the world - the requirement for passing scientific muster.
And so we are utterly powerless in the face of the scientific monopoly on truth. And to speak out against science is at its best, lunacy and at its worth blasphemy- with all of the state-sanctioned punishments once reserved for non-believers in the cloth.
And this is very important. Because the same lack of review was (again) the mother's milk of the modern scientist's medieval antecedent- the priest. In days of old, everyone was illiterate- even many kings and queens. Maybe they could read their vernacular - maybe - but they could certainly not read Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or Aramaic.
This put lay people, with respect to medieval bible-driven truth in exactly, *exactly,* the same position as the modern "laity" with respect to science. If a medieval priest told you that the bible said to give him an extra bushel of wheat each week in order to get into heaven, the farmer would have no way to dispute that. If he said you must pray 5 instead of 10 times a day, then that was truth. Entirely incontestable, since the common person lacked the resources (in this case intellectual) to challenge him.
This is why Luther's revolution was so monumental. It would be the equivalent of giving each world citizen his own laboratory and endless funding for research. Only in this way - through democratic, not peer, review - can some sort of truth be arrived at.
And what we find over history is that this democratic review shows "truth" to be much larger than fact but a kind of organismic, biological truth that transcends fact. Objective, or factual based truth is only possible within a small collective of like-minded thinkers- the peer review group, or the Washington Post editorial board. These people can have a lock on truth because their ideas are self-referential and are not seriously challenged by opposing viewpoints.
The beauty of the mish-mash we call democracy, or the House of Representatives, is that these truth-groups are constantly pitted against each other in order to form something even more precious than truth: reality.
Democratic review should be the overriding procedure for all inquiries of consequence. Science should not be given cloth-like deference to espouse truth. You can prove anything with science, anything at all. And everyone does. It is the coin of the land every bit as much as Leviticus was in days of old. It is a hidden monopoly, a hidden tyranny in our midst, and it rules us right under our very noses.
It is for this reason, by the way, that I am such a fan of the religious nuts in America. They have the audacity (through their own narrow-mindedness) to challenge science at its seams. I love this and urge them to continue on their quest to undermine the dominant paradigm- as their own was undermined generations back by the scientific juggernaut.
As for me, I'll hang back from that particular fray and say what I'll say. Not interested in proving anything, just being what is. Who could ask for anything more?
Addendum -
I was looking for this piece for a while. Listen up and enjoy. Note that the interviewer, despite being brave enough to launch the interview in the first place, is unwilling to challenge her own underlying assumptions about science. The final question about whether his own research would apply to himself is a kind of self-reassurance that what he's saying isn't as monumentally important as it really is.
This was an exhausting endeavor - not the reading, but the convincing. I hadn't yet learned that convincing people with logic is the least effective way of changing behavior, my faith in civilized debate and persuasion notwithstanding.
Still I got pretty good at it. I could quote Baillot, Quantz, Carl Phillip Emmanuel, Mozart, pere, Gemianini, and all the others. From Gregorian chant treatises to Gustav Mahler I had ample description by the masters of what I divined to be authentic and universal musical technique. I believed myself to be unassailable from a scholarly perspective, and incontestable from a musical one.
And yet budging the classical behemoth, as I expected, was not as easily forthcoming. That would have to come from my performances.
And yet I was certain that I needed this intellectual stubbornness and groundedness in order to make my musical case valid in the eyes of my many critics. Whether I won most of them over or not, I don't know.
But I knew for sure what i was describing was "right," and I had my loyalist adherents who would validate through their own example, and whilt that was not really enough for me at the time, that is where I left things.
Looking back, my experience taught me much. Trying to convince people of something is a fool's errand. Power, zeitgeist, and the motion of the spheres is what changes people's minds far more than intellectual reasoning. Even for those who are willing to be intellectually persuaded by a reasoned argument find themselves in conflict with their bodies unless the reasoner pushes all of the correct biological buttons of superior alpha-leader. That most intellectuals are entirely disconnected from their bodies makes this point in practice less relevant, it is nonetheless difficult to effect change without moving the body and the passions of the heart.
So this is where I find value now. In passion over reason, with reason, of course being given its due, but only in moderation,
For this brings me to my point. That, if you want to, you can prove anything with reason.
In studying music, quotes from historical authorities were a primary source of precedent (the mother's milk, of, you know, making your point and being right, according to Donna). There were so many wonderful quotes from the masters regarding rubato, tempo variation, portamento, vibrato, ornamentation, and such, that making my case was easy.
In my searches, I found, interestingly, others using my very same quotations to make opposite points. These, of course, were bastardizations of the original meaning and context of the quote (I was sure I was right about that), and I was always able to disprove my disprovers. It was fun, a kind of intellectual warfare on the villainous and the dogmatic.
But eventually I stumbled on one quote that has always stuck with me. Doc, my teacher and mentor at the time, referred me to an article in Organ Times from the 70's extolling the virtues of (if memory serves) the tracker organ and legato playing. I don't remember anything about the article, except for the quote from the opening paragraph:
"You can prove anything with quotations."
Well, despite my being right about everything, I would have to admit that this was true. Precedent is handy, but it is really just a tool to fool the foolish and bring more ballast into your argument's camp.
Truth, finally, is not a fixed thing. It is the word written by the winners that is locked into history. That truth will then be shimmied from side to side by scholars (winners of tenure) and their updated views will be disseminated to the public by journalists and educators (winners of Pulitzers and Board of Education elections). What is "true" in the classical sense is anybody's guess and in the end is not so much important as the reality. What happens and what "is", and what is "true" or what is "right" have almost nothing to do with one another. And bio-fascism (as Mac might put it) is entirely indifferent to truth but entirely in the service of the winner.
So let's be clear about this. Proofs by quotation are not only logically unsound, they are also historically subordinate to the wielding of power.
Fine.
But the same goes - and triply so - to proofs by science. You can prove anything with quotations, but you can prove *anything* with scientific experiments. We are trained to believe this is not true, that science has miraculously sucked all of the subjectivity out of life and that truth can be revealed - the real truth this time - by objectively observing the results of a laboratory experiment.
This is the 9th grade version.
The grown-up version asks the following questions of the so-called objective scientist: Who decided to do the experiment in the first place? Why did you do that experiment and not another? And more to the crux: Who is paying for the experiment? Where did you get the equipment and the laboratory itself? How are you able to do scientific experiments and not have to work for a living? And finally: What experiments and what results will get you into peer-reviewed journals and therefore advance your careers?
You see science is a marvelous concept- objectivity, reason, detached observation - but in the world there is no way - no way - to firewall science from money, economics, policy, and politics. None.
Why are there studies about the number of antioxidants in pomegranate juice? Do you think somebody was just curious? No, there was a financial profit to be had by backing up a product advertisement with "scientific facts." Why are there infinite studies on diabetes treatment and yet virtually none on the cures available to all through a plant-based diet? Because there is a fortune to be made in diabetes treatment and virtually none in eating asparagus.
And then there's the truly frightening statistic. We would love to think of egg-head scientists as being fully committed to truth and objectivity. But what about career advancement for them? How do they get their name in the right journal so they can get the authority to do more experiments?
Here it just gets ugly. After all, what the hell is a peer review, anyway? How are we to challenge our assumptions if our work is only reviewed by our peers? Would we tolerate this from congress, from legal representation? Never. And yet we defer to the expertise of scientific boys' clubs to tell us what is right.
But here's the kicker. None of us can disprove the findings of scientists. Why? Because we can't afford to. None of us has access to the lab, to the materials, to the journals, to the equipment. We can not, on our own, collaborate and compare with researchers around the world - the requirement for passing scientific muster.
And so we are utterly powerless in the face of the scientific monopoly on truth. And to speak out against science is at its best, lunacy and at its worth blasphemy- with all of the state-sanctioned punishments once reserved for non-believers in the cloth.
And this is very important. Because the same lack of review was (again) the mother's milk of the modern scientist's medieval antecedent- the priest. In days of old, everyone was illiterate- even many kings and queens. Maybe they could read their vernacular - maybe - but they could certainly not read Hebrew, Latin, Greek, or Aramaic.
This put lay people, with respect to medieval bible-driven truth in exactly, *exactly,* the same position as the modern "laity" with respect to science. If a medieval priest told you that the bible said to give him an extra bushel of wheat each week in order to get into heaven, the farmer would have no way to dispute that. If he said you must pray 5 instead of 10 times a day, then that was truth. Entirely incontestable, since the common person lacked the resources (in this case intellectual) to challenge him.
This is why Luther's revolution was so monumental. It would be the equivalent of giving each world citizen his own laboratory and endless funding for research. Only in this way - through democratic, not peer, review - can some sort of truth be arrived at.
And what we find over history is that this democratic review shows "truth" to be much larger than fact but a kind of organismic, biological truth that transcends fact. Objective, or factual based truth is only possible within a small collective of like-minded thinkers- the peer review group, or the Washington Post editorial board. These people can have a lock on truth because their ideas are self-referential and are not seriously challenged by opposing viewpoints.
The beauty of the mish-mash we call democracy, or the House of Representatives, is that these truth-groups are constantly pitted against each other in order to form something even more precious than truth: reality.
Democratic review should be the overriding procedure for all inquiries of consequence. Science should not be given cloth-like deference to espouse truth. You can prove anything with science, anything at all. And everyone does. It is the coin of the land every bit as much as Leviticus was in days of old. It is a hidden monopoly, a hidden tyranny in our midst, and it rules us right under our very noses.
It is for this reason, by the way, that I am such a fan of the religious nuts in America. They have the audacity (through their own narrow-mindedness) to challenge science at its seams. I love this and urge them to continue on their quest to undermine the dominant paradigm- as their own was undermined generations back by the scientific juggernaut.
As for me, I'll hang back from that particular fray and say what I'll say. Not interested in proving anything, just being what is. Who could ask for anything more?
Addendum -
I was looking for this piece for a while. Listen up and enjoy. Note that the interviewer, despite being brave enough to launch the interview in the first place, is unwilling to challenge her own underlying assumptions about science. The final question about whether his own research would apply to himself is a kind of self-reassurance that what he's saying isn't as monumentally important as it really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
