music and language

Kant says music "plays merely with sensations".

ok i'm no expert on music or music theory... so the most i can do is theorycraft.

well i tink intuitively, music does more than just play with sensations. well some ppl claim that music is sensations. like this guy called 
Schopenhauer: "Music does not express this or that particular and definite pleasure, this or that afflictionk pain, sorrow, horror, gaiety, merriment, or peace of mind, but joy, pain, sorrow, horror, gaiety, merriment, peace of mind themselves, to a certain extent in their abstract nature." and i guess music with all its movements etc etc does present some kind of argument. like thesis, antithesis, synthesis... yea and the fact that it has the power to 
change moods arguably more so than any other art form should be worth noting (of course, i hv no evidence, but it sounds right ya). and i guess that to some extent, music is a language in itself. ive always wondered
how everyone seems to hv some kind of music scale built into them. like u
can tell music from noise. ok i dun tink this extends to tone deaf ppl, but by
virtue of the fact tt tone deaf ppl exist, it implies that the majority is NOT tone deaf.

of course, music also soothes the savage beast..

yea, anw we cant say that the genius of like mozart, beethoven, chopin, and others both playing the piano and not are simply "playing with sensations". but heres an interesting question. i tink its kinda been implied thus far
that music referred to instrumental music, and not like mainstream music as we know it today. music nowadays has lyrics. is it still music? 
or is it poetry? i tink the line blurs sumwhere. obviously we'd have to call
it music or those emo kids wld emo more.. but i guess its actually closer to lyric poetry. which was poetry set to music, and not like the other way round. the problem with this is that it raises alot more questions. what is 
a capella? is it music or poetry or neither? 

uh well, i tink i'd like to show another side of it and kinda cop out of this whole issue. how bout music (in the modern, conventional sense) in a foreign language? well its not jus like, vocal music with oohs and aahs, because the latter doesnt mean anything. arguably, music with lyrics in a foreign language doesnt mean anything to you either. however, the very fact that it has a syntax that it must obey, and semantic laws and what not, means that there has been a system imposed on it, so even if u dun understand what it means, u arguably understand what its trying to get at. well aside from being able to discern the meaning of the lyrics from the tone of the piece, i'd like to believe that even individual words carry meaning. what are words? arbitrary signs that signify something real, even something abstract. how are how these words felt determined by what they are signifying? well, leaving aside pictorial languages (i noe theres a proper term ok, i jus cant rmb wat) like chinese and ancient egyptian, languages like english, french, german, malay, whatnot, make use of an alphabet, with arugably each letter requiring a specific pronunciation. ok so well and good. well we also kinda see that the sounds of words are in a way affected
by what they are signifying. like "kill" is alot more forceful than "heal".. 
etc etc. the point is that the phonological texture of words carry meaning in 
themselves. how does this tie in to music? well, it means that even if you 
dont understand it, u can definitely appreciate it. perhaps its also better when
you dont understand it, because u arguably get to the soul of it, rather than 
being distracted by the words. arguably this doesnt work if like, emo lyrics r put into classical music, but thats just weird.its making modern music into 
classical (if i maybe so bold to call it so) music. hm. well obviously this needs 
much more thought,but i tink the idea of music, the importance of music, how
language is involved in music, and the exact relation of the two should be 
considered.... uh. when u hv insomnia or smth. cheers ^^ 

42

i really wonder whether everything is binary. like how the world could be described in ones and zeros - kinda like the matrix. or like on and off switchs in sum funny atomic theory. once again this is the yes and no, positive and negative, dark and light, and whatnot. dichotomy. and i wonder if life can be similarly classified.

well i guess the fundamental question is why am i (it cld well be what am i, but lets ignore that for another time). so... i guess we either have for self or for other(s). and for self we have utility vs... uselessness. uhh lets go for utility which seems easier. so its satisfaction/worth/value by... sensation vs reason i guess. its rather interesting here. i mean shld u live for feelings or thoughts. and i guess they kinda meld, like how thinking cld be like feeling logic and feeling cld be rationalizing stimuli or wdv. hm obviously rational thought seems to have more use since u can actually communicate it with others... uh.. well empirically that is. but since we've already chosen 'self' in the dichotomy of existence, i guess going for sensation which seems to be quite an individualistic experience cld be justified.

so ok, now we have sensation which cld roughly be categorized into 
pleasure and pain. like hedonism and sadism/masochism (or both, i dunn0, they're pretty close). though arguably, the latter
is kinda strange in that for some people, pain actually causes pleasure. pretty cool stuff relli.. tt of course answers y anyone wld want to hurt themselves in the first place, but i dunno, go ask an emokid or smth.  in any case it seems that life seems to be for pleasure... and then the next question is how to attain it. bearing in mind that due to acclimatization, desensitization and whatnot, the body tires of sensations pretty quick, it does seem that life is a pursuit of new sensations..

at this point i acknowledge that theres prob alot of problems in my reasoning... and like its not logical, and theres no syllogism and wdv. sometimes i wonder whether im obfuscating these relli very simple subjects and making it into an unnecessarily recondite matter. but hey, i guess it helps whoever's reading this' vocabulary..

yea im quite aware tt thinking, or rather contemplation of matters of universal significance is largely regarded as elevated above the primal pursuits of base sensations.. but its kinda elitist if u tink abt it; its more 
utilitarian to have feelings be ur yardstick for a meaningful existence cos everyone can do it (well, obviously not everyone, but i figure more than for ppl who hv to think abt "important philosophical subjects". like u hv five senses but only one mind... haha.) ok im starting to digress and make no sense here. and its kinda an irony that even though i like advocate a sensory existence, i actually bother to type this all out. heh, mebbe theres more utility from pressing the keys than there is from trying to reason this logically.. go figure.

beauty

oscar wilde: beauty is a form of genius- is higher, indeed, than genius, as it needs no explanation.

Plato: Absolute beauty stands with the absolutely true and the absolutely good as a supreme value, and partakes of their nature. This beauty is first of all eternal; it neither comes into being nor passes away, neither waxes nor wanes; next, it is not beautiful in part and ugly in part, nor beautiful at one time and ugly at another, nor beautiful in this relation and ugly in that, nor beautiful here and ugly there, as varying according to its beholders; nor again will this beauty appear to him like the beauty of a face or hands or anything corporeal, or like the beauty of a thought or a science,
or like the beauty which has its seat in something other than itself, 
be it a living thing or the earth or the sky or anything else whatever; he will see it as absolute, existing alone with itself, unique, eternal, and all other beautiful things as partaking of it, yet in such a manner that, while they come into being and pass away, it neither undergoes any increase or diminuition nor suffers any change.

also:

Beauty is understood as that which inspires love: love is the desire to possess the beautiful, though the beautiful is then identified with the good. While desire is a longing for what we do not have, it is also an expression of that which is self- sufficient and eternal - as well as beautiful - in ourselves: at the lowest level, it is hte desire to procreate, to reproduce oneself, thus to give oneself a kind of eternal life. Creating progeny is as close as animals and simple people come to realizing the eternal in themselves, but, for the finer spirit, the kindling of love is the first step in a long spiritual journey, a journey which, if properly pursued, leads toweard the understanding of absolute beauty, goodness, and truth. Love, the desire for the beautiful, is thus the sustaining and guiding impulse of philosophy. The process begins when the lover starts to see the beauty of his beloved in everything around him. He recognizes from this experience that "the beauty of one form is akin to the beauty of another" and will relize that "the beauty in every form is one and the same." As a result, his desire for any particular instance, or individual, is tempered. Next he will come to appreciate how the beauty of the mind is more beautiful than that of the body. This recognition leads, in turn, to an understanding of the beauty of moral principles and laws, and beyond these, of the beauty of abstract though, especially philosophy. The appreciation of these exalted things results in a further independence from the need for lower ones. For those who persevere in this journey, the true philosophers, the final step 
is the revelation of true beauty.

Plotinus: We recognize beauty chiefly in the emotion it calls up in us, which is a profound perturbation, a "delicious trouble". that "remoter principle" which bestows beauty on material things is "something percieved at first glance, something the soul names as if from an ancient knowledge and, recognizing, welcomes it, and enters union with it. From an understanding of the diversity of human character, the lover comes to achieve a perception of the unity of human nature: the "world soul". The sure grasp of this unity, in turn, leads to the awareness of the power of higher intuition, "mind". Practice in intuition then leads to the recognition of mind as a single principle, "world-mind": this is the highest point that 
human thought can reach, but it is still one step beneath the ultimate reality, the One. As our thoughts ascend, they retrace the path of our own origin. The One is the source of all being; it is not static but superabundant: its nature is to spill over, to emanate. From its own perfect unity it spills over into diversity, into a less perfect form of existence in which knowing is distinct from being, knower from thing known: this is the realm of mind. From mind, being spills over into soul, a still less perfect realm, in which diversity is governed, that is, structured, by the principles of time and sapce. At the bottom of this hierarchial scheme is matter. In its pure emanations, uninformed by any unifying principle or form. The individual human being is composed of matter and soul. The soul, having descended from teh One, feels itself to be in exile. In experiencing beauty, it recognizes another part of that unity from which it came and is stimulated by a desire to return to it again - at first through union with the beautiful particular; finally, by virtue of proper intellectual training, in the single principle of mind. the ultimate step, direct union with the One, is beyond the power of the mind to achieve, for mind still requires a distinction between knower and know. In the final leap, so to speak, this distinction would have to dissolve: it can occur only in ectstasy, an inspired, super- rational state, by a direct emanation from above, when absolute being accepts us - if only for a moment - into itself.

Heh. am i the only one thinking that this "absolute beauty" is jus another name for "god"? well, certainly it pertains to any perceptions and conceptions of a supernatural being.

in any case, i kinda like all the rational thought floating around of what beauty is. though i doubt i'll be able to attain any said (note: concept of) nirvana (?).

truly, this is a beautiful world; but beauty transcends the senses: sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing - even superseding mediums which are cornucopias, phantasmagorias, smorgasbords of the senses. but is this necessarily intellectual thought? is comprehension of the beautiful, the perfect, and therefore the perfectly beautiful an intellectual, cerebral affair? in the first place, i dun think that there's any way possible in 
which to comprehend such ideals with the terriblyincompetent processor we call the brain. and hasnt anyone heard of epiphanies?

worse still, is when one has understood something to be beautiful (though comprehending to what extent it is is probably likewise limited), and then seeks to destroy it, like dear Iago says of Cassio in Othello: If Cassio do remain he hath a daily beauty in his life that makes me look ugly.

i guess thats pretty duh; the questions then are: is everything beautiful? are some things more beautiful than others? and can and should one find beauty?

ugh

hm im sick (again). perhaps i'll jus take this chance to reflect on how relevant it is to postulate that ur physical state relli does hv anyth to do wif ur mental/spiritual/ non- physical... self. uh. it seems intuitive that it would.. somehow. and vice- versa actually. but yea i didnt do any experiments. hm. so i'll jus somehow draw a link to the theory of four humours and... mebbe bloodletting!. which in this day and age would = emo-ness. mm well actually there was gonna be more to this... basically all these
measures are taken to (once again) revert back to an optimal equilibrium, a harmony of elements, which is in itself short of um.. perfection? well its got to do with aristotle's state of being and becoming... or perhaps even Plotinus who seems to be kinda more relaxed
in the whole aspiring for "perfection" - "One-ness".. thing. so in a nutshell there is an ideal, we shld all aim for this ideal, and if we fail in ultimately recreating/acheiving symmetry, balance, harmony, whatnot we... fall sick?!
heh it wasnt/doesnt relli make sense, but then again.. i uh, claim physical illness for the lack of coherence, make what sense of it as you will. =)

?

well they say that the question is more important than the answer. and this is quite a relevant question; tho i tink its a cop out that i dun answer it..

ok so theres verse and theres prose right. and all prose seems to be prose. but is all verse poetry?

to what extent

hm ive been wondering to what extent is man a pneumatic or hydraulic creature (creation?). well the latter is pretty self explanatory. blood, lymph, uh.. brain juice? but (and i dun tink im wrong) pneuma is like greek for spirit, and like the second verse of the bible has it. hm.. what an interesting idea.. esp if u extend the metaphor to being 'powered' like hydraulically or pneumatically. i wonder if this is sufficient wit for a sonnet..

more metre

St Augustine: So it is that a metrical line is beautiful in its own kind although two syllables of that line cannot be pronounced simultaneously. The second is pronounced only after the first has passed, and such is the order of procedure to the end of the line, so that when the last syllable sounds, alone, unaccompanied by the sound of the previous syllables, it yet, as being part of the whole metrical fabric, perfects the form and metrical beauty of the whole.

basement

WoW has a Naaru in the basement. Evangelion has an Angel in the basement. I'm starting to see a trend here... I wonder where else and what else is down there...

the closer...

the closer i get to the light...

Love, we are in God's hand.

How strange now, looks the life he makes us lead;

How free we seem, how fettered fast we are!

There is a time for

everything, and a season for every

activity under heaven: a
time to be born and a time to

die, a time to plant and

a time to uproot, a time to kill

and a time to heal, a time to tear

down and

a time to build,

a time to weep and a time to laugh,

a time to mourn and a time to

dance, a time to scatter stones and a time to gather

them, a time to embrace and a time to refrain, a time to search

and a time to give up,

a time to keep and a time to throw away, a time to tear

and a time to mend, a time to be silent

and a time to speak, a time to love

and a time to hate,
a time for war

and a time for peace. Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?

Meaningless! Meaningless! Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless!

all the things that are done under the sun; all

of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Reach many a time a heaven that's shut to me... My works

are nearer heaven, but i sit here.

Einsamkeit - Schön und traurig zugleich
We all have a dark side.. But i can feel mine creeping over the corners.

Was it for this the clay grew tall?

Dies Irae
... the longer my shadow becomes.

mercy

hm i wanted to write abt smth else, but this newspaper article caught my eye. its 'The Politics of Regret: Saying 'sorry' is just the first part' in the Straits Times by Andy Ho 3 april.

it leads off wif politics in malaysia, abt one mr zaid making apologies for the government's sacking of top judges in 1988 (wonder y..), then goes into a list of examples of leaders who have apologized on behalf of their country for their country's past transgressions. and it puts forth an interesting idea that some leaders do not apologize because they feel themselves elevated on a moral high- ground above their predecessors; apologizing implies that they, too in some way, either share responsibility for, or could have been guilty of the same actions had they been in such a situation. hm.. well this brings up the question whether the acknowledgement of a country's leader of their collective past wrongs is going to change anything. seems to be a rather ineffective anodyne relli. and whether it is representative of the populace's sentiment. and of course, whether theres any reason to dig up the past?y cant they just bury the hatchet and walk away. i suppose im being insensitive if i say that apologies r hollow and dun do anyone any good other than care-bearing; which makes the whole business seem like a country- scale emo session. because ultimately, when the old generation passes on, is it fair to put the burden on the next to recompensate. seems to be a bad excuse for demanding favours actually. hey, we're only human right, and to be human is to err. this is jus a larger scale affair.

anyway i digress, what was interesting is this: the apologiser must also throw himself at the mercy of the victim, who becomes morally obligated to respond mercifully, forswear revenge and thus break the cycle of tit- for -tat."

oh ya before that theres an interesting international policy note: "in his 2000 book, the guilt of nations, elazar barkan argued that the politics of regret was born in the collapse of communism. there had been very little
space, he argued, during the Cold War to address issues such as colonialism, apartheid, human rights and so on. With the end of the Cold War, the obsession with realpolitik was supplanted by questions of morality in politics. in particular, justice and human rights came to be seen as universal, the addressing of which became the raison d'etre of global diplomacy. / and with the demise of millenarian visions, the future was no longer the focus, so perhaps the past could be looked at proplerly. perhaps righting past wrongs might help us to live better in the present."

so anw, and oh ya, i cant rmb who was it tt said tt there were disputing views over human nature - but the whole social contract thing, and man's state in nature and in war should come into play here; the question is whether kissing and making up is really good. we should also find some way to draw the line, or perhaps invent a spectrum for violations of others' rights: is subjecting yourself to the mercy of the victim something you should really be doing? well mebbe in a utopian society, but i tink theres a high incentive for the victim to do smth worse and wrong u 2. well i tink this is descending into one big conumdrum in, i dunno, a moral quandary? uhh.. i tink i'll jus quote 
shakespeare ^^

portia:

The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes:
'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown;
His sceptre shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings;
But mercy is above this sceptred sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings,
It is an attribute to God himself;
And earthly power doth then show likest God's
When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew,
Though justice be thy plea, consider this,
That, in the course of justice, none of us
Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;
And that same prayer doth teach us all to render
The deeds of mercy.

on a side note, i wonder why theres elision of "strained" in the first line... is it really necessary? ppl dun relli wrench the um, pronunciation, and if they do they put an accent. uhh.. wonders.

as an aside, mebbe all these newspaper reviews has smth to do wif all the similar hw i did in primary sch.. habits huh.

lol..

heh im feeling lame so...

peace
proposition, conclusion
thesis, anti- thesis, synthesis
genesis, nemesis, (anagnoresis), crisis, metamorphosis, apotheosis... uh.. stasis?

wtf lol

all's right with the world

The year’s at the spring,
And day’s at the morn;
Morning’s at seven;
The hill-side’s dew-pearled;
The lark’s on the wing;
The snail’s on the thorn;
God’s in His heaven—
All’s right with the world!

- Robert Browning

hm wif global warming this might soon change..