The July Garden of Ether
Ether St. Vying
http://home.ca.inter.net/~stevedor/EGarden3.html
Roses, and fragrant lilies and nicotianas ... and a little red squirrel.
The tiny rodent had been scolding the pup from atop the cedars while we
were out in the garden. When I went in for lunch, with my dog posse in
tow, red settled in for a wholesome snack. When I looked up from eating
my sandwich, there it was, munching away on the seeds in the blue
spruce's cones.
Ether
Dolores~
"Ether St. Vying" <summ...@summerwhere.is> wrote in message
news:4110AB2A...@summerwhere.is...
Absolutely stunning. Not only are the flowers beautiful, but your
photographs are as well. What kind of a camera do you use?
Thanks for putting these up. I look forward to them.
Don Wheeler
"Ether St. Vying" wrote:
Thank you Ether.
I can almost hear it and smell it too.
There a sound forests make that is like a background buzz of machines in a
factory.
When I settle down mentally, relax the muscles in my face and allow my ears
to open It's like taking the ear plugs out and hearing all that life at
once.
don
rbb
Bill Cleere
"Dolores~" <dc...@msn.com> wrote in message news:DV5Qc.3648$rM6.331@trndny03...
They are about as close to summer as I'm experiencing. Yet another
week here of cold sea breeze and temperatures 15 degrees below normal.
Ether St. Vying
> What a squirrel... !
Yup. Cute as a button. They're tiny, but they're tough. We've seen them
chase off the black squirrels, which are much bigger. Unlike the black
squirrels, they've never taken to urban, or even suburban, living. They
just happen to be around because of all the wild greenspace in the
surrounding areas. They sometimes come into the garden to forage. It
actually seemed to be posing for the pictures I took. It could see me,
but just kept nibbling away calmly.
Ether
Ether St. Vying
I know exactly what you mean. It's balm for the spirit.
Ether
Ether St. Vying
> "Dolores~" <dc...@msn.com> wrote in message news:DV5Qc.3648$rM6.331@trndny03...
> >
> > "Ether St. Vying" <summ...@summerwhere.is> wrote in message
> > news:4110AB2A...@summerwhere.is...
> > > is up:
> > > http://home.ca.inter.net/~stevedor/EGarden3.html
> > >
> > > Roses, and fragrant lilies and nicotianas ... and a little red squirrel.
> > > The tiny rodent had been scolding the pup from atop the cedars while we
> > > were out in the garden. When I went in for lunch, with my dog posse in
> > > tow, red settled in for a wholesome snack. When I looked up from eating
> > > my sandwich, there it was, munching away on the seeds in the blue
> > > spruce's cones.
> > >
> > > Ether
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely stunning. Not only are the flowers beautiful, but your
> > photographs are as well. What kind of a camera do you use?
Funny you should ask. Up until mid June I was using the 1 megapixel digital still
camera in my handycam. Then the camera fairy smiled upon me, and I got a Canon
Digital Rebel, 6.3 megapixel SLR. Big difference. I can finally shoot wide and not
have it look like crap.
> Thanks for putting these up. I look forward to them.
Thank you. :-) I hope that people viewing them get a pause that refreshes.
> They are about as close to summer as I'm experiencing. Yet another
> week here of cold sea breeze and temperatures 15 degrees below normal.
Same here, Bill. We've had daytime temps mostly in the high 60's/low 70's, with
maybe a handful of days in the 80's, mid 50's to mid 60's at night ... and rain at
least half the time. Got an impressive slug and snail population. Maybe someday
I'll throw up some pics of the stuff that never makes it to my garden pages. I was
thinking about that today while looking at some well munched hostas. Or maybe I
should just continue with the illusion of perfection ....
:-)
Ether
Don Wheeler
"Ether St. Vying" wrote:
*it* is the mothers milk of my being
RoboTrax
Ether St. Vying wrote:
I like the garden figure from June.
Looks like "Dobbins" from Harry Potter-2
Bill Cleere
"Ether St. Vying" <bl...@green.red> wrote in message news:4111DB0F...@green.red...
My vote would be for the illusion of perfection.
Jazz
Give them the link to the new rose pictures, silly.
--
jaZZ
"Anyone can escape into sleep, we are all geniuses when we dream, the
butcher's the poet's equal there."
-E. M. Cioran, The Tempation to Exist
rbb
"Ether St. Vying" <bl...@green.red> wrote in message
That squirrel reminded me of my first photo ever!
You had just black and white back then.
But it was one of that colour.
Last squirrel I saw in the wild was in Canada years ago...
Where have all the squirrels gone?
Ether St. Vying
> "Ether St. Vying" <bl...@green.red> wrote in message
> news:4111D95D...@green.red...
> > rbb wrote:
> >
> > > What a squirrel... !
> >
> > Yup. Cute as a button. They're tiny, but they're tough. We've seen them
> > chase off the black squirrels, which are much bigger. Unlike the black
> > squirrels, they've never taken to urban, or even suburban, living. They
> > just happen to be around because of all the wild greenspace in the
> > surrounding areas. They sometimes come into the garden to forage. It
> > actually seemed to be posing for the pictures I took. It could see me,
> > but just kept nibbling away calmly.
>
> That squirrel reminded me of my first photo ever!
> You had just black and white back then.
Did you know Daguerre personally?
> But it was one of that colour.
> Last squirrel I saw in the wild was in Canada years ago...
>
> Where have all the squirrels gone?
They're alive and well and living in Toronto ... where did you think they
were?
Ether
Ether St. Vying
Well, since you bothered to vote, I'll stick with the illusion of perfection then.
Actually, the perfection shown is for real ... it just doesn't last as long as it does on
the page.
Ether
Ether St. Vying
I was planning on doing that, and since you've given me the perfect segue ....
at Jazz's request, here's a page with even more roses:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/great/msee.html
Ether
Ether St. Vying
And my Uncle Joe.
RLW
I know almost nothing about plants.
While clearing underbrush at a former residence, I noticed
what looked like a stick wrapped in creepers and bearing
single rosebush-like thorn.
Hmmm. A dead or dying rosebush.
I unwrapped the creepers, cleared out a bit of space around
it and put some water on it. Lo and behold, leaves began to
grow. That Summer it bloomed.
By the time I moved on it had become a small but perfectly
healthy and very pretty rosebush.
Now and then I wonder how it's doing.
Eldon Donovan
"Ether St. Vying"
> And my Uncle Joe.
Hiiiiii Uncle Joe!
Eldon Donovan
Bill Cleere
That depends on who's asking.
> And how did he get here?
Where's "here"?
> Eldon
-- Bill Cleere
RLW
"Who's Philip K Dick?" - Philip K. Dick is an example of
what quantum mechanics does when little bits of electricity
move in too many different directions at once within a
confined space.
"And how did he get here?" - He arrived with the aliens and
decided to stay on.
Ann
:) "what you see or hear is not what it is, nothing is what it seems"
(an old ADC, CIA and Al Pacino's maxim from "The recruit":). Hence, by
asking "Who's Philip K Dick?" Eldon might have instead been jokingly
"performing for the crowd" (we had such a thread:) or even expressing a
genuine interest in... your email address :). I mean, otherwise it just
doesn't fit for it was actually him who has last month brought the name
Philip K. Dick to this forum, he quoted him, perhaps, as a kind of an
expert on ultimate "reality":
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004
From: Eldon Donovan
Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda
Subject: Re: The teaching of the late don
> Eldon wrote:
>> Jeremy Donovan:
>> Walter, you were a Buddhist a few months ago, a Castaneda
>> freak for a while, and now you want to go zooming off to
>> something else. Just take it easy... :-)
> "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't
> go away." --Philip K. Dick
Thus, obviously (assuming he reads what he writes:) Eldon should have
heard of this name, should know "who's Philip K Dick and how he got
here" (at A.D.C.:). Of course, he didn't know much, otherwise he
wouldn't have chosen to quote precisely him on 'reality', a tough
thought developed further in my instant (20Kb:) reply. {Alas, Eldon
might have missed it, since I was a "blocked sender", number one in his
list, I reckon:).} Then (in "The teaching of the late don.. Approval",
1 July) I flew on the wings of Philip's other quotes to enquire into
that persistent 'remainder' once "we [and Dick] stopped believing". And
we've made quite a discovery there "regarding this inexplicable
reality" - we found out what exactly was this "it" that "didn't go
away" :).
Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative) and
far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
Moreover, the king of science-fiction was "suffering from bouts of
extreme vertigo" and even had the bad luck to consult 'objective'
psychiatrists who 'resolved' the case their way -- by simply
"diagnosing him a schizophrenic", and since then the terrifying label
has stayed with him, becoming like "a splinter" ("in his mind driving
him mad", Morpheus:) haunting him "throughout his life".
Later his perception of reality was once more changed completely, a
miraculous "series of visions and auditions" in 1974 "lifted him from
the limitations of the space-time matrix". Which was also reflected in
"his writing for the final eight years of his life" after these
"life-changing experiences, including an information-rich pink
light beam that transmitted directly into his consciousness and
the vivid fire, with shining colors and balanced patterns that
released him from every thrall, inner and outer...
It, from inside me, looked out and saw the world did not compute,
that I - and it - had been lied to. It denied the reality, and
power, and authenticity of the world, saying, 'This cannot exist;
it cannot exist.'... It seized me entirely, lifting me from the
limitations of the space-time matrix."
http://www.philipkdick.com/aa_biography.html
In other words :), 'even' the sci.fi reality may not be one, "the
space-time matrices" of words in our minds differ widely and are more
like parallel universes (the 'tolerance' challenge to humanity is can
we preserve this biodiversity of views and ideas, can they peacefully
coexist:). Alas, to consensus' greatest disappointment once we (and
even sci.authorities on reality) "stop believing in it" altogether we
may suddenly 'see' not what Eldon would like us to see :). That is,
when Philip "stopped believing" (e.g. in the World of the Word:) he
knew what no wiseacre knows "regarding this inexplicable reality" -- he
saw "the irrational, mysterious nature of reality".
Finally, rereading his definition of "reality - that which, when you
stop believing in it, doesn't go away", the next intriguing question
almost suggests itself: did he indeed manage to "stop the world of the
internal dialogue" (a bit of Castaneda terminology here:), did he
really "stop believing in it"? (in science-fiction, that is:).
Best,
Ann
PS: Of course, I'm cognizant of the fact that the ultimate answer may
come only after the successful invention of a physical 'time machine',
and since I have no personal preferences for the word I'd better leave
all technical intricacies of 'time travel' to... Rainbowbird :).
> On 14 Aug 2004, Bill Cleere wrote:
Bill Cleere
"RLW" <rlwa...@snip-compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:yYzTc.9094$tk....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> Gee, Bill, can't you give the guy a straight answer?
>
> "Who's Philip K Dick?" - Philip K. Dick is an example of
> what quantum mechanics does when little bits of electricity
> move in too many different directions at once within a
> confined space.
>
> "And how did he get here?" - He arrived with the aliens and
> decided to stay on.
Those are possibilities that he considered at one time or
another, along with scads of others, so what the heck?
As good an answer as any other I've seen.
-- Bill Cleere
Bill Cleere
"Ann" <ao...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.04081...@cicero.local...
> Hi Bill,
>
> :) "what you see or hear is not what it is, nothing is what it seems"
> (an old ADC, CIA and Al Pacino's maxim from "The recruit":). Hence, by
> asking "Who's Philip K Dick?" Eldon might have instead been jokingly
> "performing for the crowd" (we had such a thread:) or even expressing a
> genuine interest in... your email address :). I mean, otherwise it just
> doesn't fit for it was actually him who has last month brought the name
> Philip K. Dick to this forum, he quoted him, perhaps, as a kind of an
> expert on ultimate "reality":
I figured as much, insomuch as I'm capable of figuring anything after
all the idiot twenty-group flame/troll threads I've been in over the
past years.
> Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004
> From: Eldon Donovan
> Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda
> Subject: Re: The teaching of the late don
>
> > Eldon wrote:
> >> Jeremy Donovan:
>
> >> Walter, you were a Buddhist a few months ago, a Castaneda
> >> freak for a while, and now you want to go zooming off to
> >> something else. Just take it easy... :-)
>
> > "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't
> > go away." --Philip K. Dick
A quote beloved of all Dickheads (and yes, we don't mind being
called that -- ironically because for being members of a so-called
cult the only thing we PKD lovers are certain of is that we go
under the title of Dickheads.
> Thus, obviously (assuming he reads what he writes:) Eldon should have
> heard of this name, should know "who's Philip K Dick and how he got
> here" (at A.D.C.:). Of course, he didn't know much, otherwise he
> wouldn't have chosen to quote precisely him on 'reality', a tough
> thought developed further in my instant (20Kb:) reply. {Alas, Eldon
> might have missed it, since I was a "blocked sender", number one in his
> list, I reckon:).} Then (in "The teaching of the late don.. Approval",
> 1 July) I flew on the wings of Philip's other quotes to enquire into
> that persistent 'remainder' once "we [and Dick] stopped believing". And
> we've made quite a discovery there "regarding this inexplicable
> reality" - we found out what exactly was this "it" that "didn't go
> away" :).
Dang! That's a hell of a lot farther than I've ever gotten.
PKD, in his years of analyzing his "religious experience", tried,
believed, rejected, re-adopted everything. What didn't go away
was that he had intuited that his young son had a grave medical
problem which would have killed him if he hadn't gotten
immediate surgery. The child felt fine and the doctors had said
there was nothing wrong with him.
> Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
> version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative) and
> far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
> Moreover, the king of science-fiction was "suffering from bouts of
> extreme vertigo" and even had the bad luck to consult 'objective'
> psychiatrists who 'resolved' the case their way -- by simply
> "diagnosing him a schizophrenic", and since then the terrifying label
> has stayed with him, becoming like "a splinter" ("in his mind driving
> him mad", Morpheus:) haunting him "throughout his life".
Very true. What made him great was exactly the same thing that
made Nietzsche great, although in a very different way. He would
*not* walk away from the question of whether he was nuts.
> Later his perception of reality was once more changed completely, a
> miraculous "series of visions and auditions" in 1974 "lifted him from
> the limitations of the space-time matrix". Which was also reflected in
> "his writing for the final eight years of his life" after these
>
> "life-changing experiences, including an information-rich pink
> light beam that transmitted directly into his consciousness and
> the vivid fire, with shining colors and balanced patterns that
> released him from every thrall, inner and outer...
>
> It, from inside me, looked out and saw the world did not compute,
> that I - and it - had been lied to. It denied the reality, and
> power, and authenticity of the world, saying, 'This cannot exist;
> it cannot exist.'... It seized me entirely, lifting me from the
> limitations of the space-time matrix."
>
> http://www.philipkdick.com/aa_biography.html
>
> In other words :), 'even' the sci.fi reality may not be one, "the
> space-time matrices" of words in our minds differ widely and are more
> like parallel universes (the 'tolerance' challenge to humanity is can
> we preserve this biodiversity of views and ideas, can they peacefully
> coexist:). Alas, to consensus' greatest disappointment once we (and
> even sci.authorities on reality) "stop believing in it" altogether we
> may suddenly 'see' not what Eldon would like us to see :). That is,
> when Philip "stopped believing" (e.g. in the World of the Word:) he
> knew what no wiseacre knows "regarding this inexplicable reality" -- he
> saw "the irrational, mysterious nature of reality".
That's about it. That's what thirty-seven novels and a hundred short
stories and thousands of pages of journals are about.
> Finally, rereading his definition of "reality - that which, when you
> stop believing in it, doesn't go away", the next intriguing question
> almost suggests itself: did he indeed manage to "stop the world of the
> internal dialogue" (a bit of Castaneda terminology here:), did he
> really "stop believing in it"? (in science-fiction, that is:).
>
> Best,
> Ann
Thank you very much, Ann.
On the subject of "the world of internal dialogue", have you ever
run across Julian Jaynes's analysis of what we do when we
are thinking? I think you'd find it very interesting.
> PS: Of course, I'm cognizant of the fact that the ultimate answer may
> come only after the successful invention of a physical 'time machine',
> and since I have no personal preferences for the word I'd better leave
> all technical intricacies of 'time travel' to... Rainbowbird :).
I time travel constantly to the past. Seriously. It's more real to me
than the present, so what else can it be but time travel?
-- Bill Cleere
Jazz
bandying about the word "reality"... as if it were something you could
just stuff into a biscuit tin if you wished.
Reality. Ha! Reality, much like Merlin's Dragon, is something best
looked at in small snippets. To see the thing whole and in its entirety
would surely burn you down to a pile of cinders left smoking in your
Peds Highrunners.
--
jaZZ
"We are merely making the observation that the current administration
are lying, thieving, conspiring motherfuckers who will make this country
look like the bottom of a Shake 'n Bake bag if they are not *thrown out*."
--- Bill Cleere
Jeremy Donovan
Jazz <js...@stny.rr.com> wrote:
Well YEAH?? She found herself floating in an unknown realm, with
nothing but her keyboard, a huge dictionary, human hands with which to
type, and eyes with which to read, so naturally ... she began to type
and to learn new words. Eventually, all of this, including you and I,
came to be.
>> PKD, in his years of analyzing his "religious experience", tried,
>> believed, rejected, re-adopted everything. What didn't go away
>> was that he had intuited that his young son had a grave medical
>> problem which would have killed him if he hadn't gotten
>> immediate surgery. The child felt fine and the doctors had said
>> there was nothing wrong with him.
>>
>>
>>>Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
>>>version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative) and
>>>far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
His son didn't go away. Doctors and surgery didn't go away either.
This was true not just in his own world, fortunately.
>>>Moreover, the king of science-fiction was "suffering from bouts of
>>>extreme vertigo" and even had the bad luck to consult 'objective'
>>>psychiatrists who 'resolved' the case their way -- by simply
>>>"diagnosing him a schizophrenic", and since then the terrifying label
>>>has stayed with him, becoming like "a splinter" ("in his mind driving
>>>him mad", Morpheus:) haunting him "throughout his life".
>>
>>
>> Very true. What made him great was exactly the same thing that
>> made Nietzsche great, although in a very different way. He would
>> *not* walk away from the question of whether he was nuts.
Admirable.
>>>Later his perception of reality was once more changed completely, a
>>>miraculous "series of visions and auditions" in 1974 "lifted him from
>>>the limitations of the space-time matrix". Which was also reflected in
>>>"his writing for the final eight years of his life" after these
>>>
>>> "life-changing experiences, including an information-rich pink
>>> light beam that transmitted directly into his consciousness and
>>> the vivid fire, with shining colors and balanced patterns that
>>> released him from every thrall, inner and outer...
>>>
>>> It, from inside me, looked out and saw the world did not compute,
>>> that I - and it - had been lied to. It denied the reality, and
>>> power, and authenticity of the world, saying, 'This cannot exist;
>>> it cannot exist.'... It seized me entirely, lifting me from the
>>> limitations of the space-time matrix."
>>>
>>>http://www.philipkdick.com/aa_biography.html
>>>
>>>In other words :), 'even' the sci.fi reality may not be one, "the
>>>space-time matrices" of words in our minds differ widely and are more
>>>like parallel universes
Not to even mention the myriad other functions in our minds which may
differ widely. But the key to amassing information about reality is
to notice the things that don't differ...
>>> (the 'tolerance' challenge to humanity is can
>>>we preserve this biodiversity of views and ideas, can they peacefully
>>>coexist:). Alas, to consensus' greatest disappointment once we (and
>>>even sci.authorities on reality) "stop believing in it" altogether we
>>>may suddenly 'see' not what Eldon would like us to see :). That is,
>>>when Philip "stopped believing" (e.g. in the World of the Word:) he
>>>knew what no wiseacre knows "regarding this inexplicable reality" -- he
>>>saw "the irrational, mysterious nature of reality".
>>
>>
>> That's about it. That's what thirty-seven novels and a hundred short
>> stories and thousands of pages of journals are about.
Well then, perhaps HE, at least, was irrational and mysterious? :-)
Perhaps, as to our own minds in general, to reality as a whole there
are aspects that are irrational and mysterious (or seem so to us), and
aspects that submit to rational inquiry. Otherwise, how could one
arrive at (and discuss) the rational conclusion that aspects of
reality are irrational and mysterious?
>>>Finally, rereading his definition of "reality - that which, when you
>>>stop believing in it, doesn't go away", the next intriguing question
>>>almost suggests itself: did he indeed manage to "stop the world of the
>>>internal dialogue" (a bit of Castaneda terminology here:), did he
>>>really "stop believing in it"? (in science-fiction, that is:).
Science Fiction is still around too I believe. I saw him and
Consensus commiserating at the bar just the other day.
>> On the subject of "the world of internal dialogue", have you ever
>> run across Julian Jaynes's analysis of what we do when we
>> are thinking? I think you'd find it very interesting.
How did Jaynes address the issue that even animals can do SOME
"thinking"? And how did he address the issue of how a human infant
acquires language to begin with? Happen to know?
>The truly shocking part is how so many people can just casually keep
>bandying about the word "reality"... as if it were something you could
>just stuff into a biscuit tin if you wished.
>
>Reality. Ha! Reality, much like Merlin's Dragon, is something best
>looked at in small snippets. To see the thing whole and in its entirety
>would surely burn you down to a pile of cinders left smoking in your
>Peds Highrunners.
Yep. That is how we are all constructed, to take in "small snippets".
But just as over time, a river can make the Grand Canyon, over time
our small snippets can give us the "big picture", or at least, a much
bigger one.
-Jer
Doctuh Nertz
Most of us still see through a glass darjly.
RLW
Doctuh Nertz
RLW wrote:
> Scanner.
>
>
>>Most of us still see through a glass darjly.
>
>
>
Rember ....
There are no mistajes.
RLW
I'm following your advice and not thinking like an engineer.
Aliens are more fun, anyway. Meet 'em at your local
universal joint.
> . . .
RLW
> There are no mistajes.
Bill Cleere
Like the rock which Dr. Johnson kicked to refute
dear Bishop Berkeley, rest his soul.
I find great comfort in the fact that PKD so identified
with the town of Berkeley, which was named for the great
idealist philosopher.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Moreover, the king of science-fiction was "suffering from bouts of
> >>>>extreme vertigo" and even had the bad luck to consult 'objective'
> >>>>psychiatrists who 'resolved' the case their way -- by simply
> >>>>"diagnosing him a schizophrenic", and since then the terrifying label
> >>>>has stayed with him, becoming like "a splinter" ("in his mind driving
> >>>>him mad", Morpheus:) haunting him "throughout his life".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Very true. What made him great was exactly the same thing that
> >>>made Nietzsche great, although in a very different way. He would
> >>>*not* walk away from the question of whether he was nuts.
> >>
> >
> > Admirable.
Nietzsche was full of it in more ways than one, but he
chose to search for truth rather than avoid pain.
That sounds seductively simple, yet I can't find
fault with it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>>Finally, rereading his definition of "reality - that which, when you
> >>>>stop believing in it, doesn't go away", the next intriguing question
> >>>>almost suggests itself: did he indeed manage to "stop the world of the
> >>>>internal dialogue" (a bit of Castaneda terminology here:), did he
> >>>>really "stop believing in it"? (in science-fiction, that is:).
> >>>
> >
> > Science Fiction is still around too I believe. I saw him and
> > Consensus commiserating at the bar just the other day.
It's difficult to say whether SF is still alive, or whether
it's gone the way of jazz and classical music -- talented,
creative people are doing things with it, but the form
itself has simply played out its possibilities.
Part of the problem is that regular science has outstripped
SF. Mathematical proofs of the possibility of time travel,
I've read, are far more complex and utterly weird than
anything ever dreamed up by SF writers.
> >
> >
> >
> >>>On the subject of "the world of internal dialogue", have you ever
> >>>run across Julian Jaynes's analysis of what we do when we
> >>>are thinking? I think you'd find it very interesting.
> >>
> >
> > How did Jaynes address the issue that even animals can do SOME
> > "thinking"? And how did he address the issue of how a human infant
> > acquires language to begin with? Happen to know?
Sort of, but not well enough to be able to do justice
to it. I don't recall that he touched on animal
thinking very much, if at all. He is at his best
as an analyst of human consciousness, as in this
famous passage from _The Origin of Consciousness
in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_:
"O, what a world of unseen visions and heard silences,
this insubstantial country of the mind! What ineffable
essences, these touchless rememberings and unshowable
reveries! And the privacy of it all! A secret theater of
speechless monologue and prevenient counsel, an invisible
mansion of all moods, musings, and mysteries, an infinite
resort of disappointments and discoveries. A whole
kingdom where each of us reigns reclusively alone,
questioning what we will, commanding what we can.
A hidden hermitage where we may study out the
troubled book of what we have done and yet may do.
An introcosm that is more myself than anything I can
find in a mirror. This consciousness that is
myself of selves, that is everything, and yet is
nothing at all - what is it? And where did it
come from? And why?"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>The truly shocking part is how so many people can just casually keep
> >>bandying about the word "reality"... as if it were something you could
> >>just stuff into a biscuit tin if you wished.
> >>
> >>Reality. Ha! Reality, much like Merlin's Dragon, is something best
> >>looked at in small snippets. To see the thing whole and in its entirety
> >>would surely burn you down to a pile of cinders left smoking in your
> >>Peds Highrunners.
The more we learn about the brain, the more we learn how
many filters and processors and sensors and circuit
breakers it has to filter perception and keep it from
overwhelming us.
> >
> > Yep. That is how we are all constructed, to take in "small snippets".
> > But just as over time, a river can make the Grand Canyon, over time
> > our small snippets can give us the "big picture", or at least, a much
> > bigger one.
That is a noble hope, at least.
> Most of us still see through a glass darjly.
And are as tinjling brass.
-- Bill Cleere
Jeremy Donovan
bcl...@philipkdick.com (Bill Cleere) wrote:
>> >>>>Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
>> >>>>version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative) and
>> >>>>far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
>> >>>
>> >
>> > His son didn't go away. Doctors and surgery didn't go away either.
>> > This was true not just in his own world, fortunately.
>
>Like the rock which Dr. Johnson kicked to refute
>dear Bishop Berkeley, rest his soul.
Sorta. I don't know if you have kids, but if you kick your son he'll
say "Ouch!", then "What the heck did you do that for?" Then he might
even kick you back.
But if you have a dream that you kick your son and see him the next
morning and say "Sorry about that," he won't have any idea what you
mean.
>> >>>>Moreover, the king of science-fiction was "suffering from bouts of
>> >>>>extreme vertigo" and even had the bad luck to consult 'objective'
>> >>>>psychiatrists who 'resolved' the case their way -- by simply
>> >>>>"diagnosing him a schizophrenic", and since then the terrifying label
>> >>>>has stayed with him, becoming like "a splinter" ("in his mind driving
>> >>>>him mad", Morpheus:) haunting him "throughout his life".
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>Very true. What made him great was exactly the same thing that
>> >>>made Nietzsche great, although in a very different way. He would
>> >>>*not* walk away from the question of whether he was nuts.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Admirable.
>
>Nietzsche was full of it in more ways than one, but he
>chose to search for truth rather than avoid pain.
Admirable. But I always thought Nietzsche was pretty full of it too.
>> >>>>Finally, rereading his definition of "reality - that which, when you
>> >>>>stop believing in it, doesn't go away", the next intriguing question
>> >>>>almost suggests itself: did he indeed manage to "stop the world of the
>> >>>>internal dialogue" (a bit of Castaneda terminology here:), did he
>> >>>>really "stop believing in it"? (in science-fiction, that is:).
>> >>>
>> >
>> > Science Fiction is still around too I believe. I saw him and
>> > Consensus commiserating at the bar just the other day.
>
>It's difficult to say whether SF is still alive, or whether
>it's gone the way of jazz and classical music -- talented,
>creative people are doing things with it, but the form
>itself has simply played out its possibilities.
Form was buying the next round, so I stayed and listened awhile.
Consensus agreed with you, but Science Fiction and Form were
passionate about the infinite possibilities of experience.
>Part of the problem is that regular science has outstripped
>SF. Mathematical proofs of the possibility of time travel,
>I've read, are far more complex and utterly weird than
>anything ever dreamed up by SF writers.
My intuition is that both should move in cycles like leap-frog. I'm
not up on young Sci-Fi writers though.
>> >>The truly shocking part is how so many people can just casually keep
>> >>bandying about the word "reality"... as if it were something you could
>> >>just stuff into a biscuit tin if you wished.
>> >>
>> >>Reality. Ha! Reality, much like Merlin's Dragon, is something best
>> >>looked at in small snippets. To see the thing whole and in its entirety
>> >>would surely burn you down to a pile of cinders left smoking in your
>> >>Peds Highrunners.
>
>The more we learn about the brain, the more we learn how
>many filters and processors and sensors and circuit
>breakers it has to filter perception and keep it from
>overwhelming us.
>
>> >
>> > Yep. That is how we are all constructed, to take in "small snippets".
>> > But just as over time, a river can make the Grand Canyon, over time
>> > our small snippets can give us the "big picture", or at least, a much
>> > bigger one.
>
>That is a noble hope, at least.
Our picture is already pretty big.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html
-Jeremy
Bill Cleere
news:h7v2i093n05mmse8p...@4ax.com...
>
> bcl...@philipkdick.com (Bill Cleere) wrote:
>
> >> >>>>Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
> >> >>>>version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative)
and
> >> >>>>far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > His son didn't go away. Doctors and surgery didn't go away either.
> >> > This was true not just in his own world, fortunately.
> >
> >Like the rock which Dr. Johnson kicked to refute
> >dear Bishop Berkeley, rest his soul.
>
> Sorta. I don't know if you have kids, but if you kick your son he'll
> say "Ouch!", then "What the heck did you do that for?" Then he might
> even kick you back.
>
> But if you have a dream that you kick your son and see him the next
> morning and say "Sorry about that," he won't have any idea what you
> mean.
I am now trying to channel Dr. Johnson's response
to that, a thing I can normally do without effort,
but for some reason there is no carrier.
> >> >>>>Moreover, the king of science-fiction was "suffering from bouts of
> >> >>>>extreme vertigo" and even had the bad luck to consult 'objective'
> >> >>>>psychiatrists who 'resolved' the case their way -- by simply
> >> >>>>"diagnosing him a schizophrenic", and since then the terrifying
label
> >> >>>>has stayed with him, becoming like "a splinter" ("in his mind
driving
> >> >>>>him mad", Morpheus:) haunting him "throughout his life".
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Very true. What made him great was exactly the same thing that
> >> >>>made Nietzsche great, although in a very different way. He would
> >> >>>*not* walk away from the question of whether he was nuts.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Admirable.
> >
> >Nietzsche was full of it in more ways than one, but he
> >chose to search for truth rather than avoid pain.
>
> Admirable. But I always thought Nietzsche was pretty full of it too.
There was more than one of him. There was the one which
was something of an anti-Semite, and the one who wrote
"just now I am having all anti-Semites shot."
> >> >>>>Finally, rereading his definition of "reality - that which, when
you
> >> >>>>stop believing in it, doesn't go away", the next intriguing
question
> >> >>>>almost suggests itself: did he indeed manage to "stop the world of
the
> >> >>>>internal dialogue" (a bit of Castaneda terminology here:), did he
> >> >>>>really "stop believing in it"? (in science-fiction, that is:).
> >> >>>
> >> >
> >> > Science Fiction is still around too I believe. I saw him and
> >> > Consensus commiserating at the bar just the other day.
> >
> >It's difficult to say whether SF is still alive, or whether
> >it's gone the way of jazz and classical music -- talented,
> >creative people are doing things with it, but the form
> >itself has simply played out its possibilities.
>
> Form was buying the next round, so I stayed and listened awhile.
> Consensus agreed with you, but Science Fiction and Form were
> passionate about the infinite possibilities of experience.
Ah, Form. When I was a tad, I was worshipped at
its altar. I even tried to admire Le Corbusier as the
modern apostle of the spirit of Chartres and the
Stones of Venice. But now I'm more down with this:
http://martian.fm/lobscurier.htm
> >Part of the problem is that regular science has outstripped
> >SF. Mathematical proofs of the possibility of time travel,
> >I've read, are far more complex and utterly weird than
> >anything ever dreamed up by SF writers.
>
> My intuition is that both should move in cycles like leap-frog. I'm
> not up on young Sci-Fi writers though.
I've sampled a few and found nothing but re-working of
old stuff, with some bits of cybereneticana which seem
dated the day after they're written.
Most of them do fantasy now anyway.
> >> >>The truly shocking part is how so many people can just casually keep
> >> >>bandying about the word "reality"... as if it were something you
could
> >> >>just stuff into a biscuit tin if you wished.
> >> >>
> >> >>Reality. Ha! Reality, much like Merlin's Dragon, is something best
> >> >>looked at in small snippets. To see the thing whole and in its
entirety
> >> >>would surely burn you down to a pile of cinders left smoking in your
> >> >>Peds Highrunners.
> >
> >The more we learn about the brain, the more we learn how
> >many filters and processors and sensors and circuit
> >breakers it has to filter perception and keep it from
> >overwhelming us.
> >
> >> >
> >> > Yep. That is how we are all constructed, to take in "small
snippets".
> >> > But just as over time, a river can make the Grand Canyon, over time
> >> > our small snippets can give us the "big picture", or at least, a much
> >> > bigger one.
> >
> >That is a noble hope, at least.
>
> Our picture is already pretty big.
> >
>
>
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html
Beautiful! Thanks for linking that.
-- Bill Cleere
Jeremy Donovan
"Bill Cleere" <bcl...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
>"Jeremy Donovan" <jeremy...@earthlinkspammers.net> wrote in message
>news:h7v2i093n05mmse8p...@4ax.com...
>>
>> bcl...@philipkdick.com (Bill Cleere) wrote:
>>
>> >> >>>>Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
>> >> >>>>version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative)
>and
>> >> >>>>far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >
>> >> > His son didn't go away. Doctors and surgery didn't go away either.
>> >> > This was true not just in his own world, fortunately.
>> >
>> >Like the rock which Dr. Johnson kicked to refute
>> >dear Bishop Berkeley, rest his soul.
>>
>> Sorta. I don't know if you have kids, but if you kick your son he'll
>> say "Ouch!", then "What the heck did you do that for?" Then he might
>> even kick you back.
>>
>> But if you have a dream that you kick your son and see him the next
>> morning and say "Sorry about that," he won't have any idea what you
>> mean.
>
>I am now trying to channel Dr. Johnson's response
>to that, a thing I can normally do without effort,
>but for some reason there is no carrier.
That *was* Johnson I channeled above. I was hoping you might supply
Berkeley, but don't sweat it, because I know Ann is out there having
multiple orgasms since I addressed a couple of her comments, so I'd
look for about a thousand liner "channeling" any time now.
>> Form was buying the next round, so I stayed and listened awhile.
>> Consensus agreed with you, but Science Fiction and Form were
>> passionate about the infinite possibilities of experience.
>
>Ah, Form. When I was a tad, I was worshipped at
>its altar. I even tried to admire Le Corbusier as the
>modern apostle of the spirit of Chartres and the
>Stones of Venice. But now I'm more down with this:
>
>http://martian.fm/lobscurier.htm
Wow. :-)
I've lifted an appealing quote:
"All chaotic thinking disguised as folk wisdom is dangerous rubbish."
>> >Part of the problem is that regular science has outstripped
>> >SF. Mathematical proofs of the possibility of time travel,
>> >I've read, are far more complex and utterly weird than
>> >anything ever dreamed up by SF writers.
>>
>> My intuition is that both should move in cycles like leap-frog. I'm
>> not up on young Sci-Fi writers though.
>
>I've sampled a few and found nothing but re-working of
>old stuff, with some bits of cybereneticana which seem
>dated the day after they're written.
>
>Most of them do fantasy now anyway.
Okay. It'll turn around sooner or later.
If all else fails you could write some yourself...
>http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index.html
>
>Beautiful! Thanks for linking that.
You're quite welcome.
-J.
Bill Cleere
>
> "Bill Cleere" <bcl...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jeremy Donovan" <jeremy...@earthlinkspammers.net> wrote in message
> >news:h7v2i093n05mmse8p...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> bcl...@philipkdick.com (Bill Cleere) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >>>>Well, again appearances turned out deceiving, I'm afraid, his own
> >> >> >>>>version of "reality" was more like "separate" (private, relative)
> >and
> >> >> >>>>far from the absolute impression (of Truth:) conveyed by his quote.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > His son didn't go away. Doctors and surgery didn't go away either.
> >> >> > This was true not just in his own world, fortunately.
> >> >
> >> >Like the rock which Dr. Johnson kicked to refute
> >> >dear Bishop Berkeley, rest his soul.
> >>
> >> Sorta. I don't know if you have kids, but if you kick your son he'll
> >> say "Ouch!", then "What the heck did you do that for?" Then he might
> >> even kick you back.
> >>
> >> But if you have a dream that you kick your son and see him the next
> >> morning and say "Sorry about that," he won't have any idea what you
> >> mean.
> >
> >I am now trying to channel Dr. Johnson's response
> >to that, a thing I can normally do without effort,
> >but for some reason there is no carrier.
>
> That *was* Johnson I channeled above.
I meant his style, which is all I'm capable of rendering. I've been
finding lately that it's hopeless to attempt substance.
> I was hoping you might supply
> Berkeley, but don't sweat it, because I know Ann is out there having
> multiple orgasms
I DO NOT WISH TO KNOW THAT!
> since I addressed a couple of her comments, so I'd
> look for about a thousand liner "channeling" any time now.
Splendid. She writes well.
> >> Form was buying the next round, so I stayed and listened awhile.
> >> Consensus agreed with you, but Science Fiction and Form were
> >> passionate about the infinite possibilities of experience.
> >
> >Ah, Form. When I was a tad, I was worshipped at
> >its altar. I even tried to admire Le Corbusier as the
> >modern apostle of the spirit of Chartres and the
> >Stones of Venice. But now I'm more down with this:
> >
> >http://martian.fm/lobscurier.htm
>
> Wow. :-)
>
> I've lifted an appealing quote:
> "All chaotic thinking disguised as folk wisdom is dangerous rubbish."
The entire L'Obscurier archive is worth reading, as is just
about everything on the martian.fm site.
> >> >Part of the problem is that regular science has outstripped
> >> >SF. Mathematical proofs of the possibility of time travel,
> >> >I've read, are far more complex and utterly weird than
> >> >anything ever dreamed up by SF writers.
> >>
> >> My intuition is that both should move in cycles like leap-frog. I'm
> >> not up on young Sci-Fi writers though.
> >
> >I've sampled a few and found nothing but re-working of
> >old stuff, with some bits of cybereneticana which seem
> >dated the day after they're written.
> >
> >Most of them do fantasy now anyway.
>
> Okay. It'll turn around sooner or later.
> If all else fails you could write some yourself...
I wouldn't know where to start. I think it's a valid question
whether most of the main art forms played themselves out
during the 20th Century. It's hard even to discuss such
matters, because people want to argue, whereas what I'm
suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
have exhausted their possibilities of development.
slider
Bill Cleere wrote
what I'm
suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
have exhausted their possibilities of development.
### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker on 'form'??
(smile:)
i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the abstract... :)
Bill Cleere
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote in message news:41228123$0$58964$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> Bill Cleere wrote
>
> what I'm
> suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> have exhausted their possibilities of development.
I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
>
> ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker on 'form'??
> (smile:)
No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
He was a master of it. The idea that Parker simply picked up his
horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
about as far from the truth as it's possible to get. Listening to
the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
> i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the abstract... :)
(1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
(2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
written charts.
-- Bill Cleere
slider
Bill Cleere wrote
> what I'm
> suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> have exhausted their possibilities of development.
I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
### - like a genre you mean? plus well i dunno about that really... i mean
it's only the honkys (western occidental mind) that are/were dealing with
genres & categories and stuff... people like parker & coltrane just playing
jazz with all that western... stuff :)
>
> ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker on 'form'??
> (smile:)
No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
He was a master of it.
### - smile, just so long as you realise his instruction would probably have been
all about getting away from it that is :)
The idea that Parker simply picked up his
horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
about as far from the truth as it's possible to get. Listening to
the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
### - well exactly... plus without getting technical about it (something
to avoid in jazz i reckon:) quite a lot of jazz will often start-off from
some known tune and then go wandering-off/feeling-itself into + probing
the abstract... the stuff not being written down as such being worked &
re-worked each time on the spur of the moment as the guy's reaching
out into it, and/or is hardly ever the same twice...
> i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the abstract... :)
(1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
### - heh, but isn't that actually a contradiction of terms? (smile:)
(2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
written charts.
### - charts? lists?? - but that's not real jazz bill... that's just whitey's IDEA
of jazz... that's just western man trying to 'get it all down', trying to 'write' it
all down... trying to get it all under his intellectual-thumb in order to maybe
create a few catchy chart-tunes to make another buck out of the now 'ex-slaves'
- and because that's the only way the westerner can ever understand things...
that's just western emulation-jazz... people like satchmo & miles often being
seen as some kind of traitors to their own kind by playing to the honkys...
but then i guess a guy's gotta eat sometimes, don't he :)
Doctuh Nertz
Well, you tried, Bill.
Ether St. Vying
>
> Well, you tried, Bill.
Many have tried.
Bill Cleere
>
> Bill Cleere wrote
>
> > what I'm
> > suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> > have exhausted their possibilities of development.
>
> I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
> style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
> work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
>
> ### - like a genre you mean? plus well i dunno about that really... i mean
> it's only the honkys (western occidental mind) that are/were dealing with
> genres & categories and stuff... people like parker & coltrane just
playing
> jazz with all that western... stuff :)
I'm not sure what your point is. When Parker
experimented with things like passing tones,
he was as much the conscious Western musician
as any classical composer. He was also playing
the blues.
> >
> > ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker
on 'form'??
> > (smile:)
>
> No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
> He was a master of it.
>
> ### - smile, just so long as you realise his instruction would probably
have been
> all about getting away from it that is :)
I don't think so. Bebop was all about *more*
complicated formal structures than the popular
jazz and swing of the time.
> The idea that Parker simply picked up his
> horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
> about as far from the truth as it's possible to get. Listening to
> the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
> musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
>
> ### - well exactly... plus without getting technical about it (something
> to avoid in jazz i reckon:) quite a lot of jazz will often start-off from
> some known tune and then go wandering-off/feeling-itself into + probing
> the abstract... the stuff not being written down as such being worked &
> re-worked each time on the spur of the moment as the guy's reaching
> out into it, and/or is hardly ever the same twice...
That's true, and spontaneous improvisation is an
important part of jazz, but not all jazz, and it is
not the essence of jazz as one so often hears.
>
>
>
> > i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the
abstract... :)
>
> (1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
>
> ### - heh, but isn't that actually a contradiction of terms? (smile:)
I don't know what you mean by "abstract", then.
>
>
>
> (2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
> incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
> jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
> little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
> of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
> record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
> written charts.
>
> ### - charts? lists?? - but that's not real jazz bill... that's just
whitey's IDEA
> of jazz... that's just western man trying to 'get it all down', trying to
'write' it
> all down... trying to get it all under his intellectual-thumb in order to
maybe
> create a few catchy chart-tunes to make another buck out of the now
'ex-slaves'
Actually, it's not.
The white man has plenty to be ashamed of in regard
to how black jazz musicians fared, but "getting it down"
on paper was *not* something the whites forced on the
blacks. Jelly Roll Morton, the first great synthesist, was
a fanatic formalist. Armstrong himself said that the greatest
sound is a trumpet playing the melody over the ensemble --
that is, the *written song*.
Ragtime was a black man's music written down by black
composers.
There always have been white guys who could play
real jazz, too, right from the earliest times.
> - and because that's the only way the westerner can ever understand
things...
> that's just western emulation-jazz... people like satchmo & miles often
being
> seen as some kind of traitors to their own kind by playing to the
honkys...
>
> but then i guess a guy's gotta eat sometimes, don't he :)
-- Bill Cleere
Bill Cleere
That's all reet, that's all reet, everything is mellow, man.
Bill Cleere
news:4122CE94...@Swanson.pic...
> Doctuh Nertz wrote:
>
> >
> > Well, you tried, Bill.
>
> Many have tried.
I ain't been trying no more, though. Just laying down a little
riff, and all the cats can blow.
slider
Bill wrote
> > what I'm
> > suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> > have exhausted their possibilities of development.
>
> I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
> style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
> work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
>
> ### - like a genre you mean? plus well i dunno about that really... i mean
> it's only the honkys (western occidental mind) that are/were dealing with
> genres & categories and stuff... people like parker & coltrane just
> playing jazz with all that western... stuff :)
I'm not sure what your point is. When Parker
experimented with things like passing tones,
he was as much the conscious Western musician
as any classical composer. He was also playing
the blues.
### - well i don't agree with that... imho that kind of thinking is just
the typical western mind trying to make some sort of 'linear' sense out
of what is actually the 'rebellion' to the white mans dreadful + shocking
treatment of his black slaves... in that sense jazz is the sound of... freedom:)
meanwhile in the west we'd turned the blues into head-bangers rock & roll
and flashing lights lol ;)
> > ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker
> on 'form'?? (smile:)
>
> No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
> He was a master of it.
>
> ### - smile, just so long as you realise his instruction would probably
> have been all about getting away from it that is :)
I don't think so. Bebop was all about *more*
complicated formal structures than the popular
jazz and swing of the time.
### - try to understand that it started with all these black guys singing songs
under the lash as they worked the white mans plantations, which later became
gospel music and then the blues, soul, bebop & jazz... try to see it as a progression
going 'away' from formal structures until in the end people like coltrane left form
behind altogether... (he went way-out man :)
> The idea that Parker simply picked up his
> horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
> about as far from the truth as it's possible to get. Listening to
> the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
> musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
>
> ### - well exactly... plus without getting technical about it (something
> to avoid in jazz i reckon:) quite a lot of jazz will often start-off from
> some known tune and then go wandering-off/feeling-itself into + probing
> the abstract... the stuff not being written down as such being worked &
> re-worked each time on the spur of the moment as the guy's reaching
> out into it, and/or is hardly ever the same twice...
That's true, and spontaneous improvisation is an
important part of jazz, but not all jazz, and it is
not the essence of jazz as one so often hears.
### - not all jazz... and certainly not the white mans watered-down popular
versions of it - the 'essence' of jazz being in black slavery & suffering
> > i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the
abstract... :)
>
> (1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
>
> ### - heh, but isn't that actually a contradiction of terms? (smile:)
I don't know what you mean by "abstract", then.
### - you've seen abstract paintings haven't you? (harmonious chaos?:)
goes into the 'surreal' (the super-real :)
> (2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
> incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
> jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
> little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
> of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
> record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
> written charts.
>
> ### - charts? lists?? - but that's not real jazz bill... that's just
>whitey's IDEA of jazz... that's just western man trying to 'get it all
>down', trying to 'write' it all down... trying to get it all under his
>intellectual-thumb in order to maybe create a few catchy chart-tunes
>to make another buck out of the now 'ex-slaves'
Actually, it's not.
The white man has plenty to be ashamed of in regard
to how black jazz musicians fared, but "getting it down"
on paper was *not* something the whites forced on the
blacks. Jelly Roll Morton, the first great synthesist, was
a fanatic formalist. Armstrong himself said that the greatest
sound is a trumpet playing the melody over the ensemble --
that is, the *written song*.
Ragtime was a black man's music written down by black
composers.
### - the british like a drop of ragtime for their sunday luchtimes down
the pub heh heh... but that's not what i'd ever call 'hard-core' jazz...
Armstrong (among others) being like the white mans 'bridge' to the
world of real jazz (black people's spiritual freedom music :)
There always have been white guys who could play
real jazz, too, right from the earliest times.
### - only 'coz the black guys helped 'em i reckon heh heh heh...
slider
ev wrote...
>
> Well, you tried, Bill.
Many have tried.
### - many are called but few are chosen (grin :)
plus still taking little pot-shots at slider huh? (boy i must have really touched
a raw nerve one of the time heh :)
plus if so then i'm sorry about that... it wasn't actually my 'intention' to do so,
that's just the way i see things + talk, just a personal perception of the world
seen through the eyes of someone who's been through the things he's been
through to end-up putting it all together that way... and agree with it or
disagree with it: i hope you can see that i've only ever tried to be honest &
true to that perception unless (or until) something greater and/or more
inclusive alters it...
i've never 'wanted' to fight... but people will get all 'so-tough' about things...
imho it's just the way the world (currently) is unfortunately & something to do
with the 'nature of mind' in that different ideas tend to clash if we're not careful
in handling them
peace...
±
>
> "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote in message news:41228123$0$58964$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> >
> > Bill Cleere wrote
> >
> > what I'm
> > suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> > have exhausted their possibilities of development.
>
> I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
> style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
> work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
>
> >
> > ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker on 'form'??
> > (smile:)
>
> No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
> He was a master of it. The idea that Parker simply picked up his
> horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
> about as far from the truth as it's possible to get.
Are you saying Bird never improvised?
At the very heart of Jazz is structure, but on top the medley's envelope
is pushed.
Even if Bird and others didn't spontaneously compose in the studio, they
sure did beforehand at jam sessions.
> Listening to
> the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
> musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
You just described improvising. ;-)
> > i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the abstract... :)
>
> (1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
>
> (2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
> incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
> jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
> little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
> of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
> record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
> written charts.
But Duke would often write with the band during practice, personally
instructing each musician what notes to play.
>
> -- Bill Cleere
-------
/ \
/ \ /-----\
| (@) | | SnuH |
| (O) | \_ ___/
| / | ||
| \ /_ / //
\ \____/ / /
\ /
\_____,
±
Just not that many.
There's plenty of great white Jazz musicians between 1920-1960, but it's
definitely a black idiom.
> > - and because that's the only way the westerner can ever understand
> things...
> > that's just western emulation-jazz... people like satchmo & miles often
> being
> > seen as some kind of traitors to their own kind by playing to the
> honkys...
> >
> > but then i guess a guy's gotta eat sometimes, don't he :)
>
> -- Bill Cleere
Bill Cleere
No question about that. Black musicians developed jazz
out of its various roots, the most important of which
are of African origin. It always has been black
music, just as modern basketball is a black man's game
even though white people can learn to play it well.
-- Bill Cleere
Bill Cleere
"ą" <h0plib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4125BC8B...@hotmail.com...
> Bill Cleere wrote:
> >
> > "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote in message news:41228123$0$58964$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> > >
> > > Bill Cleere wrote
> > >
> > > what I'm
> > > suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> > > have exhausted their possibilities of development.
> >
> > I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
> > style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
> > work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
> >
> > >
> > > ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker on 'form'??
> > > (smile:)
> >
> > No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
> > He was a master of it. The idea that Parker simply picked up his
> > horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
> > about as far from the truth as it's possible to get.
>
> Are you saying Bird never improvised?
Of course not. He was a great improviser, capable of producing
something new and remarkable on the spot. But his improvisation
was based on sophisticated musical knowledge and instrumental
technique.
> At the very heart of Jazz is structure, but on top the medley's envelope
> is pushed.
>
> Even if Bird and others didn't spontaneously compose in the studio, they
> sure did beforehand at jam sessions.
Well, see, that's the point, it's hard to say what the difference is
between that and Mozart extemporizing from a ditty to a composition.
> > Listening to
> > the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
> > musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
>
> You just described improvising. ;-)
I know I did. Improvisation is an important element in jazz, and in
some styles and periods it's more prevalent than in others. I merely
argue against the misconception that it's the *essence* of jazz.
Some great jazz is mainly spontaneous improvisation, some is
played note-for-note from charts, and there's everything in between.
> > > i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the abstract... :)
> >
> > (1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
> >
> > (2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
> > incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
> > jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
> > little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
> > of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
> > record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
> > written charts.
>
> But Duke would often write with the band during practice, personally
> instructing each musician what notes to play.
Sure. We're not arguing about this at all. Even Ko-Ko is not the
same as a classical piece which the composer writes and gives to
the perfomer to play. Only a second-rate Swing Big Band would
make the piece sound the same every time.
-- Bill Cleere
slider
Bill Cleere wrote
> You just described improvising. ;-)
I know I did. Improvisation is an important element in jazz, and in
some styles and periods it's more prevalent than in others. I merely
argue against the misconception that it's the *essence* of jazz.
Some great jazz is mainly spontaneous improvisation, some is
played note-for-note from charts, and there's everything in between.
### - and that's just the 'technical' side (smile:) what about the philosophy?:)
slider
Bill Cleere wrote
> There's plenty of great white Jazz musicians between 1920-1960, but it's
> definitely a black idiom.
No question about that. Black musicians developed jazz
out of its various roots, the most important of which
are of African origin. It always has been black
music, just as modern basketball is a black man's game
even though white people can learn to play it well.
### - see bill? we didn't really disagree after all... i'm just not very technically
minded ;)
slider
ą wrote
> There always have been white guys who could play
> real jazz, too, right from the earliest times.
Just not that many.
There's plenty of great white Jazz musicians between 1920-1960, but it's
definitely a black idiom.
### - cheers for that one anyway :)
Bill Cleere
"slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote in message news:41263f07$0$93997$ed2e...@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net...
I knew that all along. I've been having this non-argument for years.
It's good to remember, too, that there were decent white
music promoters like Joplin's John Stark who did everything
they could for black music (though for every Stark there
were probably ten Walter Melroses and John Hammonds,
who ripped off black musicians unconscionably.)
Then there are stories like the one about when Billie Holiday was
touring with Artie Shaw's band. They were in Kentucky, having
finally made it almost out of the South, and the guys in the band
were fed up with how Billie had been treated. When the hotel
in Kentucky made her use the back door, they decided to
completely trash the place, hopped in the bus and got over the
border before the cops caught up to them.
slider
Bill Cleere wrote...
>
> > There's plenty of great white Jazz musicians between 1920-1960, but it's
> > definitely a black idiom.
>
> No question about that. Black musicians developed jazz
> out of its various roots, the most important of which
> are of African origin. It always has been black
> music, just as modern basketball is a black man's game
> even though white people can learn to play it well.
>
> ### - see bill? we didn't really disagree after all... i'm just not very technically
> minded ;)
I knew that all along. I've been having this non-argument for years.
It's good to remember, too, that there were decent white
music promoters like Joplin's John Stark who did everything
they could for black music (though for every Stark there
were probably ten Walter Melroses and John Hammonds,
who ripped off black musicians unconscionably.)
### - of course there's decent white people... just not too many ;)
Then there are stories like the one about when Billie Holiday was
touring with Artie Shaw's band. They were in Kentucky, having
finally made it almost out of the South, and the guys in the band
were fed up with how Billie had been treated. When the hotel
in Kentucky made her use the back door, they decided to
completely trash the place, hopped in the bus and got over the
border before the cops caught up to them.
### - ah well... 'musicians' might realise the true value of people while everyone else is
still worrying about their colour & their funny little local customs of hatred & fear of
anything that's different...
ahhh Billy - man i could have jumped 'right' into bed with her... heh ;)
what a fabulous example of the female species! ( cor :)
±
>
> "ą" <h0plib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4125BC8B...@hotmail.com...
> > Bill Cleere wrote:
> > >
> > > "slider" <sli...@anashram.com> wrote in message news:41228123$0$58964$ed26...@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
> > > >
> > > > Bill Cleere wrote
> > > >
> > > > what I'm
> > > > suggesting is that certain forms such as jazz and science fiction
> > > > have exhausted their possibilities of development.
> > >
> > > I was using the word "form" in a loose sense as "art form" --
> > > style or tradition, simply a known framework in which an artist can
> > > work, or even just a section in a book or record store.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ### - don't be daft... i mean what'cha gonna do, lecture charlie parker on 'form'??
> > > > (smile:)
> > >
> > > No, but I'd love to have Bird come back and lecture me on form.
> > > He was a master of it. The idea that Parker simply picked up his
> > > horn and blew out of some unconscious creative impulse is
> > > about as far from the truth as it's possible to get.
> >
> > Are you saying Bird never improvised?
>
> Of course not. He was a great improviser, capable of producing
> something new and remarkable on the spot. But his improvisation
> was based on sophisticated musical knowledge and instrumental
> technique.
I wish I could wave a magic wand and turn everyone into a musician, if
only all could understand the pure genius of a Bird or a Duke.
> > At the very heart of Jazz is structure, but on top the medley's envelope
> > is pushed.
> >
> > Even if Bird and others didn't spontaneously compose in the studio, they
> > sure did beforehand at jam sessions.
>
> Well, see, that's the point, it's hard to say what the difference is
> between that and Mozart extemporizing from a ditty to a composition.
>
> > > Listening to
> > > the alternate takes of his greatest solos, one can hear his prodigious
> > > musical intelligence at work, refining and re-working the material.
> >
> > You just described improvising. ;-)
>
> I know I did. Improvisation is an important element in jazz, and in
> some styles and periods it's more prevalent than in others. I merely
> argue against the misconception that it's the *essence* of jazz.
> Some great jazz is mainly spontaneous improvisation, some is
> played note-for-note from charts, and there's everything in between.
Musical discoveries usually took place beforehand, afterwards it became
all about refinement.
> > > > i.e. jazz is about getting 'form-less' - of travelling into the abstract... :)
> > >
> > > (1) The abstract might be defined as the realm of pure form.
> > >
> > > (2) The often-heard statement that jazz is improvised music is
> > > incorrect. In any knowledgeable person's list of the top fifty
> > > jazz records of all time, the great majority will contain relatively
> > > little true improvisation and many will contain none at all. A lot
> > > of people would pick Ellington's "Ko-Ko" as the greatest jazz
> > > record every made. Every note in it was played right off the
> > > written charts.
> >
> > But Duke would often write with the band during practice, personally
> > instructing each musician what notes to play.
>
> Sure.
*Head charts*, as they call it.
> We're not arguing about this at all. Even Ko-Ko is not the
> same as a classical piece which the composer writes and gives to
> the perfomer to play. Only a second-rate Swing Big Band would
> make the piece sound the same every time.
I was channel surfing and caught an informercial for a DVD collection of
the old Dean Martin shows.
One of the clips was of Louie Armstrong - this was late in his career,
I'm guessing he was in his 70's at the time.
There was ol' Satchmo, complete with sweat-soaked handkerchief, hamming
it up with Martin while trading off some extremely pedestrian scat
vocals.
That's the Armstrong I knew as a kid and he seemed right out of a
minstrel show - I got used to tuning him out.
It wasn't until years later I discovered what a brilliant master he was,
I'll never understand how he let himself become a black Al Hirt.
±
People that are able to improvise are usually successful in most
endeavors they apply it to.
slider
ą wrote
> > You just described improvising. ;-)
>
> I know I did. Improvisation is an important element in jazz, and in
> some styles and periods it's more prevalent than in others. I merely
> argue against the misconception that it's the *essence* of jazz.
> Some great jazz is mainly spontaneous improvisation, some is
> played note-for-note from charts, and there's everything in between.
>
> ### - and that's just the 'technical' side (smile:) what about the philosophy?:)
People that are able to improvise are usually successful in most
endeavors they apply it to.
### - nice observation + how true... humans can go just about anywhere with
adaptability & improvisation
and then for some strange reason... everyone decides to stay at home, lol :)
Bill Cleere
I thought the same thing, but you have to ask yourself,
Was there anything left for him to do? He'd been the
greatest soloist and creative force in jazz for 15 years.
Maybe Louis's flaw was that he was too much of a
genius, and used up too quickly a store of ideas that
a run-of-the-mill genius would have taken a lifetime
to explore.
±
And download pr0n.
±
> > Bill Cleere wrote:
> > >
> > > We're not arguing about this at all. Even Ko-Ko is not the
> > > same as a classical piece which the composer writes and gives to
> > > the perfomer to play. Only a second-rate Swing Big Band would
> > > make the piece sound the same every time.
> >
> > I was channel surfing and caught an informercial for a DVD collection of
> > the old Dean Martin shows.
> >
> > One of the clips was of Louie Armstrong - this was late in his career,
> > I'm guessing he was in his 70's at the time.
> >
> > There was ol' Satchmo, complete with sweat-soaked handkerchief, hamming
> > it up with Martin while trading off some extremely pedestrian scat
> > vocals.
> >
> > That's the Armstrong I knew as a kid and he seemed right out of a
> > minstrel show - I got used to tuning him out.
> >
> > It wasn't until years later I discovered what a brilliant master he was,
> > I'll never understand how he let himself become a black Al Hirt.
>
> I thought the same thing, but you have to ask yourself,
> Was there anything left for him to do? He'd been the
> greatest soloist and creative force in jazz for 15 years.
> Maybe Louis's flaw was that he was too much of a
> genius, and used up too quickly a store of ideas that
> a run-of-the-mill genius would have taken a lifetime
> to explore.
A musician is lucky to be inspired enough to write *one* memorable song,
let alone a decade's worth of them.
Stevie Wonder is a good example - between the mid-sixties and late
eighties, he composed some of the most unforgettable music ever, but
what has he done exciting since?
Louie had accusations of *Uncle Tom* since the late 40's - if it wasn't
true then, it sure seemed so by the 60's, reinforced by his campy
version of Hello Dolly.
In his last years, he made clear how much Rock music disgusted him - his
mind had become closed.
He was raised in a whorehouse in the worst slum in New Orleans and dealt
with bigtime mobsters early in his career, which caused him hide in
Europe for a while.
I can't imagine how rough his life must've been, if anyone deserves a
*pass*, it's Armstrong, it's too bad he didn't go raging against the
dying of the light.
At his peek, he was the very best.
Bill Cleere
"ą" <h0plib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:412B1A3A...@hotmail.com...
All the above is true, but you also need to remember that he was an
entertainer and enjoyed that part of it. And as his fame got bigger,
he was able to do less of the Uncle Tomming and still keep his
popularity with white audiences.
slider
ą wrote
> > ### - and that's just the 'technical' side (smile:) what about the philosophy?:)
>
> People that are able to improvise are usually successful in most
> endeavors they apply it to.
>
> ### - nice observation + how true... humans can go just about anywhere with
> adaptability & improvisation
>
> and then for some strange reason... everyone decides to stay at home, lol :)
And download pr0n.
### - lol... ah but you can download from just about anywhere on the planet, no? :)
walkies! :))
±
I felt he got worse towards the end, from what I'd heard from pop radio
and seen on tv.
I never attended or heard any concerts of his during this period,
perhaps he dropped the shtick and played it straight, I wouldn't know.
Here's a clip where there's a few snips of Louie ripping through time
and space:
http://www.pbs.org/jazz/about/jazz56_armstrong.html
--
http://www.bedoper.com/snuh
±
slider
ą wrote
>
> > > ### - and that's just the 'technical' side (smile:) what about the philosophy?:)
> >
> > People that are able to improvise are usually successful in most
> > endeavors they apply it to.
> >
> > ### - nice observation + how true... humans can go just about anywhere with
> > adaptability & improvisation
> >
> > and then for some strange reason... everyone decides to stay at home, lol :)
>
> And download pr0n.
>
> ### - lol... ah but you can download from just about anywhere on the planet, no? :)
>
> walkies! :))
Are you Barbara Woodhouse?
### - heh heh, such a dreadfully english person... Sit!! (nah i don't think so :)
i.e. slider is a dog of no nation ;)
Bill Cleere
"ą" <h0plib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:412EFA5D...@hotmail.com...
It seems to be borked...
±
Bill Cleere
Got it. Thanks.
I somehow don't see Werner Heisenberg as a jazz fan,
but you never know.
-- Bill Cleere
±
Heisenberg, Einstein, Marilyn Monroe and Picasso were huge fans and made
it a point to meet-up for gut-bucket shows whenever possible.
>
> -- Bill Cleere
Bill Cleere
One such night, at a particularly swinging performance of "hot jazz",
Ernest Hemingway punched Heisenberg in the nose and
changed the course of atomic physics.
-- Bill Cleere
±
One time Poppa was so drunk he pissed in Baby Dodds kick drum, thinking
it was a urinal.
Bill Cleere
"ą" <h0plib...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:41357DDE...@hotmail.com...
Big brother Johnny Dodds shoved a reed from his clarinet up
Poppa's ass.
±
Which gave new meaning to the Alligator Hop - poor Poppa!