| StoreTags: beginning again
Author: Tripnik on November 25 2006 Viewed 5055 times. 15 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: room, monty, astroid, Zanf, reehc, implexgrace, papergoose, ignatius, license, cbit, Taxis, 11t1, nagrom, Artsigreg, jbones
-->
This seems to be a common thing to talk about on here, but for the first time I personally feel like I'm confronting it full on. I've spent so much time trying to learn everything I can about anything sound related, and yet, I feel like somewhere along the lines I've lost sight of what the original "goal" was. I'm not talking about a goal as some sort of end, but more like that unattainable carrot you dangle in front of yourself to keep you moving. I know this goal has nothing to do with technical cock-rockery (which, unfortunately, is easy to get caught up in), but what do you do when you feel like you might have buried that other indescribable 'x' factor?
I need to strip away the layers until I'm completely vulnerable, forget about any sort of measurement of success, and put on the white belt. Easier said than done. Apologies for the somewhat directionless ramblings, but I guess my question is this:
How do you stop analyzing and deconstructing everything you hear?
How do you stop worrying about trying to "get things out there (to share with interesting people more so than any bullshit glamor)" and playing more shows, etc, without giving up on your dreams of getting your music out there and playing more shows?
And not to dredge up a tired binary, but how do you reconcile the intellectual with the emotional without giving complete preference to either side?
I know there are artists who do all of these things and more (or at least we think they do), and for all you philosophical wankers, I know that everything is everything which is nothing and there is no division between emotional/intellectual blah blah blah... I'm more or less looking for things you do when you're trying to rediscover your roots, but you've forgotten where those roots are. | |
Comments
11/30/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
flies
nagrom said: "kind of like physics in the 1800's.
i say this because there are few absolutes. we don't really know what's going on."
As a point of historical interest....
Maxwell's equations date from from the 19th C and are still valid, even on the quantum and relativistic scales. Also, thermodynamics has certainly advanced a lot since then, but the differential equations they worked out back in the day are still true, and in fact einstein said that his theories might have to change as experiments find new data, but thermodynamics would stand forever.
11/30/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Tripnik
PAWEL said: "if you complain to much you;ll become a chick"
how do you know I'm not already one?
11/30/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
jdg
Tripnik said: " PAWEL said: "if you complain to much you;ll become a chick"
how do you know I'm not already one?"
prowal says it like its a bad thing.
12/01/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
kidko
thanks for the book suggestion, flies. Sounds radical
12/01/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
nagrom
flies said: " nagrom said: "like string theory in a way."
except for the whole testable hypothesis thing. I have to say that i think you're way off base. (not about string theory tho, which has no testable hypotheses)
Your criticism are valid with respect to jung or freud or lacan (who is just a total jackass), but modern psychology is basically reacting against that kind of thinking by going really hard in the other way. Popular psychology tends to be BS, but, for example this book link is completely based on actual data taken from hundreds (thousands?) of people across continents. Great book, btw."
Just because it's taken from data doesn't mean it's science.
Everything in psychology is inherently biased because you interface with people through written communication (which is inherently biased). And you can't say "oh, well this group of people responded like this, therefore all groups of people respond like this" There are just too many variables.
There are few laws in psychology, if any.
I don't want to get into a semantic argument here... it may very well qualify as a science, but not in the way that physics, chemistry, or biology is a science.
It's more like economics.
12/01/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
flies
nagrom said: "Just because it's taken from data doesn't mean it's science.
Everything in psychology is inherently biased because you interface with people through written communication (which is inherently biased). And you can't say "oh, well this group of people responded like this, therefore all groups of people respond like this" There are just too many variables.
There are few laws in psychology, if any.
I don't want to get into a semantic argument here... it may very well qualify as a science, but not in the way that physics, chemistry, or biology is a science.
It's more like economics."
this all makes sense to me. Like i say, the data taken for that particular book is rather wide reaching, meaning that the 'particular group' for that study was really huge and included people from around the world (primarily developed countries) in basically all socioeconomic brackets. As far as the data being non-objective, this is more of a problem in psychology than other sciences but in other sciences, notably quantum physics, the question of the means of taking data is quite relevant and the researchers take it into account when publishing their findings.
some of economics is bunk, some of physics is bunk. The relevant questino isn't the semantic probelm 'which is scientific' per se, it's a questino of which makes reliable predictions. in much of psychology, as in economics and thermal physics or chemistry, the laws describe aggregate behaviour, and can be quite accurate when you look at things in the scale of hundreds of people. I'm not sure how much you know about economics, but it is in fact a very well developed field of inquiry with many accurate numerical laws and predictions.
generalizing based on experiment and observation is pretty much the definition of the scientific method. the difference between psychology and chemistry isn't that one uses the scientific method and therefore can produce exact laws, its that in psychology the subject matter does not exhibit quantitatively predictable behavior, so we wouldn't expect the research to produce equations. Psychiatry does produce drugs that are quite effective, and has produced a large taxonomy of human pathology with corresponding recommendations for treatment. the fact that the recommendations don't work in every case does mean that it's not scientific, does it?
in any case, it's got limits.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
