dylan thomas – ‘do not go gentle into that good night’

what i say:

i read this poem last night at steel city coffee house, and i wasn’t dissatisfied with it.  almost everyone has heard at least part of one line from this poem at some time or another, even if you don’t realize it.

why it’s neat:

this poem was written by the welsh poet mr. dylan thomas as an elegy for his dying father.  it’s rather moving, and the rhythm, while quite unusual, feels almost mournful.  it denies any attempt to read it well at the same time as reading it quickly, so you have to take your time for it to really sound good.  it’s also a villanelle, giving it a strict structure, straining strident verse with terse, not worse, first and second rhymes.  check it out.  for your consideration, here are two interpretations of the poem, by anthony hopkins and rodney dangerfield.

-e.t.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 

grizzly bear – ‘central and remote’

what i say:

i first got introduced to this band thanks to a certain intellectual-rebellious type that happens to be my best friend.  he directed me to their album ‘veckatimest‘ which is very, very, very good.  i also recommend it.  this song, however, i first heard after i’d watched ‘fullmetal alchemist: brotherhood‘, something else that kicks huge, huge amounts of ass.  the reasoning for this was the name, as central is the name of one of the key areas in that show.  remote, then, is presumably somewhere else in amestris, perhaps fort briggs.

why it’s neat:

this is another one of those songs that is profoundly excellent at fashioning an aural landscape.  there’s something grand about the sweeping development to it (in this it reminds me somehow of rachmaninov, or other russian classical music), and there is of course one part where it just opens up and it feels like you’ve just leapt off of the edge of a mountain, wings of wax keeping you skyborne as you gaze over a vast countryside of plains, hills, forests, and rivers.  you’ll know it when you hear it.

there exists a really weird video for it on youtube, but the quality isn’t that great, so i featured this one instead.  i don’t know what the video represents in detail, i have to watch it a few more times.  honestly, i really don’t even know yet if the song “means” anything at all, but i definitely enjoy it.  a lot.  so dig in.

-e.t.

will smith – ‘inspirational words of wisdom’

what i say:

heyo, happy sunday all!  it’s a nice day out there, and i just came back from the coffee shop.  dig it.  there’s a lot of stuff going on, and right now i’m considering including not only poetry, but some of my short stories.  not really sure it would fit the blog format, but we’ll see how it’s going.  i stumbled on this video via facebook, and i was quite pleasantly surprised by how cogently and pointedly he speaks on the subject.

why it’s neat:

specifically, what i’m getting at here is that will smith is a man with the certainty of his convictions.  this is something that’s different from certainty of knowledge.  the former is good, and the latter is folly.  allow me to explain how:

certainty of knowledge – this is when you’re certain, absolutely certain, that something is one way.  in your mind, it simply is that way.  this will persist in the face of new information, new ideas that contradict your knowledge.  now, at that point, you either must bend your certainty and open the way to overweening self-doubt, or deny the truth in favor of your preference.  neither of these are good choices, so for your satisfaction, it’s best simply to avoid certainty of knowledge.  be confident about what you know, but be open to fuller truth.

certainty of conviction – this is when you’re certain, absolutely certain, that some general concept should be upheld.  these are personality traits that require work to maintain, like candor, understanding, sensitivity, and growing.  these may change over time, but there is no information that can challenge these views.  there are opposing viewpoints, and arguments that can be made about these views, but ultimately, what you believe, deep down, is not knowledge, but rather a way of living.  find your particular way of living, and express that as fully, completely, and confidently as possible.  you won’t regret it.

the video itself is inspirational; i don’t share all of his convictions, but his outlook, his attitude are noble in a way that i deeply respect.  his way is not my own, but his way is his, and this makes him my brother in spirit.  enjoy.

-e.t.

george carlin – ‘save the planet’

what i say:

is not much at all.  he does a pretty good job at this.

why it’s neat:

what a ferocious perspective!

-e.t.

the books – ‘an animated description of mr. maps’

what i say:

the books two posts in a row?!?!  mon dieu, rien à faire…

why it’s neat:

this song is of a different nature than the last one i gave you from these distinctive northeastern fellows.  incorporating more of that aleatoric stuff i was talking about, this one is a bit more, hmm, intelligible to the uninitiated.  it’s fun to listen to, yes, but it’s also invigorating.  they heavily describe a noble soul whose very spirit dances in any action and defies authority beyond his self.  downright inspiring!

-e.t.

the books – ‘chain of missing links’

what i say:

motion, slow and rhythmic.  it’s a tuesday night, so act like it.

why it’s neat:

the books practice found sound.  this is sound pulled from other recordings, locations, times…  it’s very cool.  they seem to be featuring it less prominently and including more intentional sound in their music anymore…  but they’re quite good.  quite good indeed.  so i permit this, and enjoy their results.  subsume into this song with me.

-e.t.

mumbai mafia – ‘robo singh’

what i say:

new day, old format!  jittery off some coffee and some sweet bhangra dubstep, and i feel like sharing!  at any rate, here’s something pretty nifty that’ll drive you forward.  great music for working out or any other activity that demands a rhythm to drive you forward.

why it’s neat:

well, it’s probably not the best thing in the world.  but it’s definitely interesting and entertaining, an easy ride, something that hang on to.  i’m completely unfamiliar with the source material, so i don’t know how much work was done on it, how many disparate elements converged to make this, but it’s definitely got the touch of technology.  i look forward to more from such people, and also to more world-varied musics being adapted into dubstepness.  it’s just fun.

-e.t.

some ramblings

today i started reading ‘genealogy of morals’ by friedrich nietzsche.  i know, it’s bad form to read part of a book and IMMEDIATELY go speaking like some expert.  but i’m ok with that.

i’ve gotten some second-hand familiarity with nietzsche’s works, philosophy, and notions, as well as reading a few other bits of his writings.  i’d like to engage in just a small bit of rambling that i think you’ll find interesting.

what nietzsche was speaking about was the etymological origin of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.  these, he pointed out, were derived in many languages from the distinction between the ‘noble’ or ‘lordly’ and the ‘common’ or ‘plebian’.  as a result, he posited quite reasonably that good things originally were those that were indicative of a higher class person, someone with a more refined sensibility and what we would call a righteous or firm moral compass.  honesty, candor, and worked-for-strength were all parts of these.

this immediately set me to recall conversations i’ve had with friends on similar subjects.  there is definitely something alluring about associating good in the moral sense with that which i call good in the aesthetic sense, or in a sense of utility.  so i generally agree.  this, then, summoned my earlier contemplation (again, formed by other thinkers, such as ezra pound, karl marx, adam smith, and dante alighieri, and conversation with friends) on the notion of money as compared to capital and the role of both of those within wealth.  my earlier contemplation had led to this facebook status:

the difference between capital and property, in absurd simplicity? capital is what gets you what you want, property is the stuff you want

the idea behind this is pretty simple.  is it something that can get you something else that you want?  if so, then it’s capital.  your labor and talents are a good example of this.  you play a song for someone, or flip burgers for an hour, and they pay you for your effort.  you didn’t lose anything by doing this, but now you’ve gotten something else that you wanted, whether it was a cup of soup from the stranger who wanted to hear your song, or money from your employer.  money itself definitely fits within capital, as it’s never the thing that you want (well, i’ll be honest.  it’s the thing that broken souls want), but it can almost always be used to get what you want, because it is the representation of genuine capital.

this is a point that i failed to articulate in my status above – capital can be further broken down into what i eventually termed ‘pure capital’ and ‘derivative capital’ – this i’ll explain shortly.

at any rate, property is stuff you want.  if it’s something that someone else wants, it can also be capital, but basically if you don’t want something, you’d just as easily throw it away or give it away, so it’s not property.

after reading nietzsche, it dawned on me that i really did want to explore this further, because while there’s something attractive and inspiring about the creation of vast qualities of wealth, there’s something disgusting and repulsive about amassing vast quantities of money.  finally, with the inclusion of ‘possessors’ as an origin for the word ‘good’, reemphasizing it’s quite virtuous to be able to generate wealth – the act of creation is as close to godhood as we mortals can get – alongside the inclusion of ‘dishonest’ as an origin for the word ‘bad’, it brought again to mind that while money can be generated and expanded without any creation, true increase of wealth is always through creation.  that then served as union for the various ideas that usury is unconscionable, dishonesty or dissonance with truth is a negative, and creation is a positive.  basically, we’re now seeing that money from money is no measure of virtue.

i want to take a moment and defend the existence of two vocations that seem to be damned within this upcoming line of thinking: bankers and merchants.  bankers may still be good by their addition of pure capital – the assiduous tending of and distribution of money in such a way that enhances and facilitates the act of creation.  this in itself is a creation, and this is the purpose of banking.  any other purpose is a perversion, and is usury.  merchants may still be good by their addition of pure capital – the movement of capital to a place where it is needed from a place where it is not, and as such facilitating the act of creation.  as with banking, this is the sole purpose of merchants and traders.  any other purpose is a perversion, and is extortion.

with that in mind, i released the following set of facebook updates:

never shall we let enter into questions of morality the monstrosity of money: is it not just as easy, if not easier, for an immoral man to generate fabulous wealth as it is for a righteous man? to forget this basic truth makes of the stable and steadying arm of justice the dangling ganglia of the usurer.

that is not to say, however, that those with wealth are immoral, nor is it to deny the correlation of pure capital with virtue. pure capital is the ability to create wealth, and this is more often found in greater quantities in the good.derivative capital is that which remains capital, but has been exchanged for.

money, in this instance, is derivative capital, while labor, skill, and talent are pure capital. one may become fabulously wealthy without an ounce of pure capital by trading in its derivative, back and forth, until at long last one may imitate the virtue of their betters by fabricating the most elegant – and hollow – environments.

to tell the difference, take a wealthy man and cast him in a wilderness. if he survives and prospers, his wealth, at least in part, comes from his virtue and his pure capital. if he flounders and dies, stranded without shelter, shade, or sustenance, then his wealth was derivative and he commanded no more right to it than the man who claims the first “i agree” has to the original idea he approves.

so that’s what’s on my brain for now.  i think this is helping me realize why i’m not the young little communist-socialist i was even five years ago.

-e.t.

christopher john – ‘bent-over coffin’

what i say:

ok, this one i wrote a little quickly.  it was intended to be an exercise in terza rima, but it worked well enough that i decided to keep it as a poem.  it’s kind of obviously the thoughts of a middle class american to his homeless counterpart.  maybe a little preachy and rough at points, but it feels kind of fun.

here it is!

If you’re looking for solace, you won’t find it here!
I’ve got problems my own looming over that hill
And I’m taxed beyond measure – my God is it dear!

Gotta keep my head down, it’s a matter of will.
When I see your privation, I’ll just look away.
When I see your privation…  it’s making me ill.

Don’t look in my eyes!  Your troubles ain’t mine, they’re yours to pay.
I don’t know your story and I’ll stay in the dark.
You’re troubles ain’t mine, and ‘ain’t mine’ they’ll stay.

I’ll keep my home in debt while you keep yours in the park.
There’s giants above us whose wicked smiles are sly;
The floodwater’s rising but no room on the ark.

I’ll gorge on the slop that they drop in my sty
I’ll stay down on my knees, can’t stand up to my fear,
And a bent-over coffin’s where I’ll say my goodbye.

radiohead f. beyonce – ‘lotus flower (video mashup)’

what i say:

times are hard out there, so i’m told.  there’s a lot of political stuff that i want to be saying, but…  not yet.  i’ll get there.  in the meantime, i still need to make sure you have something to keep busy with.

why it’s neat:

this is an interesting video.  it was based off of setting thom yorke’s dancing for radiohead’s video for ‘lotus flower’ being set to beyonce’s ‘single ladies’ and generating a response in the opposite direction.  for my money, this is much better than the thing that caused it to be made, and it doesn’t help that beyonce is a sexy, sexy woman.  enjoy.

-e.t.