Hey there! I'm closing this place down and the migration of data to a new, improved website has started already, so keep in mind that anything you post from now is gonna be wiped! Will be back shortly with news. Cheers //LONDON
I appreciate Both. A nice Judas Priest song, a Lady Gaga hit or a Sex Pistols bitch slap always fits right.
Atmoshperic music is nice Aswell. Those that you mentioned are rather industrial Groups. Which is nice.
But "atmosphere" can be Added to most music. Whether it be heavy metal, black metal, pop or ambient.
If you find it as a problem that you can't appreciate normal music, Try to find bands that are doing the same kind of music But that doesn't have 9 minute long monotonic atmospheric songs.
I don't bother putting artists in terms of genres as I only find it limiting; it's the music I'm talking about. Therefore it does not matter who does the music I am listening to and therefore again I don't understand the difference between what you and I are describing.
Of course different songs can put you in different moods, but I've found out that the regular patterns more or less have it's borders; it does only fit THESE feelings, and I want to go outside that. Combining it with lyric in any form that stands free from the actual piece that is playing creates new entries into the states of your mind.
To concretize it; When just listening to what I have come to call regular music, you can see all the colours that you know, one for each emotion: Red for love, Black for hate/agony and so on. When you perform the above mentioned way of combining medias you suddenly see a new colour that you didn't know existed.
Music in its "regular" form does not seem to do anything with me anymore, like it did before. That's a rather sad insight, actually.
Elaborate! What is regular form?
Well, there seem to have Been noticeable changes in your taste the last year or so.
It seems to have gone less metal - more "Indie".
Well, the standard format with verse verse chorus verse and so on. You know, there's just one kind of lyrics and emotions that fits into that formula. I've lately been more drawn to "atmospheric" music - like Kraftwerk, Sällskapet, Stahlwerk 9, Wertham, Jacaszek and so on. May it sound pretentious, but if you combine that - or not - with reading different texts, it creates a special state of mind, just as it creates a different emotion if you pull one piece out of the equation.
Why does it have to be so hard .
That's what she said. )
mrs v. viper wrote:
Hehe nope, that name's not on my list!
I'm wondering if I should be hurt by the vehemence haha!
Hahaha I meant David for a name of my(?!) boy... otherwise I'm open for suggestions of any kind hähä hähä
Reading reviews might be the best thing ever if you want to get in a bad mood.
Your band doing good? Still have the t-shirt
Hello every one by the way! Long time no see.
Total new site, i like!
Haha cool. No I quitted ages ago! Welcum back yä
Well of course you've got a point, a translation is always some kind of interpretation of the original work. Although (especially for classics) there are often a bunch of translations around and by searching around for a bit you can often get the idea of which ones are good (= similar to the original) and those who are not.
Thanks for asking!
Well, since I'm studying literature now I don't have much time to read my "own stuff", but the last book I read privately if I may put it so was An Unwritten Slate by Steven Pinker.
Today I started reading both Platons Faidros and the original version of Dracula, both which I have to finish in a week. I've bought 24 books in total just for this semester and I probably gonna need a few more.
A theory that I've heard lately is also quite interesting.
We've often heard the question "How come no other animal became 'intelligent' like mankind", right? Well, this hypothesis says it because of that man has been born with both consciousness and denial. The chance of being born with one of those two is extremely small - see Vipers true statement that evolution needs randomness - and therefore the chance of being born with both of these two is extremely minimal.
There might be a... rat somewhere being born with denial, but this rat does of course not survive due to the fact that it just denies all threats and therefore gets eaten quite instantly.
There might also be a... cow born somewhere with consciousness, but this cow will therefore be so aware of for example the fact that he and everybody someday will die and therefore just lies screaming (or whatever cows do) in agony. There is too much in the world to be aware of all the time to be able to live in it.
Therefore, man has became successful. We are aware of a lot of things, but we can put aside - deny - the big questions in life most of the time, and therefore not go crazy.
It's an interesting little theory, although I've got to think about it more before I can stand behind it full out.
I've just started studying literature and I'd love to get peoples different opinions on books in general. What are you reading right now? Do you prefer biographies over fiction or even fact books like myself?
Well I'm quite split about this. I to love the feeling of a booklet in my hands and reading the lyrics while listening etc, but nevertheless it is quite old-fashion. A student like myself simply can't afford to buy records with todays pricing. I use Spotify a lot, it's a great service, even if artist doesn't earn much from it.
I think it's the business that need to accommodate to todays techniques and not the other way around. Surely it's a great challenge, but no-one profits from being retrograde; just look at other businesses throughout history.
Yep they're gone now
I've still got two ghost messages in my inbox
See, this is what I think is so fascinating about evolution psychology:
The scenario described above, or that a man that is born with a thumb can take food from a man without a thumb and therefore the man with thumbs can reproduce so that eventually all humans will have thumbs is common knowledge. Almost everyone knows this.
What isn't that commonly known is that man is also born with thinking patterns and emotions (read above). This means that ALL of our feelings has been to our advantage in the past (when talking about the past in this discussion, I almost always refer to the stone age). For example, envy could be good because it would drive the individual who carried that emotion to exceed the person he felt jealous about, and therefore achieve greater things which was good for the whole group (for example putting down a bigger animal).
Now, it gets more exciting when we talk about thinking patterns. We are constructed to see the world in a scale and in a way that fits us. To simplify it very much: We know red as a warning color. Think about it; do you think that stopping lights are red just out of coincidence? No, it is because we react on it as if it's something that we should look out for. All science is based on those patterns (which are more complicated of course but kind of hard to explain in a short post). We see the reality in a non-consciously subjective way, if I put it that way. Reality could be something else than what we actually see.
Actually, just knowing and believing in this theory could work as therapy. You often encounter people that says "Why can't I ever just be happy with what I got?". Because the human being is constructed to not feel that way, because feeling that way drives us to explore new places and better things all the time. It's really not a bad thing, even if we think about it as a bad feeling.
But if it is possible to Care more for yourself than others, why wouldn't it be possible to completely dismiss others?
If the earth is rotating around the sun, why wouldn't it be possible for the sun to rotate around the earth?
This is proven facts. Indeed, mankind has an consciousness that most animals don't - but this just applies to the theory. A human being can think about and consider if his life is worth anything to the group and base his decision of this. That doesn't change the pattern of HOW we think about it though.
It doesn't particularly set your relatives in first hand, but the evolution cares about the genes rather than the individual. That's just how it works and has been proved a lot of times.
Based on this, the genes have got a bigger chance of surviving if all of your relatives reproduce (which they have a bigger chance to do if they are feeling well) and therefore your instinct tells you to take care of your relatives.
(This reasoning has it's base in evolutionary psychology, which means that you are born with your feelings and thinking patterns. Of course the culture you're born into tells you what to apply your emotions on, but if you take one man from Russia and one from Africa and ask them to describe how they feel for example love or agony, they will explain nearly the same feeling - because it has been evolved over thousands of years; every feeling that we've got has been to our advantage in surviving and reproducing (putting our genes forward)).
It all makes sense, really. To focus on the suicide part; it was beneficial for the group if one individual sacrificed himself to save the group (where his family is a part), for instance to lead astray a threat instead of letting it kill the whole group. The suicidal individual feels that the group would be better of without him/her.
Jeez. If you are willing to take your own life why would you care about others?
Don't lie to yourself. The One you Care the most about is you. It is true. The human works that way.
So if you have problem. Be it existential, personal or that you are just done.
Of course suicide solves it.
This discussion now takes place here: http://playground.crashdiet.org/forum/d … -evolution
Previous relevant post has been moved there.