all things irie

entertainment

2010-12-14T20:15:00.002-07:00

By ideas I don't necessarily mean anything philosophical or academic, just stuff I think about from time to time. And one of these is entertainment. Here's why I think about it.

I typically get home around 7pm, eat some food and watch TV. I like to watch some Seinfeld, then I usually see what else is on. I don't have regular programs I watch, but I do like to see what movies are on. I can usually find something, even if it's "Scrooged" (the one with Bill Murray) that I just saw two weeks ago. Or if it's not a movie, then maybe some sports. In other words, I'll watch TV for about 3 hours then head up to my room around 10:30. Then I'll get on my computer for a little bit. Even though I don't watch other programs or youtube videos on my computer, it still feels like idle time. I contrast this with the days when I would read for an hour or two, which I find much more worth while than TV watching.

Now although I don't think entertainment is in itself a bad thing, it still seems like one of those things that should only be taken in in small amounts. This is to say nothing of the quality of entertainment, which is a whole separate issue. But how much entertainment is too much? I'm not looking for a number, but here is how I know that I get too much.

I have noticed that over the last few months my mind is less settled. I usually feel like I need to have something occupy my mind, and so I habitually turn on my ipod, TV, or computer. I almost always have a song in my head, usually one I listened to that day, which makes it harder to think clearly, focus, and relax. Point being, the stimulation that comes from entertainment does not seem to end when I turn the thing off. It stays with me when I don't want it to, but I still feel like I need more. I know I'm not the only one this happens to. I've observed it in others and heard it talked about on NPR.

So how much entertainment is too much? There are other questions that would need to be answered first, like What is the purpose of entertainment? What kind of quality of life and mind does it lead to? What kind of quality of life should we seek? Hmmm. I won't get into these here. But I'll be thinking about them during the next commercial break.

more ideas

2010-12-12T11:52:00.003-07:00

(If you haven't read the previous post, do so.)

After thinking about this for less than 24 hours, I've decided that I'll go ahead and choose to think about more ideas rather than just one or two. This is partly because I don't think I could narrow it down, but because this is what has happened to me lately, and I don't like it. All I've been thinking about over the past 6 months is getting a job, what I'm gonna watch on TV, and athletics. I got the job taken care of, so I'll take a break from that, and just think about the job itself instead. I watch more TV than is healthy for me, so I should ease up on that. And I've realized I like sports and athletics, so I'll stay with that too.

So now that I've decided on more ideas, I need to figure out what they are. Hopefully these will be the subjects of future blog posts.

ideas

2010-12-11T20:26:00.002-07:00

It's been a year and a half since my last blog post, and so I'm due for more. I just don't know what to post on, especially since I'm out of school now and don't think about as much stuff as I used to. But I landed a job as an adjunct faculty at a community college, teaching history. So I'll start thinking about important things soon.

So check back on me every now and then or pass on some ideas. Although sometimes I think we have too many of those. I wish I could strip it down to just a couple. That's a lot less worrying. Maybe that will be my next post. If I could think about only a couple things, what would they be? What would yours be? (I'm not just saying that, I really would like to know.) Or maybe I'll discover that the more the merrier.

read this America!

2009-06-23T17:50:00.002-06:00

This post has been a long time in the making, but there will not be much to it. Its purpose is to give you a taste of the best book ever written about America. The book is Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville. I like a lot of the books that I’ve read but I don’t necessarily think that every one of them is essential reading for everybody, even though most of them are. But this book, on the other hand, I consider essential reading for every American or anybody interested in American politics and society.

Here is a bit about it. Tocqueville was a Frenchman who came over to visit America in 1830 for about 9 months when he was only about 25. He traveled around, met a lot of people and took a lot of notes. It wasn’t until about 5 years later that he published the book, in French, in two separate volumes. About his feeling the need to write this book he says:

“The entire book you are going to read was written under the pressure of a sort of religious terror in the author’s soul, produced by the sight of this irresistible revolution that for so many centuries has marched over all obstacles, and that one sees still advancing today amid the ruins it has made.”

A common idea that runs throughout the book is equality. He sees it as the major influence in everything that takes place in America. I will quote the first and last paragraph of the book so that you can get a taste.

First paragraph: “Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck my eye more vividly than the equality of conditions. I discovered without difficulty the enormous influence that this primary fact exerts on the course of society; it gives a certain direction to public spirit, a certain turn to the laws, new maxims to those who govern, and particular habits to the governed.”

Last paragraph: “Nations of our day cannot have it that conditions within them are not equal; but it depends on them whether equality leads them to servitude or freedom, to enlightenment or barbarism, to prosperity or misery.”

The book is full of things like this, where he provides you with insights that will make you understand and appreciate America, and be scared for it at the same time. I believe that America would be a lot better off if people did not watch or listen to those TV and radio political opinionators (and this includes all of them, no exceptions), and spent that half hour every day reading some Tocqueville. Just read his introduction and you’ll know what I’m talking about.

Now a note on translations: There is an abridged version published by Signet Classic. I read it a couple years ago and felt like I got a lot out of it. If however, you read the unabridged version you will have yourself a big book but will also find that there is hardly a paragraph that is not worth reading. I have the one published by Univ. of Chicago Press and I like it. I hope the book gets read because you can’t depend on any school having you read it for class, unless you go to St. John’s College.

Rousseau and equality

2009-04-29T19:47:00.004-06:00

I recently read Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, also known as the Second Discourse. The title says what the book is about. He talks about how he thinks it is possible that man did or could have developed, starting from Savage Man until we get to the stage we are at now, which is Civilized Man. I want to say much, but I do want to quote one part of it.

"I conceive of two sorts of inequality in the human Species; one which I call natural or Physical, because it is established by Nature, and which consists in the differences in age, health, strengths of Body, and qualities of Mind, or of Soul; The other, which may be called moral, or political inequality, because it depends on a sort of convention, and is established, or at least authorized by Men's consent. It consists in the different Privileges which some enjoy to the prejudice of the others, such as to be more wealthy, more honored, more Powerful than they, or even to get themselves obeyed by them."

In other words, the first inequality is built into Nature, the second one we create. According to Rousseau, civilized man and all his progress and perceived needs creates more and more inequality among men. I think there is a lot of truth to this. But here's the thing with equality--we never talk about why it is important. Maybe equality is also something that civilized man has made up. It might be completely overrated. I don't think that it is overrated nor do I think that man has made it up, but I still want to hear the reasons why equality is good for mankind and what it should look like, not just what inequality looks like. That's all I got.

peace or property

2009-04-04T21:10:00.001-06:00

In my classes I’ve recently been reading Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan and John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. They both talk about where government comes from, that is, how it comes about, and what it’s for. They both agree on how we get government, but not on the purpose of government. Hobbes says that the government’s purpose is to keep peace among its people, and Locke says that government’s purpose is to protect the property of its people. Here’s how it goes:

They both start out by describing the State of Nature that man was, or would be in, without government. In this State of Nature there are no laws, every man is at war with every man, and every man acts as his own judge and prosecutor. Such a state is not desirable since there is continual war, no one trusts anyone, and everyone lives in constant fear of his own life and property being taken.

Hobbes says that man does not want to live in a state of war and so he makes a covenant with his fellowman to form a government that will make laws and establish and maintain peace. This government, which can reside in one person or an assembly, has the right to do what it sees fit in order to keep peace. It can and will, according to Hobbes, do such things as determine what books are to be read and the possible distribution of property. This sounds like communism to us, but to Hobbes it is what the people want, which is to do what is necessary to keep them out of a state of war. It is helps to know that Hobbes wrote this after the English Civil War, which, like our own civil war, was a horrible thing to have happen. It is understandable that anyone who lived through such a war would want to do what is necessary to prevent all wars, especially civil ones.

Locke, on the other hand, believes that the purpose of government is to protect man’s life, liberty, and estate, all of which he simply calls our property. Locke says that in the State of Nature man is at war with every man because what each man is concerned about is preserving his property, and this is why he enters into a political society and agrees to government. Government’s purpose is, therefore, to protect a man’s property and man gives the government the right to do what it needs to in order to bring about this end. If you read Locke it will sound a lot like our own government, and that is probably because our Founders liked him.

With all that as a brief summary, which would you choose? Would you rather your government have as its known purpose to be to keep peace or protect property? Although I’m not so sure the two need to be mutually exclusive, I’m sure most of us would choose property. What is interesting, however, is that in times of war we usually choose peace over property. It seemed like some liberties were given up, or taken away, after 9/11, and in other periods of war. I don’t know whether this is right or even necessary, although it might be. But the point is that it happens.

Anyway, I mostly just wanted to talk about the books, both of them worth the read. The last bit was just a little modern observation and application. Class dismissed.

intellectual happiness

2009-03-20T20:26:00.001-06:00

I read Aristotle’s The Ethics a few weeks ago and just wrote a paper on a small part of it. I chose as my topic something he talks about in the very end about happiness. He says that the most perfect form of happiness comes from contemplation, and that happiness that comes from moral goodness is happiness only in a secondary degree.

This seemed strange to me, partly as an ending to the book, because the whole thing is pretty much about moral goodness and developing moral virtues, as opposed to intellectual virtues. (Humans, by the way, have these two kinds of virtues.) But also because it seems that the greatest happiness that all if not most people experience comes from the relationships we have. But the exercising of our intellectual virtues gives us the more perfect happiness because it is the higher of the two kinds of virtues. Moral virtue is tied up with our emotions, something the animals have as well. And, he says, when we exercise our intellectual virtue we are using the part of us that is divine, and tapping into that which is divine within us and without us.

I can completely see how all this is so from a logical perspective. As I said, however, I wonder whether a person who uses their intellectual virtues, even to a great degree, can still feel happy without fulfilling relationships, which fall under aspects of moral goodness and virtue. There are some parts, however, where Aristotle says, or perhaps implies, that a proper exercise of our intellectual virtues will lead to the exercising of our moral virtues. And, he says, the proper use of the intellect is to arrive at truth. And truth and knowledge have a way of changing our behavior and lifting us up. So the exercising of intellectual virtue may lead to the exercising and development of our moral virtues, although this can, for most of us, take a very long time. I don’t have it all figured out, so I’ll stop there and end with a quote from Plato’s Socrates, which comes from the Apology.

“… and if I say again that the greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue, and all that concerning which you hear me examining myself and others, and that the life which is unexamined is not worth living – that you are still less likely to believe. And yet what I say is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you.”

Please feel free to blog up any comments or questions, even and especially disagreements. All I ask for is civility.

one man or the masses

2009-03-11T15:08:00.001-06:00

I’ve been reading Charles Dickens’s A Tale of Two Cities lately. I’m not going to offer a critique of the book, but he does talk about mob rule since it has to do with the French Revolution. This got me thinking about the will of the masses and whether or not what they want is what is best.

In one of my classes the question got brought up about if we would rather have lawmaking be entrusted to a single wise ruler or to the masses. I would rather have a single wise ruler run things because he would (assuming that he stays wise and uncorrupted) base his decisions on reason and have the best interests of the people (i.e. the common good) in mind, whereas the decisions of the masses will often be based on passions and individual interest. This does not mean that masses don’t make good decisions for themselves as a whole, but sometimes they don’t. Passions/emotions are based on our desires of the moment, and they want to be satisfied instantly and cloud out consequences and right action. Sometimes, however, these desires do lead to something that is good, but I’m not sure we are aware of that in the moment.

This is one of the reasons why guys like Plato and Aristotle do not like democracies. The people never really know what they want and go from one thing to another, usually without realizing it. But if you read Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, you can see that American democracy has a lot of good things going for it. And I also believe that people should be held responsible for their choices, and a democracy helps do this. So in the end I guess I come out in favor of the masses, just not mobs.

Erasmus speaks for Peace

2009-03-06T15:32:00.002-07:00

One of my latest readings was The Complaint of Peace by Erasmus. He wrote during the Reformation (early 1500’s). His most well known work is The Praise of Folly, also a good read. If anyone is interested in some good Christian thought, then read some of his stuff. Erasmus is very insightful, enjoyable to read, most of all concerned with getting to the heart of Christianity and bringing it out.

In The Complaint of Peace he starts by talking about where peace is not, then he gets into the real purpose of the text, which is to offer a few of his thoughts on war, why there is so much of it, and especially among Christians. So why is it that we go to war? Erasmus puts the question another way: “Why is it that among us war never takes a recess?”

There are probably a lot of reasons, but I want to offer a simple reason that I think underlines all other reasons that are given and can maybe help us understand them a little better, along with human nature itself. It is that war is easy and peace is hard. Erasmus says “nothing is more conducive to peace than a sincere desire that comes from the heart.” This is not only a difficult thing to have and develop, but also to maintain. About war he says, “Nothing is easier to defeat a group that is divided amongst itself.”

War is always a simple answer and we can give any number of reasons for doing it. Peace, on the other hand, takes a lot of hard work, integrity, courage, and risk. You can also say the same thing about war, and sometimes it’s true, but a lot of times we say this to convince ourselves and others that we are doing a good thing. So don’t be fooled by warmongering, because “all this madness we cloak with fine-sounding terms.”

the polis perfects the man

2009-03-03T18:01:00.004-07:00

First off, I have something of a goal of putting up a post for every book I read in school. I'm definitely not trying to sum up the book, just put up a brief thought. Last post I hit you with some Plato, this time with some Aristotle, Politics. Here goes.

The Greek word for "city" is "polis," but this word has much more meaning to what a city is than our English word does. A polis was more like a place, not too big, not too small, completely self-sufficient, where people would interact (something that doesn't happen in modern cities) on several levels, involving themselves in civic affairs and engaging in a common social life. And the purpose of the city is "the good life," and lots of things go on in a city to help make the good life that other instutions cannot do on their own. Aristotle also says that city is prior in nature to the individual and the household. This means something to the effect that the city is like a body and man and the household are part of it and help make it function, and while doing so, man is thus fulfilling his potential. He also says that "Man, when perfected, is the best of animals; but if he is isolated from law and justice he is the worst of all."

My question is, What is it about a city and man within the city that helps perfect him? One thing he says is that justice is a virtue of the city, and since man needs it to be perfected, he only gets it in the city. He also says that "man is furnished from birth with weapons which are intended to serve the purposes of wisdom and goodness." It might be that these weapons that we have, reason and language being the main ones, are used to the fullest in the city.

All of this sounded more convincing when I first thought it out a week ago, but I think there is something to it. If you got something to say on this, blog it up.

Socrates Educates the Soul

2009-02-17T16:59:00.002-07:00

I recently finished reading Plato’s The Republic for one of my classes. There’s a lot of stuff that can be said about this book, but I’ll just touch on one thing.

Most people are familiar with Plato’s Cave, which comes out of this book, but in the parts before and after the cave Socrates is talking about educating and learning the truth. Socrates says that the truth is already in each of us and that all we need to do is turn the soul around to the truth. Truth, according to guys like Socrates and Aristotle, is a term synonymous with knowledge. Turning the soul around means that we turn our minds in different ways to properly see the truth. Socrates does this by asking a lot of questions because this way he gets people to think about things from different angles, and thus helps to turn their souls around until they are able to see the truth.

Interesting stuff. I don’t know if I’m ready to say that the truth is already in all of us because I think it may also be possible that truth/knowledge arrive at our soul, or mind if you like that word better, from outside of us. I think it may be both. But I do like the bit about turning our souls to the truth. This is why teachers, good teachers who help their students arrive at truth and knowledge and not to just establish opinions (Socrates also has something to say about that) can be highly influential to their students. I don’t just mean schoolteachers either, I mean anyone who teaches, which is probably everybody, even ourselves to ourselves.

So there you go, just a taste of what The Republic offers. If you’ve never read it, it’s not what you think. It’s better. The whole book, in fact, is about educating the soul.

music for the sake of music: the official post

2008-09-06T17:38:00.003-06:00

Alright, so I wasn't totally aware that I had so many people waiting for me to put up a new post, but now here it is.

My thoughts on this came from listening to the latest Coldplay album and feeling like they were really trying a little too hard on the whole thing and like they were trying to convince me of something. It makes for a good listen, but I from what I understand, Coldplay is trying to make themselves into one of the greatest rock bands and set themselves up alongside U2. (And, by the way, one of the producers on this album is one of U2's producers.) If their goal is to be one of the great rock bands, then they are going to try and create the sound that they think a great rock band will have. Anyone should know that that is, first of all, an impossible task since the great rock bands, like The Clash, did not make music because they cared about what their status was as a rock band, they just made the music that they wanted to make. Radiohead is the same way. Music should be done for its own sake and not for the sake of expecting something more.

Let me talk about happiness to try and prove my point in a different way. We do a lot of things to make ourselves happy, but it usually doesn't work because we tend to expect a certain reward after we have done, or acquire, a certain thing. The movie Groundhog Day is a pretty good example of this. Bill Murray's character is always doing things because he is trying to get something, like his female producer. And so he is never genuine, she can't stand him, and he is always miserable because he always fails. But in the end he does not care about that and he just figures that he may as well live his life and do things because they are good to do and because he enjoys them. And so eventually he helps people because it's good to do and he learns to play the piano because he just felt like it and he likes it. So what happens even though he didn't plan for or expect it to happen? Everyone loves him, he likes himself, and he gets the girl.

My last example on this is somewhat personal but I know I'm not the only one who is like this, at least from time to time. It is that I'm sure a lot of single Mormons go to church because they want to find someone to date, which is understandable since they go to wards that are set up for that purpose. But I don't really think that the church was set up for that purpose. And so when they go to church expecting or hoping to find someone to date, they will often be let down not only because they may not find that someone, but also because they will not be as focused on why they are really in church. If we're always doing things to get somewhere else then we're going to be let down an awful lot. I know this doesn't sound totally right, but sometimes it is just best to set aside our expectations, or at least the ones that lie beyond the thing itself.

So there you go, church for the sake of church, helping people for the sake of helping people, music for the sake of music, or as Einstein said, "Thinking for its own sake, like music."

music for the sake of music

2008-08-18T19:44:00.004-06:00

Hold on people, I'm rethinking this one. Check back later.

moby dick pt. 2

2008-02-04T18:35:00.000-07:00

This is my second post on this book, but you don't need to read the first to understand the second. My position is clear: I did not like the book. I'll be fair and honest and say that I liked the beginning a lot (mainly the preacher's sermon on Jonah and the whale), and I sort of liked the end. I think the reason why I liked the beginning and the end is because there was an actual story going on. I had no idea I was going to be reading about whales, every aspect of them. I know that there is supposed to be all kinds of symbolism throughout the book, but I didn't see it and Melville rarely points it out. I think I have realized that the only people who really rave about Moby Dick are academics. And why? Because they know what they are looking for. They study this stuff for a living and make sure that they are finding all kinds of meaning throughout, whether it is there or not. The common reader, on the other hand, is not as impressed. We read it and know that we should be getting more out of it, but we have no clue as to what other than that it is about a man who is obsessed with something that he doesn't need to be. And in his obsessive quest he brings everyone with him, with few people really realizing what is going on. That's a great lesson, but it doesn't have to be told through a whale. I do not doubt that this book has a lot of other great insights, but again, I can't find them. I am therefore convinced that this is one book that is considered a classic because academics have labeled it as such, not readers like you and I. So unless you know what you are looking for, I would not recommend reading Moby Dick, it won't take you long until you have to force yourself through it.

a christmas carol

2007-12-22T13:07:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading A Christmas Carol. It's a short read and my goal is to read it every year at this time. I started last year, so I'm doing okay so far. Everyone knows the story, but I'll give a bit of analysis through my eyes. You should know, however, that since I work at a therapeutic boarding school, I see things with therapeutic eyes now. I now tend to analyze people I know, movies I see, and books I read according to what I know about psychotherapy. So here's how I see Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol.

The beginning process of therapy, from what I've seen, tries to get the patient to remember. They need to remember and talk about as many of their past experiences as they can because their current behavior and attitude stems from those experiences. The patient has probably ignored these experiences for a long time because remembering them only brings up pain and forces them to confront situations that they have avoided for a long time. Remembering experiences also forces the patient to step outside of themselves and take more of an objective look at their life and how they have affected themselves and other people.

Now, you may have an idea about how this applies to Ebeneezer Scrooge, but let me get into it anyway. Scrooge is a very grumpy, selfish, cold individual and he accepts, along with everyone else, that that is just the way he is. And on a side note, let me say that this is actually a bad tendency that we have, which is that we see other people's poor behavior as something that is just a part of them. We don't try to understand why a person is how he/she is, we just accept it and move on, while they never move on, i.e. progress. So the question we need to ask about Scrooge is, Why is this man so heartless and distant from people? This man clearly had experiences that made him the way he is. When the Ghost of Christmas Past comes, Scrooge is shown some very painful memories. There are a couple that stick out to me. One is that we see Scrooge as this lonely boy who sits by himself reading and is even left all alone during the holidays when all the other boys get to go home. Is it any wonder that Scrooge dislikes Christmas when as a young child he was not able to celebrate it with his family? What does this kind of loneliness do to a child? The answer, I think, is clear. Scrooge is brought up to not trust people and does not value relationships, which leads to the other experience that is very telling about him. It is when his girlfriend from a long time back confronts him about his selfishness. She is actually very heartbroken and saddened because he not only chooses money over her, but also because this is not the way he was when they first started dating. In other words, Scrooge's selfish nature has not always been a part of him, which also means that he can change it. But what is most painful about this experience is that Scrooge has to watch it happen. He is now forced to confront his past and see the affect that his selfishness has had on his relationships, something that everybody needs and values even if they say or act otherwise. Our desire to change is usually highest when we see how we affect others, and this was the case with Scrooge. This is then the theme through the rest of the book as Scrooge sees how his negligence affects others, particularly Bob Cratchit and Tiny Tim. And then near the end when he sees that if he continues the way of life that he has lived, he will die and no one will give a kind thought to him and care much at all that he is dead. A painful thought for Scrooge.

My final thought about this comes from the last couple paragraphs in the book, and it is something that I don't think is portrayed in the movie versions. It is that Scrooge changes, people still laugh at him because of the way he is, but he pays them no mind and chooses to live a much happier life. My therapeutic thought about this is that the kids I work with are encouraged to find their core traits and develop them no matter what. In other words, people who we usually call fake are that way because they have certain character traits that they hide because they have probably had experiences that have made them feel that those traits are not acceptable and won't make them friends. So instead of being sensitive towards others and being looked on as weak, they put up a tough exterior that shows that they are a man, or at least what they think a man is. People that hide their core traits, however, are never happy because they are never good enough and they usually hurt their relationships. Scrooge, however, has, through some very painful memories, been forced to remember who he was before he put up a tough, selfish exterior that was meant to protect him from pain, but only brought him loneliness and misery. He finally decides to get rid of the old Scrooge and bring out his core traits, regardless of what people think of him.

Did that make sense? I'm not proofreading it, so I hope it did. You are, of course, more than welcome to blog about my blog. But either way, have a Merry Christmas.

new post, no post

2007-12-04T22:30:00.000-07:00

I haven't posted anything in a while, so this is just to let everyone know that I am thinking about doing it soon. So keep checking like I'm sure you do on your lunch breaks.

the road less traveled

2007-11-18T21:40:00.000-07:00

This book, by M. Scott Peck, is basically a psychology/psychiatry book that can be seen as a self-help book, but not really. To me it is a therapy book since I associate with a lot of things I see where I work. I read it and can see examples of what he talks about in some of the kids I work with and the therapists that work with them. I can also see how it works for me, but I will not disclose that on my blog. It is all just really sound insight on what we as humans need to live happy, developed, fulfilling lives. The subtitle, by the way, is "A new psychology of love, traditional values and spiritual growth."

The book is divided up into sections, the first one is about discipline. It basically says that if you want to have any kind of progress, any growth, any change at all in your life, then it will take discipline. There needs to be a conscious effort to make adjustments to your life. This can be in the form of changing habits, behavior, or beliefs. We have all been so highly influenced by our environments, but not all of these influences are healthy for us, but we usually don't realize this or even care about it until it affects us and our relationships. Another big part of the discipline aspect is to be honest. There's more to discipline than just making an effort to change, a lot of it has to do with being honest since we can only see the things we need to change when we are honest with ourselves. It is all good stuff. Now I am on the next section on love. He's started out talking about the lie of romantic love and "falling in love." His main point so far about love is that it is a choice, that it needs to involve action and freedom. But he starts the whole things with saying that we are usually only disciplined when we love, either ourselves or someone else. Think about that and blog a thought.

nightmares on wax

2007-11-10T22:23:00.000-07:00

I remember where I was the first time I heard Nightmares on Wax. It was in the summer of 2003. I was in Whitby, England, a small coastal town on the north-east. We were just hanging out it a little cafe where I was eating some smoked salmon. I just heard some sort of smoothed out hip-hop beats that could not escape my ears. I asked the girl who we were listening to, and in a lovely English accent, "Nightmares on Wax."

Nightmares on Wax (NOW) is what you call downbeat, or downtempo, it's all the same, it just depends who's talking. (Some people might even call it "trip-hop," but I don't like that term nor do I think it applies.) It is, as I said, smoothed out beats that can either help you relax or help you groove. NOW has been around since the early '90s and put out their fifth album a few months ago. They are a British group that only helps prove that some of the best stuff comes out of the Motherland, if you disagree then you have bad taste in music.

I won't detail the albums, but I will say that their first album, A Word of Science, is not that great at all. My favorites are their fourth album, Mind Elevation, the one I heard in the coffee shop, and their fifth album, In a Space Outta Sound. But then again, the others are worth getting as they also have some gems on there. Most of their tracks are instrumental but there will be a few on each album with some light singing or even an occasional rap. Sometimes there's a female vocalist, sometimes not. I like it all. So there you go, if you like hip-hop a little or a lot, and don't mind mostly instrumental stuff, then check out some Nightmares on Wax and have your mind elevated in a space outta sound. And, dear bloggers, novice and expert alike, your comments are welcome.

moby dick

2007-11-10T21:56:00.000-07:00

I have mixed feelings about this book. I started it back in June. I read it for a couple weeks, was loving it, but had to take a break to read some other stuff that came up. So now over the past month I have gotten back into it but only read it a couple times a week. I am only about a quarter of the way through so my comments have their limits. But here they are.

I loved the chapter nine, "The Sermon." It is about Jonah and the whale. I can't remember much else beyond that, but it had me. I was hooked (no pun intended, if that is one). I thought I was definitely going to label this one as a derek bitter favorite. But something happened, I'm not sure if it's me or Melville, but I am not as fascinated with it as I was at the start. I can't say what it is, so I won't make any uneducated guesses. I will, however, say that I don't quite understand all the metaphors, in which case the problem may lie with me. But then again, I did not grow up in Nantucket and I have certainly never been whale hunting, so how much am I expected to understand about the life of a harpooneer? But then again, Melville is trying awfully hard to bring the reader into the life of whale hunting and so maybe I should just be patient and wait and see if it is the life for me. I just finished the chapter where he describes for the reader the various kinds of whales and it wasn't as bad as I thought. I was worried that it would be like reading about the sewers in Les Miserables, which was actually quite painful, but Melville goes fairly easy on the reader, and so it really wasn't that bad. That's about all I have to say about The Whale for now, hopefully I can come up with some praise in a few hundred pages time. And, dear bloggers, novice and expert alike, your comments are welcome.

mr. mention

2007-11-10T00:53:00.000-07:00

If you didn't know, I am in a band. We are called Mr. Mention. We describe ourselves as rock/reggae. The reggae vibes are always there, some songs are just more rockin' than others. So as you can see, my first music blog is about my band. We just had a practice tonight and it went pretty well. We have a new song called "Water" and it is our very first love ballad. It's pretty cool. It starts out soft with sparse, light notes. Then we drop in with a nice reggae riddim, and boom, we amp it up and all of a sudden you are in a full blown love ballad. (I should add, so as to not be a poser, that I am not an expert on love ballads, but the guys say that's what it is, so that's what it is.)

Then we got rollin' on this other song called "Western Medicine." You guessed it, it's about prescription drugs. The guitarist, Cameron, has had about five friends die because of prescription drug overdoses, so he wanted to make a song about it, and it the singer/principal songwriter for Mr. Mention already had a hip-hop track from a while ago called "Western Medicine," and so of course he had the lyrics already to go. It's a good track. It can be considered, in a way, a classic roots reggae track since it is in the roots reggae style with political, anti-government (in this case the FDA) lyrics. So there it is, "don't take the pill."

That's just a little bit to get you interested in Mr. Mention. An aggressive reggae/rock style with a very passionate singer and then three other guys just hangin' out, playin' there instruments. You can check out the myspace if you'd like http://myspace.com/mistermention
You will find a few tracks to listen to along with rave reviews by our fans. Let me know what you think.

books and music

2007-11-10T00:42:00.001-07:00

Since this is my blog, I can obviously put whatever I want on here, and I am only interested in all things irie. I would write about my days, but I don't do that very well, and I have journals to prove it. I would write about politics, but I am very disinterested these days. I don't know what other people blog about--well, yes I do, they blog about the stuff I just said I don't want to blog about. The irie stuff I want to blog about is books and music. Here's why.

Books, I read them and I like them. I recently wrote a paper called "My Bosom Books" that more or less details my educational life which I attribute to books. So I will occasionally give some thoughts on my readings. Also, people sometimes ask what I am reading, and now I have a place to send them.

Music, I listen to it every day. A few years back I did a little experiment where I went without music for a week. I just wanted to see what it would be like. I came to the conclusion that music is good. Of course it is. But not that it is necessary and natural. Don't believe me? Just ask any culture that has ever existed (I think, I haven't checked on that). So I will also try to update you on the music I am listening to. I will try to give some sort of review, but you'll have to forgive me if they are not that good. In fact, you'll have to forgive me if everything I write is not that great. But I'm gonna give it a shot.