Those Back Eyes Roll Over White - Ecstasy & Performance

 I attended my first-ever dance conference as my wife signed our daughter up for NYCDA in Boston. 

My daughter was taught routines in tap, ballet, hip-hop, and jazz Saturday morning and then performed on the big stage Sunday morning. She had a lot of fun.

Saturday evening we went down to the big stage to watch some performances. Some really connected with me but the overarching theme to me was one of commitment. Mostly these were teens but it was clear that they cared deeply about the routines and put in serious time and commitment to performing these routines. Just thinking about the basic stuff my six year-old daughter learned is mind-numbing for me. But the performances of the older groups are very involved, intricate, and beautiful. I especially enjoyed a tap routine because the sound became another dimension of the performance for me. 

Another thing that came to mind was how, probably, so many of these performers began at a very early age and how building a foundation and gradually building over time seemingly makes the impossible, possible. As Stuart Kauffman says in At Home In The Universe, “Time is the hero of the plot.” Now of course, time isn’t the only hero, dancers must commit. But also, one thing I’ve experienced over my “performance” and musical life, however amateurish it may be, I often felt pulled, instead of pushing. Training and practicing wasn’t a bore or something to “just do;” I could see the forest for the trees and incorporated the future performance into the present practice or training. I think a lot of the dancers probably feel/felt pulled. Even though the art is difficult. 

And, somehow many roads lead back to Plato, I think many of these dancers are trying to achieve being the open channel that artists like Derek Trucks is when he performs; where the music seemingly plays him, not the other way round. Now of course it doesn’t fully work this way; we don’t appreciate automaton artists, but the years, decades or training and honing and performing sometimes permit those moments where the performer (dancer, guitarist, poet,...) can let the body take over and the mind isn’t permitted to muck things up (F#, turn coming up, focus!). 

In short, I think sometimes the performer is in a state of ecstasy. Sublime awareness if you like–where the (years, decades of) practice and the performance converge. 

Or as Quint says in Jaws, “Sometimes the shark, he wouldn’t go away, and those black eyes, roll over white.” Sometimes the desire to dance is too strong, sometimes the desire to perform too overwhelming, because we know ecstasy may be on the other side.

I fear my performing days may be over, but you can bet I’ll be holding out for some moments where my black eyes roll over white, and the music plays me.

God Can't Be Reconciled

 Via the NYT I came across this: 

Jürgen Moltmann, Theologian Who Confronted Auschwitz, Is Dead at 98

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/08/books/jurgen-moltmann-dead.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb

In which I discovered these:

Well, I recently finished my readings for the Brown German Studies Course: Postcatastrophic Narratives: Memory and Postmemory in German Literature after 1945, and I have some questions.

How does god suffer or mourn without a body? Moreover, if god could mourn and suffer, isn't this all he would do? Does god read the papers? It's a shit show out there of epic (dare I say biblical) proportions. If god had a body with a brain and a limbic system to process emotions, he wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Moltmann's god would be depressed and powerless. 

Moltmann, like others from WWII, is trying to process and reconcile god with the world. Different from Adorno ("Writing poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric.") who jettisons god, and different from Sebald who can't trust god or memory, tries to anthropomorphize god for a reconciliation but doesn't follow the logic through. 

Putting god in the play makes him a schlub like the rest of us. Putting god in Germany makes him accountable. Giving god a body renders him subject to depression at best and entropy at worst. 

God can't be reconciled. At all. Not with WWII and The Holocaust, not with natural selection, not with entropy. 

 

Ice Cream and Trane

I took two of my kids for ice cream yesterday and on the way home John Coltrane's My Favorite Things came on Sirius Radio. I said something akin to, "It really gets going on his second solo."

My eldest, who plays piano and viola game me an inquisitive look. 

So I decided to drive around so we could hear it - the song is around 13 minutes. 

My son got into listening, even to the point of humming parts of the solo after hearing a passage. 

AWESOME.

It gets better.

During COVID, I would often take the kids to nearby Goddard park just to get out of the house...but we did it so often it got to be a "Not Goddard again!" kinda thing.

I could think of nowhere else to drive so we could hear the tune so I drove to Goddard. The song was ending just as I pulled up so I was just going to turn around and head home but get this: they wanted to go to Goddard and just pick up shells and skip rocks. 

AWESOME.

I don't have to many parenting wins but this was one. I'll take it. 

Baseball Ray! Baseball Jose! TV:(

Both my boys, ages 12 and 10, looove baseball. They've been in little league since t-ball and they currently are in Spring ball. 

I've tried to impart some things to them along the way though I was an average little leaguer and didn't play at the High School level. 

One thing I've talked about, especially with my 12 year old, is attitude, approach, mindset, and hustle. 

This is hard to get at below 12 when there are just so many walks and few chances to drive a good pitch or field a hard-hit ball, but now at 12 pitchers have more control and the baseball improves. 

When I grew up I was able to watch the Indians (now Guardians) on channel 43 for every game. The team stunk but I still remember watching Len Barker's 1981 perfect game with my mother from our tiny 8 inch in the kitchen. 

My boys rarely get to see baseball on tv because television has changed so much. We don't subscribe to cable and don't have an antennae for Red Sox games. 

Apple TV has a Friday night game (too close to bedtime), ESPN has a sunday night game (too close to bedtime) and MLB will occasionally have a free game.

Well the free game paid off...BIG TIME. And I am more than happy to report that it is because of José Ramírez of the Guardians. (I think I helped a smidge:))

He hustled (like his hair was on fire - something I like to tell the boys) to first base to prevent a double play and score a run. We watched the game together and I was excited when he prevented the double play and make a big deal about his hustle. 

Now cut to the little league games this week and check this out, both my boys hustling to first a la José Ramírez. It doesn't get better:

How can you not love this? Two youngins hustling to first like a pro.

Maybe MLB could offer more games so that kids can learn from the like of José Ramírez.

Who You Are is Who We Tell You You Are

Here is a discussion board prompt from my General Psychology:

Social Psych is by far my favorite chapter. One realizes how our sense of ourselves (our identity) is tied to other people.

This thought experiment will be easiser if you have seen the movie Castaway with Tom Hanks, because viewing that movie, one really gets the sense of what is means to be stranded and completely alone - something almost completely foreign to us humans beings.

But imagine you could have been born, like Tom Hanks in the movie, on a deserted island, and had enough food and nutrition to survive from baby to toddler, adolescent, adult BUT without the company of others.

This is hard to even imagine as we are born of others and usually surrounded and immersed in others.

But on this island, you have survived, without others to adulthood.

Now, the thought experiement is this: on this island, what adjectives could you assign to yourself? Are you funny? Are you smart? Are you pretty? Are you mean?

What are you?

This is fascinating because it shows you, if you earnestly engage the experiment, that your sense of self is almost completely bound to others.

Couldn't one argue that you are how other people see you? You see yourself as funny, or smart, or pretty, or mean only because other people have reflected this back to you. This is the Looking Glass Self concept. If you are on a deserted island, you have no adjectives because there are no comparatives and no other people to assign adjectives to you.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this.  

Now check out this great response from a student:

In the thought experiment of being stranded on a deserted island from birth, devoid of any social interaction, the concept of self takes on a strikingly different dimension. Without the presence of others to provide feedback or validation, the development of one's self-concept becomes severely limited. In the absence of social comparison and interaction, the individual lacks the external perspectives necessary to form adjectives or descriptors about themselves.

This scenario underscores the profound influence of social interactions on the construction of our self-identity. As social beings, we often define ourselves in relation to others and through the feedback we receive from them. This concept aligns with the Looking Glass Self theory in social psychology, which posits that our self-concept is shaped by how we believe others perceive us. Without the presence of others to act as mirrors reflecting back our qualities or characteristics, it becomes challenging, if not impossible, to develop a nuanced understanding of ourselves.

In essence, the thought experiment highlights the interconnectedness between our sense of self and the social environment in which we exist. It emphasizes that our identity is not merely an internal construction but is intricately linked to the perceptions and interactions of those around us. Therefore, if stranded on a deserted island without the presence of others, the individual's self-concept would likely be devoid of the adjectives or descriptors typically used to define oneself in a social context. 

What say you?

 

Rustin, The 60's, and Shotgun

I caught a bad cold, from my son (parenting amirite?) and didn't have the oomph to practice my geetar or record anything so I (record scratch, gulp)...watched tv.

One movie was Rustin. This was a fine movie with a great lead and a relevant subplot but, what hit me, upon the conclusion of the movie, is that I've never protested or marched...for anything. 

It's more than a little bit disconcerting to think of myself as never having stood (marched, protested) for anything. 

Now of course some of this is me being a gen Xer and the zeitgeist I was thrown (the german geworfenheit) into but there are certainly gen Xers that have marched and have protested, and I'm sure, put there lives on the line for something they believed in. They stood for something. 

So the "ok boomer" meme hits a little differently when I think about someone who marched on Washington, who protested Vietnam, who had peers/friends/lovers killed in Nam or Kent State. 

Who am I to judge?

Imagine the wherewithal to participate in the March on Washington.  

(My inner George Carlin sarcastically says, "You were in Hands Across America...for a whole 5 minutes!)

Man, to experience the 60's. What that must have been like. To feel invested in ideas like freedom and equality, as opposed to materialism and battling cultural ennui.

I keep coming back to this, almost Hemingway kind of idea, that I haven't experienced much. Its as if I thought I was by going to college and living in Athens and playing in bands, and all before getting married at 40 and having my first child at 41...but movies like this, that hit right, make me think 

I've never been hit with a billy club protesting for equality
I've never stood my ground fighting for freedom
I've never been tear-gassed or water-hosed or had German shepherds sicced on me for someone else's dignity, or my own

Hold on it gets worse. 

Would I have?

If I had been a child of the 60's. What would I have done? 

Who am I when you control for the zeitgeist? 

On a lighter note, there was a song in the movie, again I'm an Xer, that encapsulates the music of the 60's. I have never taken a deep dive into 60's music per se, but I have been on the planet 53 years and have listened to some music and man, just the first 4 bars and the intro sax lines scream THE 60"s! I am referring to Shotgun by JR Walker and The All Stars:

Hell yeah. Give me an Ab and just kill it! 

I don't know who I would have been in the 60's but I hope I would have appreciated Shotgun. 

"We gonna break it down, baby now."

Leibniz and Nex

Consider the debate about gender and sex. 

If Leibniz is correct, the “suicide” of Nex Benedict is necessary as part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds. 

Remember, per Leibniz, nothing imperfect can flow from a perfect being. God can only produce the best of all possible worlds. 

From a god’s eye view, one (god and perhaps Leibniz) can see that the bullying of Nex Benedict and the suicide of Nex Benedict are BOTH necessary as part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds. 

Logically, Nex Benedict would not have committed suicide unless she were bullied. 

The suicide is part of the best of all possible worlds. The bullying that created/fostered/instigated the suicide is the best of all possible worlds. 

The upshot, for god and Leibniz, is that with knowledge of god’s perfection, there is no suffering. Suffering is only the ignorance of god’s perfection and ignorance of the fact that nothing imperfect can flow from a perfect being. 

Again, there is no suffering. 

How does this not lead to nihilism, understood as a lack of values? If this is the best of all possible worlds, how is anything good or bad? If bullying is part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds, why are we trying to get rid of it? If suicide is part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds, why are we trying to get rid of it? 

If sin is part and parcel of the best of all possible worlds, why are christians trying to not sin? Or to atone for sins committed a priori? Either way, this is the best of all possible worlds. Sin, don’t sin, bully, commit suicide, none of it is imperfection in the best of all possible worlds. 

This is nihilism. 

Leibniz, in his attempt to exult god, renders human endeavor meaningless.

I can’t imagine a paradigm more harmful.

Line of Work

On my commute this morning, I saw a company truck for

https://www.tcsco2.com/

"We put the fizz in your bizz."

Did you ever stop and wonder about how you got into your line of work?

Did you ever stop and wonder about all the accidents and possible paths that landed you in your line of work and not some other? 

I was working at a Kmart when I decided to go back to school (and accrue more debt) for Counselor Ed. Somehow I got a GA gig in Judiciaries (somehow = I had a good interview and a good recommendation) which led to a job in Judiciaries, then a College of Medicine, then Arts & Sciences, then to Rhode Island and a somewhat stable career in Higher Ed. 

But I am fully aware that all this, ALL THIS, was tenuous, and that it DIDNT HAVE TO BE. 

Does that ever scare you? 

How could it have turned out? 

Poorer? Happier? More fulfilled? Richer? 

So many moments seem like fulcrums that could have changed things irreparably. 

Does that ever scare you?

Or is it just me that thinks about such things? 

It's probably me.

It's me. 

The World Is Messy - Probabilistic - Relativism

Listened to this Hidden Brain on the commute this morning. 

https://hiddenbrain.org/podcast/why-youre-smarter-than-you-think/

The IQ part is of course interesting and how IQ can't measure desire or passion or interest of course leaves the concept wanting. 

I have always found myself going back to Kurzweil's definition of intelligence - the ability to solve problems with limited resources. 

Alas, problems for you might not be problems for me.

But the real kipper of the piece for me was when he used the word "messy."

The world is messy. 

Here is some of the context:

Shankar Vedantam:

You've also said that IQ tests fail to capture the full range of human potential, in that they focus on the explicit, the conscious, the controlled forms of thinking. What does this leave out, Scott?

Scott Barry Kaufman:

Absolutely. Well, one specific thing I did study in my dissertation is this idea called implicit learning, which is our ability to learn the probabilistic rule structure of the world automatically and implicitly without a level of awareness. This is deep implications. I mean, so you talk about the theme of your show, right here, we're getting to... this is very, very congruent. I mean, think about what is required to develop social intelligence. Sometimes when people smile, they mean this, sometimes they don't. Sometimes when people's eyes are like this, sometimes they don't. The world is messy.

Probabilistic rule structure of the world. 

There are no absolutes. From the hard sciences to the social sciences, not one truth.

And yet, we can be happy. We can move through the world with grace and patience and humility and smile and be smiled at. 

Relativism is your friend. 

Old systems, especially in an education system, but you also see it in organizations and hiring practices. It goes deep, this stuff, a lot of these assumptions we have about human potential that are really outdated and just wrong.

 

Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Religion is an old system, really outdated and unhealthy. We aren't fallen, we aren't born in sin, we aren't corrupt, we don't need saved, the body isn't bad. 

Time to let it go. Time to embrace the messy world with a new paradigm. A healthier paradigm. 

You'll thank me.

Invoking god

Lotta folks invoke god and god's plan. Or as some call it, divine providence - god's intervention in the universe. 

Ah yes, intervention. To intervene. 

Now, athletes can be especially guilty of this invoking business. Two that come to mind are Baker Mayfield and Patrick Mahomes. I find it interesting (and so did George Carlin) that this invoking is always after success. Mahomes winning the super bowl and Mayfield landing a contract of "life-changing money." 

Here's Mayfield via kpvi: 

God had a plan for me, saw it through, and the group we had made it so special last year, I big reason I wanted to come back here.

 And here is some Mahomes via the christian post:

I give God the glory. He challenged us to make us better. I am proud of my guys. They did awesome. Legendary.

Now, does god's plan also hold for Regina King? Does god's plan also hold for her son Ian, who committed suicide? Is depression part of god's plan? Why didn't god intervene for Ian? Did Regina King not pray as hard or as well or as correctly as Mayfield and Mahomes? 

God only knows. 

But this is not the worst part of adhering to beliefs like this. 

The worst part is the paradigm constructed to answer the cognitive dissonance of suffering, best known and portrayed by Leibniz' answer to the problem: 

 Leibniz's best of all possible worlds philosophy argues that the existence of evil in the world created by God made it possible to achieve a greater good. However, Leibniz posits that humans do not always understand this greater good because they are less perfect creatures than God.

You don't always understand the greater good of suicide, but that is your ignorance. Take any so-called evil: plague, murder, torture, rape, cancer...all part of god's plan for the best of all possible worlds. God is benevolent and omnipotent and can only create the best of all possible worlds. 

I just want Mayfield and Mahomes to explain this to the grieving, the parents in the cancer wards, and the starving, and those suffering.

The Image of god

What does it mean to say that humans are image-bearers of god?

What does it mean to say humans bear god’s image?

What does it mean when Alabama court chief justice Tom Parker says, “...all human beings have the image of god.”

Let us at least provide the definition of image. 

im·age

/ˈimij/

noun

noun: image; plural noun: images

• 1.

• a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.
  "her work juxtaposed images from serious and popular art"

• 
  

• a visible impression obtained by a camera, telescope, microscope, or other device, or displayed on a computer or video screen.
  "Voyager 2 sent back images of the planet Neptune"

• 
  

• optical representation

• reproduction

• an optical appearance or counterpart produced by light or other radiation from an object reflected in a mirror or refracted through a lens.

• 
  

• MATHEMATICS
  a point or set formed by mapping from another point or set.

• COMPUTING
  an exact copy of a computer's hard disk, made for backing up data or setting up new machines.

• a mental representation or idea.
  "he had an image of Uncle Walter throwing his crutches away"

• 
  

• a person or thing that closely resembles another.
  "he's the image of his father"

• 
  

• semblance or likeness.
  "we are made in the image of God"

• (in biblical use) an idol.

• 
  

• 2.

• the general impression that a person, organization, or product presents to the public.
  "she strives to project an image of youth"

• 
  

• 3.

• a simile or metaphor.
  "he uses the image of a hole to describe emotional emptiness"

So we can, via google, claim that it means semblance or likeness. 

How do humans resemble god? 

Which god do we resemble?

Is it the creator (of the universe) god or the anthropomorphic god of the old testament? 

We resemble the (sic) god that created matter and time?

How? How do we resemble an uncaused cause? How do we resemble the thing that breaks the infinite regress? How? 

If we resemble the anthropomorphic god of the old testament, isn’t that insulting to god? Don’t we really mean to say, and at the same time meanly say it, is that it's the other way round, and god resembles us?

To which Nietzsche might say, “Human, all too human.”

Teenage humans that supposedly bear god’s image are dying after being beaten and bullied in Oklahoma schools. 

But Ryan Walters comforts us, when he says, “There’s not multiple genders. There’s two. That’s how god created us.” Comforting to know that Mr. Walters believes that neither nonbinary nor transgender people exist. 

Still more comforting to know that Mr. Walters says that “You always treat individuals with dignity and respect, because they’re made in god’s image.”

I’m just not so sure being beaten and bullied in Oklahoma is treating people with respect. 

I wonder if Mr. Walters thinks that Ardi bears god’s image.

god’s image is a red herring. It is meaningless to say humans bear god’s image. This is meant to drag you away from christian machinations and the fear of secular progress and the ebb of absolutism. 

It’s a public health issue. If you don’t believe me, ask Nex Benedict. 

I wonder if Mr. Walters and Mr. Parker know that Benedict means blessed.

New Album Out! Wings Of Desire

There’s a scene in Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire where the angel Damiel is pining to be human, to have a body. He says,

“But sometimes I'm fed up with my spiritual existence. Instead of forever hovering above I'd like to feel a weight grow in me to end the infinity and to tie me to earth. I'd like, at each step, each gust of wind, to be able to say "Now!" Now and now and no longer "forever" and "for eternity." To sit at an empty place at a card table and be greeted, even by a nod.”

Upon seeing Wings of Desire, a weight grew in me. Because the movie greeted me, made me think. Now and now. What are you waiting for? Perfection is a myth. Play. Record. Do it again.

Along with Wenders, there is Jason Isbell. Weathervanes tied me to the earth. There was a hole inside me, and I filled it. Play. Record. Do it again.

There is a wonderful German word/idea that encapsulates Damiel and Isbell - Torschlusspanik, roughly, gate closing panic. The fear that time, and hence opportunities, are running out. It describes the sense of panic when you realize, one day, that you haven't done very much with your life, and that if you don't act soon then you may miss out on the remaining opportunities as time passes and the 'gate closes.


What are you waiting for? Perfection is a myth. Play. Record. Do it again.

credits

released February 16, 2024

Ethical Relativism in To Kill A Mockingbird

At the beginning of the play, To Kill A Mockingbird, Scout Finch is conflicted with the “fact” that Bob Ewell fell on his knife. 

At the conclusion of the play, Scout Finch accepts that Bob Ewell fell on his knife. 

Upon thinking that his son, Jem Finch, stabbed Bob Ewell, Atticus Finch is resolute that the legal process must still be followed. Later, after consultation with Sheriff Heck Tate and Judge Taylor, Atticus accepts that Bob Ewell fell on his knife.

“It depends.”

Moral relativism reminds us that morality is relative to this or that. 

Near the end of the play Scout says, “…you know, there was a religious man who once said, “Lord, I don’t always know the right thing to do, but I think my desire to please you pleases you.”

There is no right thing to do. Right is relative to. And things change. Perspectives change, zeitgeists change, cultural norms change. Ergo, our morality is relative. 

To make a finer relativistic point, Scout says, “Isn’t that what decency is? Trying to do the right thing is the right thing…”

Bob Ewell fell on his knife. We certainly could not run Bob Ewell “falling on his knife” through Kant’s categorical imperative - what if all people acted this way in a similar situation? - and find resolution. 

It depends. 

Bob Ewell was despised enough that the legal process for his death was not worth it. And this came from Atticus who is heavy handed in the play making the case to see the good in everyone. 

It depends.

This dependence, this contextualization, this relativism, doesn’t doom us, it doesn’t entail a slippery slope to anarchy and violence on an unforeseen scale. In fact the anarchy and violence we’ve seen throughout history has always occurred right along with the moral realists claiming their right and wrong “no matter what.” Still those supposed lines were crossed every minute of every day. What is the point of proposing morals if they don’t work, even as concepts? One can ask after reading a history book, “Where is the power of your morals?”

Let us say you are running an organization and one problem you deal with is people killing one another. Now along comes a guy with a spiel for your problem; he says, we’re going to say it is immoral to kill other people. He says we’re going to tell them it is objectively wrong to kill one another. He says we’re going to tell them “no matter what.” Never ok. 

And you shell out the dough for the product: Morality. Objective morality. 

And now let us analyze the effectiveness of the product via history books. 

The product is a failure. People kill each other. 

Why doesn’t morality work, at all? Where is the power of objective morality?

People fearing relativism isn’t the same as the success of morality. Morality fails, consistently; all one needs to do is read the newspaper to understand this. 

Fearing relativism as a slippery slope is tantamount to turning down $30,000 of help for your $100,000 loan because it doesn’t pay it ALL off. 

Relativism, a la To Kill A Mockingbird, will help us live and move through the world in a healthier fashion, even if there is no perfect state of healthiness. 

Bob Ewell fell on his knife.

George Carlin, Sex Crimes, Terrifying Questions

 Why does this small tidbit from George Carlin live rent-free in my head, after so many years?

This is from a bit, State Prison Farms, from his Back In Town (1996)

“Alright, next group: sex criminals. Completely incurable, you got to lock them up. You could outlaw religion and in most cities sex crimes would disappear in a couple of generations. But we don’t have time for rational solutions!”

Outlaw religion? For sex crimes? 

And here are two headlines from the NYT’s of 1/29/24:

So…depressing. 

And here is a sentence of transcript from the Podcast, Terrifying Questions, Episode 12: Are We Our Bodies? (January 29, 2024): “It may be that the christian despising of the body because it’s animal and sinful and so on is part of this illicit separation of the mind or the spirit from the body, because it’s by drawing a sharp contrast that you can then kinda condemn all the bodily stuff as lower and base and not worthy of respect.”

Condemn the body.

I think George Carlin saw the connection from christian hatred of the body (as the source of original sin [an illogical concept but here we are]), to the condemnation of the body, to the prevalence of sex crimes. 

What if we didn’t despise the body? 

What if we accepted that we are our bodies? And that our bodies aren’t intermediaries of sensation/perception?
What if we respected our bodies as the source of our being-in-the-world?
What if we didn’t treat our bodies as base vehicles, depreciated to valueless the moment we leave them at death (again, an illogical concept but here we are)?

What if sex weren’t the source of sin?
If we ditched this (illogical) concept, would our public be healthier?