My 50 cents

Today I was playing ping-pong, cheerfuly minding my own bussiness, when something distracted my train of thoughts and ultimately made me write this post. A voice was heard above the ususal hustle-bustle of a gym room, belonging to a certain individual I somewhat despise. Why? He is a rather intelligent fellow, not standing out from the average population but for his hatred of a certain ethnic group living in Slovenia. His loud voice and self-confident manner of speaking made me remember a conversation I overheard (between him and some other people) which almost irritated me to the point where I wanted to punch him in the nose. He was exclaiming his conviction about the advantages of removing all the subjects of the aforementioned ethnic group.
Hitting the little orange ball back to my partner I wanted to wrap up this problem with the usual conclusion: well, it's his opinion, he is entitled to one. But somehow my consciousness was not content with this simple, yet elegant standard delimiter. I asked myself: are our actions (or inactions, for that matter) based on our opinions really justifiable with the right to form our own opinions (be they whatever they are) and the right of free expression? Now imagine the conversation between two young boys in their teens: A: "Hey bro, your chick is, like, uglier than (insert the piece of towing equipment you dread most)" B: "What?! Are you fucking insane?" A: "Hey, man, just my 50 cents" B: "Oh, yeah, mate, righty then. Let's grab a beer,". Does it seem plausible? No, didn't think so. Now imagine a similar converation between mr. Adolf Hitler and mr. Roosevelt. In the words of a famous mafia boss: "It's curtains for you, Morgenstern,". So - drawing the line I can see that there are some limits to our rights of free thought and freedom of expression. The limit is the wellbeing of our society. We just do not have the right to respect every lunatic's opinion in relation to his or her actions. The society is built upon a bulk of conventions - morals and law - which must be upheld if there is to be any hope of a secure and just society. In this system there is much room for freedom of thought (you can always choose not to like my cooking), but there are areas where someones actions are so disruptive that his opinions must not be respected and actions, based on these opinions, cannot be tolerated. I won't go further on that (that post is on the long side as it is) - yes, such a position might be dangerous, I am aware on that. Let's just assume that the "morals and laws" I'm talking about are rational and compassionate. I feel this is a good point to wrap this post up, but I have more to say on the subject of opinions. I feel that the opinion clause is often misused by many people as a sort of escape route, or a out-of-jail card. It is often used when the conversation takes a turn towards a conflict. The user sees that his statements might evoke negative reactions with his partners, so he, putting it mildly, takes some weight off of his words. He says "this is just my opinion", in reality meaning "yes, I did say that, but don't take it to seriously, it's just my opinion", as if an opinion had somewhat less impact or meaning than the actual wilfull and rational statement, thus giving opinions a somewhat irational "aftertaste". Being a natural defensive mechanism almost everybody tends to use it (mea culpa...). But we shouldn't. Freedom of thought is to be taken seriously, as it is a right that corresponds to the very nature of man - we tend to think differently, and we feel the urge to be treated as individuals. Having an opinion is part of that. Freedom of thought should not be an instrument for correction of our social faux-passes. We should stand behind what we say and carry the consequences of our decisions. If we aren't ready to do that, we should exercise one of the other important rights associated with man - the right to remain silent...   Kolatkar

Eppour si swing!

I've been to a great concert yesterday. Two concerts actually - it was a double feature of Atanasovski-Levačić-Golob trio, and the "infamous" Kahil El' Zabar Rituar Trio with Billy Bang. There is not really much to say about The former. I like the saxophonist Vasko Atanasovski, and he was really great (playing baritone, alto, flute and some other wooden shit). The other two were rather mediocre, especially the drummer Krunoslav Levačić seemed to have problems keeping up with the rhythm. They were playing wery interesting music, long songs where known melodies were interwoven with fierce free improvisation. But the "unity" was somehow not very present; I saw some great potential, but somehow they did not live up to my expectations.
The other group was another matter altogether. Why the "infamous" Kahil El' Zabar, you ask? Well, it's just an assumption, but I'm fairly sure the majority of people in Slovenia have never heard of him. But he is famous nontheless - do the names AACM, Art ensemble of Chicago, Nina Simone, Stevie Wonder (äääkhh - is supposed to be a gagging sound), Cannonbal Adderley, Dizzy Gillespie ring a bell?
The Ritual trio in its newest incarntion is comprised of Kahil El' Zabar (percussion, drums), Ari brown (tenor sax), Yoseph Ben Israel (double bass) and - last but not least - Billy Bang, another heavyweight, playing the violin.
Jazz and Violin? Do they fit? Doh, I say; of course they fit. They fit quite wonderfully. The sounds that mr. Bang spirited with his violin are quite inconceivable; I always enjoy listening to an artist who pushes the boundaries of the possible; to that very night I was certain that a violin can under no circumstances be played in such a way. It was like listening to surreal sounds, sounds that do not exist. Sounds that are unimaginable even, as our imagination is limited to forms and structures we see in our everyday world; we only tend to rearange elements a bit, and slapp ourselves on the shoulders in a sweet haze of ignorance. But let's get back to the concert.
As a band they worked together as a unit; it was instantly apparent that what they were producing was not four musicians playing their instruments. They were creating music.
I won't loose to many words about the music - the interested party can always obtain a copy of one of their albums and listen. I warmly advise it. But what made me write this post is not really directly connected to the aforementioned concerts. It's something more elemental. Rejoice, my friends, for I had a vision! A spiritual experience, which was triggered by the music of the Ritual trio. How very ironic.
So what was that vison, that experience? Well, to make a long story short - for the first time in my life I really heard, comprehended and felt the swing that is so very prominent of jazz. What is swing, you ask? The definition is as follows: "A way of performing eighth notes where downbeats and upbeats receive approximately 2/3 and 1/3 of the beat, respectively, providing a rhythmic lilt to the music,".
Worry not, avid reader, if these words seem mysterious, for I was flabbergasted also. I believe swing is not something you learn, or undestand. One hears and feels it; only then is it possible to understand the theoretical explanation.
I read a plethora of essays on swing; but as much as I tried, I couldn't understand it nor hear it. That evening, given up the hope of understanding swing long ago, I just sat in the concert hall enjoying the music. But suddenly I heard something - a way of playing and arranging sounds - that was always present, I just never noticed it. I guess it was so natural it never rose into my consciousness, so it was never processed and no name was ever attached to it.
What have I learned from that? I've learned something important. Not only for music, but for myself as well. When the search for knowledge and understanding seems fruitless, stop. You may be trying to hard. Kolatkar

Kezdetben teremté Isten az eget és a földet

A language. A language is an ordinary thing. Every language is the same, none being something special, or even more important than the other. Or is it? Yes, the answer is yes. All languages have intrinsically the same worth but one - the Hungarian
language. It is not worth more or less than its fellows. But it is somewhat special - it is the only language that is so hilariously funny.
Some languages may seem odd to the casual observer, or even foreign, but Hungarian is the only language that coaxes a smile out of me in the grimmest od moods or in the darkest of settings. Here it is, with it's funny words, the umlauts and other odd symbols. I just want to share this experience with everyone - go out, get a Hungarian book and laugh! Just try not to injure yourself or someone else. Oh, by the way, the title of this post was found in a Hungarian book, known almost universaly throughout the world: the Bible (verse 1 of Genesis: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.) Yes, even reading the bible can be fun. Ah, this brings back memories... of an experience in Hungary. I was there on a trip with a full bus of heavy sleepers. But that night they were not destined to sleep wall - me and my roomate found a bible in the drawer, carelessly (this is not an error!) left there by the friendly Giddeons. We were reading it aloud the better part of the night, pausing only to emitt roars of laughter. The next morning our travel companions - blessed be the ignorant - asked around about the distracting events of last night...
Sometime later I was having a conversation with that very friend; he expressed a wish to learn a foreign language. I suggested hungarian. "Wasted money,", he replied. I would be laughing all the time during the lessons, and I couldn't (not wouldn't, mind you, because that implies willful behaviur) learn a thing.
I often wondered about the elements in a language that make us percieve it as funny. What shape do words have to be to make them seem funny, even without knowing the meaning of it. It seems that this is the integral part of this problem - the "not knowing" part. If we don't know it - if it's utterly devoid of any meaning to us - it seems just nonsense.
This leads to a inevitable conclusion - nonsense is funny. It stimulates or pleasure centres, and the result is laughter: soothing, refreshing, invigourating even.
Or even choking. Again - the same dramatis personae. Once my friend came into my room, working himself through two large sandwiches. An evil spirit wanted that I find a piece of paper with Hungarian rubbish written all over it. Thinking nothing in particular I read a word aloud - I'll never forget that word, it was fekete (black) - and he was so startled by it that he started choking and spit the contents of his mouth back on his plate. Imagine: murder by Hungarian. Man, truth can be stranger than fiction. I can't help but imagine Mr. Holmes studying the marks on the body left by Hungarian.
Is there something to be learned from these episodes? Nothing about the Hungarian
language, I assure you.
But about nonsense. Nonsense is good, even vital.
Nonsense is what makes us people unite, and call ourselves man. For every man -
old, young, male, female, intelligent, dumb - gets the joke. And it is never on him.
Rejoice then, all of you, at the universal triumf of nonsense!

Kolatkar

I created a blog. Now what?

Good question. What does one do after creating a blog? Well... it's obvious: post. So this is what I'm going to do.
I feel I should tell something more about me and the blog I created. No, better yet: I'll tell something about the blog. I will leave to the reader to picture me from what I post. After all: one is what one posts.
I will write about anything that comes my way and seems important to me. Stuff I read about, stuff that pops up in conversations or in quite contemplation.
I will try to be original, and look at various issues in a novel way. This is what I'm good at - I percieve the world a bit different than everyone else. It would seem I always doubt things that everyone sees as resolved and definite. I will not assume the "never mind" attitude - finding answers that suit ourselves rather than accepting the usual explanation is important to me.
I could lapse into a lengthy philosophical discussion about free will and the right to one's own ideas about the world, but I won't. I believe you've got the point.
Will there be enough material to write about? I believe so. Almost everyday I experience something that sets my alarms of; I ask myself these two important questions quite often: "why so?" and "who says that?".
Will this blog stand the test of time? This is a very legitimate question. I already had a blog which I abandoned a few years ago. All I can say is: We'll see. I will give it my best.
Where's the point of writing a blog? Another very legitimate question. Here I will qoute a good friend of mine: "there are more blogs written that read". So why add another bunch of zeros and ones to the already full ether of blogs? This question is important; the answer will probably be the motive for me not to stop posting. Sometimes I feel the urge to write my thoughts down; I feel a concept is much more defined and concrete when being presented in a written form - look at it as a complex equation: there is no way you can compute it in your head; but when you write it down it seems simplicity itself.
This, I feel must be the purpose of all blogs - defining. Defining and sharing. Writing down ones thoughts gives them a more real, existential quality. Sharing - with others, those who read the blogs. Sharing thoughts is important. A worldview comprised only of ones own ideas is dangerous. It gives us certain feeling that everything we seem to exist in is right. Only looking at things from another angle gives us the healthy I-know-only-that-I-don't-know-anything attitude.
Let that be all for this first post. I'll call it a prologue.

Kolatkar