Never mind...

Bush da man!

2007-06-11T23:02:00.000+01:00

Images of protesters around the world with banners saying something like "Down with Bush!", or "Die, Bush", or even - my favourite, by the way - "The only bush I trust is my own" are flashing through my mind. I ask myself: Why? What makes people hate Bush so much? Hate him so passionately to follow him around the world, show up everywhere he makes an appearance, and wave pictures of him and signs with slogans that are disturbing at best and even setting him on fire; figuratively, of course.

To come back to the point: Why?

To make matters clear from the start: I am not examining the current political situation in the world concerning the naughtiness of The United State of America; you can form you own opinion on that. What interests me more is the concentration of hate towards America, it's meaning, it's power and the exertion thereof in form of one person: the abominable Mr. Bush. Just imagine asking a few protesters - be they Iraqis, Americans, Germans, Cubans, or even small babies (I have indeed seen a picture of a baby sporting a t-shirt with an anti-bush slogan; this is NOT cute, and we'll talk about child abuse some other time) - why they are doing what they are - namely protesting; the most universal answer you'll get is: "to stop Bush". Inquire further - perhaps about the reasons behind this hatred, or about the actions that are to be condemned. Those of them who possess reasoning facilities will most likely be able to name what disturbs them about the state of the world - but those reasons will be many and very, very complex. To put it simple: The answer to the question: "What is wrong with the world?" just cannot simply be "Bush."

But the imperative for action is never quiet contemplation of life's little mysteries. What makes you move and provoke changes are gut feelings and impulses that have little to do with reason. Just to ilustrate: imagine going for a hot chick you see at a party. You don't know her, don't know anything about her; chances are you'll get rejected. And still - babies ARE born. And now imagine a moderately reasonable protester who gets hurt during one of the protest rallies. He could have predicted there is a slight chance he could get hurt; had he really thought about it, the protest would be over before he even chooses to sleep that one out. On the other hand - one aforementioned impulse is enough and man is ready to risk limb and life for sex (oh, yes, and protesting, too). These impulses are love, passion, hate. Hate. Oddly enough the answer to the question "Whom do you hate?" can simply be "Bush".

Yes, I guess man's instincts and impulses take only symbols as an input. Bush, like many other persons and things in the past are just symbols for what United States of America stands for. He is the voted head of state, so he represents America as a people, as a concept, as a policy. And, as many see it, for it's evil and wrongdoings.

Symbols are representative simplifications of a concept. Concepts are easier to communicate through symbols (just imagine a white dove, or a swastika). It's easier to move the masses with a certain, definite object - like a symbol, then a complex concept; in order to communicate these, long and tedious explanations are required. So in a sense this is necessary, but this is the foundation on which every misunderstanding is built - oversimplification. And the most alarming thing is that misunderstanding bears almost every kind of abuse, and ultimately, -ism, known to man.

Ever heard of propaganda (which in itself bears a negative conotation)? The trick is not to explain, but appeal to people's passions, love, anger, fears,... with simple symbols; that way they are pliable as plywood; and in no time one turns a critically thinking man to an opinionated, or even hateful creature. Communism? An interesting concept. But gone horribly wrong. One of the reasons is also the complete misunderstanding of its nature because of the oversimplification of those who propagated it (their benevolence is, again, not the issue here). Antisemitism? The carricature of the evil jew with the crooked nose just jumps at me. There are countless other examples.

What am I getting at? Bush is just a symbol; a symbol of an establishment whose nature is as ambivalent as any Beck recording (or even more; but this is debatable). I just cannot agree with the advertising of Bush as the enemy of everything we hold dear. This will inevitably lead (or has already lead) to misunderstandings or/and grave mistakes. These can be avoided by carefully thinking and debating about various aspects of "The Man", thus trying to get as complete a picture as possible. If at that point people stil feel an urge to protest, and wave flags, and burn pictures, let them do it. I guess this is not my way of expressing my feelings, but hey, they have my blessings. As long as they understand what and who they should really fight, not just because they hate a person (whose connection to world hunger, poverty and bad weather is dubious at best), or - god/Alah/Buddha forbid - protest for protesting's sake.

So next time when you want to ask me what I think about Bush, better don't. I don't care if he brushes his teeth, or if he makes his homework. Better join me for a cup of coffee, or tea, and we can share opinions on the corporate establishment in America, or the UNs inability to act in various crisis spots throughout the world. Kolatkar.

Make love, not Warcraft

2007-06-06T08:34:00.000+01:00

Yes... I know. It is stealing (the title of this blog post is also a title of a South Park episode), but it just fit perfectly, so I decided to go ahead with it.
I shall be handing pearls of "wisdom" about game addiction today. Not gambling, but videogames. At first it seems that game addiction is only a fiction, like unicorns, flying saucers and tasty soya milk. Well, many researchers claim otherwise.

What made me write this post were two things. The first one was an article I read on BBC news, and promptly dismissed as humbug. They reported on the opening of the first game addiction rehabilitation centre in Europe, namely Smith and Jones in the Netherlands. I read it with interest; it's not something one runs across every day. But it just didn't seem plausible to me - these are just games, there is nothing real about them, nor about the virtual world that is created. OK, admitedly, this reasoning is flawed, but I shan't elaborate on that further. The point lies elsewhere.

The second reason I'm writing this is Ultima VII. Good ol' Ultima VII, the most advanced RPG back in the day ("the day" was 1992). It doesn't look to shabby by today's standards either. The game is about going somewhere else, to an alternate reality, to a land called Brittania. Being there one is on the mission to save Brittania and it's inhabitants from the clutches of evil once again (after all, this IS Ultima VII). Effectively one leaves ones own reality and immerses oneselfself deeply into another, virtual reality - mayhap just as complex as your own.

Now, happily roaming around Brittania (still not believing game addiction is real) I see odd things taking shape in my own reality - you know, during the time my computer is turned off. First I see myself turning my computer off at odd hours (once I started playing it around ten in the evening, and went to sleep around 6 o'clock). I think about the game quite often - I make plans and strategies how to best tackle a situation in the game. I even dreamt a few times about it.

Whoa there! Sounds like symptoms of game addiction to me. Is it possible? Has the unthinkable happened? Have I perhaps become... addicted? Well, I don't think so. Not yet, at least. But I see a certain possibility there. If circumstances were right, if I had more time, I guess it could happen.

Like drugs. But unlike drugs games are a bit more heinous - they don't have that certain aura of danger and seriousness about them. If one gets involved with hard drugs, one can be fairly certain it's not going to end well. But games are with us from the start - they are being placed in our crib, accompany us through our childhood and even in our adult life. In our society it is normal to play, and computer games are an integral part of this "play". The bottomline is: when we first encounter games, we don't percieve games as an enemy.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to picture games as a danger to society, far from it. They are a fun way to kill time; they can even be used for different training purposes. But I see a danger that comes in the form of game addiction, especially with games that lure the player from parting with his real life and "making a living" in a world that does not exist (e. g. Second life). The main danger may not be deterioration of ones health (although according to wikipedia such symptoms may occur), but the deterioration of the mind and loosing the grasp of reality - I assume it gets harder to distinguish reality from fiction up to the point where one looses all social skills and is unable to function as a member of society.

I guess we could ask ourselves new about the relative reality of this virtual reality. Is it really not existing? Or is it only non-existent to the non-participating observer? If yes, then being part of this virtual reality wouldn't qualify as living in a virtual world and running away from reality. But then I wonder: how does a hot dog taste in Second life? Kolatkar

2007-05-24T21:15:00.000+01:00

"One time at the Three Deuces Bird came in late and went in the dressing room, where he opened up sardines and crackers. The owner was trying to get him to hurry up to the bandstand and Bird was just casually eating, grinning like a fool, you know what I mean? The owner was begging him to play and Bird was offering him crackers. Man, that was a funny scene. I laughed until I almost died."

Miles Davis: The Autobiography

Yes, it's a short excerpt from the above mentioned book that I recently read. Written by the great Sorcerer himself; and written as he great sorcerer himself. What do I mean with this? Quite simple: He poured his life and soul into this book; reading it feels like listening to Miles Davis speaking, narrating his life's story. I could almost hear him talking in that trademark husk voice of his. And not withholding anything. This is what makes this book so apealing - no polished, clean, straight, safe-for-work elevator reading. Nope. You get Miles Davis - his thoughts, his views and his language. All of them quite radical for the weak-hearted among us. Roughly said there are more fucks, motherfuckers and shits than in any other book in existence. But they are all casual; I guess what breathing is to us, cursing was to him. It was his way of talking. And that is what brings him to life through that story.

And radical worldviews? A musician? Indeed. Seldom have I encountered so many ways in which white people can be hated. Whatever his opinions were, he had no inhibitions sharing them.
Radical lifestyle? Indeed. He was all about being hip - hip cars, hip clothes (though looking at his clothes I can naught but pitty him), hip chicks, hip friends (he knew almost every important jazz player in the last seventy years), hip... drugs, pimping, abuse of women... Well... not really so hip, I gather. But I can only admire him for not witholding that part of his life. Few people can actually admit their mistakes and make peace with their past. Publishing that information will make it possible to look at Miles Davis not as just a man with the horn, but a person.

But he not only writes about his life, but also about his one passion that dictated his existence - music. It's no secret that he was at the forefront of almost every important development in jazz (and also rock) music. But to the casual observer his role in this maelstrom stays almost unknown. He explains how all his different styles of playing came to be, what they actually are, who were his accomplices, what was moving him (and them) in this or that direction... Even to a greenhorn like me his explanations were very interesting, and understandable.

I guess I know a bit about jazz styles and its history, but reading this book I felt it's all coming together - jazz just simply seemed a chaos of different styles and musicians. But data gathered while I was reading this book seemed to bring order into that chaos, and help attach names and dates to different developments in music.

So if you're even slightly interested in jazz and its history, don't hesitate. This man IS the history of jazz. Kolatkar.

Fierce & fiery

2007-04-30T23:07:00.000+01:00

My blog output has shrunken these last weeks, as the exams are drawing nearer. I'm very busy studying; but tonight I thought I should see a movie. Did I pick a good one? Well... read on.

I heard rumours about a new fantasy movie, and I figured I ought to see it. I'm a fan of fantasy and science fiction; not to the extent that I would dress up in a klingon suit and recite Hamlet, but here and there I like a good science fiction/fantasy book or movie. I don't really consider fantasy movies/books as an art form in the sense of art bringing some deeper insight into the meaning of life. They can be very complex, beautifully written (as in the beauty of the laguage used), and they take you somewhere else; everytime I read a fantasy book or see a movie I'm somewhere else; not only that - I'm in another time also... I'm back in my childhood, experiencing a fairytale. Mayhap it is exactly this what's making me enjoy fantasy - real word is sometimes just to real for me, and sometimes I need a break from reality.

This is what I was expecting when I popped Eragon on my computer. But what happened is as follows: I did get transported to another place. One where I was up to my knees in bull-shit.

Yes, that might seem very harsh at first... But,... No, it's quite adequate. This movie really is bad. I will not elaborate on the story here; every interested party can check the movie itself. Or better yet - don't check it. You will waste two precious hours of your life you could invest better in having a headache.

But every statement has a why, that I understand. What is so bad about the movie? It certainly isn't the effects - they are good (not on par with Lord of the rings, but still); but every fantasy movie has to have good effects if it has any pretension to be called a fantasy movie. The story (though not vital in this genre) has left much to be desired. Let's look at the time frame first; it happens only in three days. In these three (3!) days, that is 72 hours, our hero turns from a farm boy to a professional warrior and wizard. Haloa? Even God took a 6 day sabbatical to create the universe, and he was all-powerful. It all just seemed to easy... the elements that keep the story flowing were missing - depiction of fear, despair, danger. Yes, they were present, but not in such a way as to influence the viewers to live and feel as part of the story.

And dragons - big, cold lizards spewing fire at will. Not exactly the first choice when it comes to ideal, housebroken companions. In Eragon they are depicted as warm, friendly (even motherly) figures. Somehow this just seems implausible to me. Yes, true, this is fantasy... but what we experience in our imagination is tightly connected to our existence in the real world. It is very hard to imagine a whole new world completely different than ours, maybe even impossible. And I, for myself, can't imagine to ever pet the cold skin of reptiles.

I could go on, but I choose not to: In short - the narrative just has isn't convincing; the adjective I'd use is "ludicrous". But let's move on - the characters. At best they seemed one-dimensional, at worst just simply plain. Creating the dynamic in a movie are the relationships between characters; these relationships have to be evident, or at least hinted at. The characters in Eragon simply feel unrelated even though they are all part of the same space-time continuum. Everyone has it's own story and problems, but they have hardly any effect on other characters or the narrative. I just didn't feel any social dynamics; it's like looking at a group of people talking aloud without talking together; there is no question - response, or statement - response, situation. Just noise, made of individual human voices.

Every movie has to have comic suspense-dischargers. But unluckily the authors's idea of sarcasm is limited to insipid and boring situation humor. There is only one type of joke, and it wasn't funny even the first time it appeared.

My recommendation? Stear clear. This movie lacks all the magic a good fantasy story needs; it won't take you places; it won't show you things. You won't feel enchanted. Kolatkar

PVC nation

2007-04-19T20:17:00.000+01:00

Deep in the shadows of the Oaken shelf lies a black token, black as the night. It's power of black magic is immense, held in check just by a container of simple cardboard. It's power can be unleashed only on the misty, turning Table mountain. There it is taken from its protection; it seems utterly black. But once it is held against the light, it explodes in all the colors of the rainbow, thus giving a glimpse of its brilliance. One unleashes its power in a special ritual, called the ritual of Hei-Phi. It is performed by the magician SME. The black token is placed on the ground on top of the mountain; there it has to be spun at a precise rotation. He (the magician) must hold the diamond needle of Dyna Vector in his outstretched hand; He slowly drops it towards the black token. And when the needle touches the black token, the power is unleashed. Its power is so great one can do all sorts of devilry with it; even deliver subliminal messages to the poor, unsuspecting youth.

Jokes aside - I believe everyone knows what I'm talking about - it's the humble, old vinyl (polyvinyl chloride) record. Old? Yes. Forgotten? Indeed... Not. I for myself must say I'm on a vinyl trip. I bought a record player and started buying records a few months ago. I have an urge to buy new records (or used ones). My hands are always shaking when I hold a new specimen in my hands. I am exploding of expectancy when I wait for the surreally slow needle to drop into the grooves. And then - heaven - wonderful music starts to fill the room. Aahhh...

Anyway, the reason for my writing this post is an article I read on the internet (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9598796). Therein it states that the sales of vinyl records has gone up ten percent in the USA only. Halloa! Seems there are other like me. Vinyl is making its comeback from the caves of forgetfullnes (history).

Who buys those artifacts, you ask. DJs instantly come to mind. But guess again. As it is, more and more new releases by well known (and not so well known) musicians like Coldplay, Beck, Norah Jones etc. are being pressed on vinyl.

Why are they being bought? This is a better question, especially in this day of modern technological marvels like CDs and MP3s. The interviewee offered two explanations; one is quality, the second one is the complete lack of copy protection on vinyl discs.

As to quality - for me this is not debatable; all theoretical mumbo-jumbo aside - vinyl just sounds better to me. True, if the vinyl is not in perfect condition there is noise and there are clicks. But what are you listening to when playing a record (or CD or MP3 for that matter) - the noise or the music? OK, admittedly this holds true only to a certain extent; if there is to much noise, the music simply isn't audible. But even CDs can be damaged...

As for the copy protection... my friend claims this argument can not hold water. Copy protection simply isn't a factor to a majority of buyers (after all - only a small percentage of CDs is copy protected; and the knowledge of DRM is simply not rooted in the consciousnes of the average person). No one would buy expensive hi-fi equipment to bypass copy protection that really isn't a problem. He claims that the existence of copy protection cannot be a reason for a growth in sales of vinyl records.

Can he be right? I don't think so. First of all we must define the circle of buyers of music that would eventually buy vinyl records. I'd say they are people who care about their music (and the quality thereof); they already own a turntable, or have bought one (maybe even a cheap USB one). And - most important - they BUY their music.

In this group there are two important sub-groups. Audiophiles made an impact on sales because they prefer the sound and quality of vinyl records. The other important group I will call the copy-protection haters. When buying MP3 one sees that DRM really is an obstacle (there really are real life restrictions, not just vague rumours of gossip); there I see it quite plausible that one would buy vinyl to bypass copy protection. But what about CDs? They are easy to copy, even if they are copy protected. They are more handy, less prone to damage. Yes. That may be true; there is no apparent reason to prefer vinyl over CDs just because of copy-protection. But I see a certain type of person crystalizing. The "red-blooded copy-protection hater". He hates every aspect of copy protection for no particular reason, or so many reasons even he lost track of all of them. The bottom line is - he will not buy media with copy-protection no matter what (seen that before? - check the Brittanica under "Microsoft-hater"). And there are many red blooded copy-protection haters out there. Just check a random forum on technology, or music, or hi-fi, whatever. You will find them.

Taking into consideration this sort of person I can believe it is quite plausible sales grew because of copy-protection of other media. Not all the ten percent, but still... enough. Yes indeed - I see no downside to that. It's only in my benefit if people start buying more vinyl records (whatever the reason), because this means more will be pressed.

So... you're still reading this? What for? Run. Run as if your life depended on it. Run to the nearest store. AND BUY SOME VINYL!!! Kolatkar

Kamikaze part deux

2007-04-05T22:42:00.000+01:00

Reading my post of tuesday I find that I ignored the first rule of rational decision-making and thought, namely sleep. Yes, serious issues are always best dealt in the morning, after a sound sleep. I'm not really impulsive, but I guess I got carried away yesterday. Am I taking back what I said in the previous post? No, I still believe that kamikaze flights are a lunatic idea. But as to the end-of-the-world scenarios I proposed - well, we aren't quite there yet, and an officer asking questions isn't a sure sign of pandemonium either.

So... I intend to do a rational analysys of why I believe the idea of kamikaze warfare is a bad one. Devoid of feelings and bias? No; these are all parts of me, and they co-shape my thoughts and actions. But I'll try to keep it in the realm of the understandable and relevant.
I'll start with the pro's - why is kamikaze warfare viable?

an airplane (being of a substantial size and mass) has a huge destructive force
a pilot is able to asses the situation more accurately then a computer (deciding upon which information from the battlefield is important and which not)
combining the two one gets a weapon that is most likely to destroy any important target of a reasonable size
history shows that such attacks are fairly effective (check the wikipedia article on kamikaze fighters)

Ok, I'll admit a kamikaze pilot and his airplane are a formidable weapon; not opponent, mind you - just a weapon.

Now, is there something to oppose the idea of using kamikaze fighters? Indeed, there is.

it's not for the budget-conscious (fighter jets and the schooling of pilots cost amounts of money we can hardly imagine; apart from that I'd like to know how the military chiefs intend to sell the idea of destroying airplanes worth millions of dollars on every mission to the buying public)
if we choose to believe the theory of the army being in the service of weapons manufacturers, we can only imagine they feel like experiencing christmas every day; this is costing the taxpayer money which could be used more reasonable
terrorist don't use war ships; I wonder, then, if it's sensible to use a waterhose to blow out a candle or an airplane to eradicate a solitary car
bombing technology is very advanced today; I may be overdoing it a bit when I say that they can bomb a sandwich from your hand, but it is not that far fetched
humans have an instinct for self-preservation; would there be enough new pilots to keep up a fleet? Is it even reasonable to expect pilots wouldn't resist such orders?
lest but not least - the moral justification of such attacks

We will ignore the moral justification for wars (of for the war on terrorism for that matter) at this point, and just look into kamikaze flights. The Japanese employed kamikaze pilots only as an act of desperation - they were loosing the war, that was apparent to all but the most obtuse. The war against terrorist is far from being lost, so from this viewpoint there is no moral justification - we can hardly claim we are defending our homeland and countrymen from certain death.

But the gist of my argument lies in the fact that human life is disregarded here. Such disregard has no justification whatsoever.

I am quite aware that war is a dangerous venture, and lives are at stake everyday. Nonetheless - everything has to be done to protect the lives of the soldiers taking part in the action. They opted to defend the homeland, and, if necessary, part with their lives if there is no other option. But that means they will fight to save their country AND survive themselves; this stems from our survival instinct, or call it a natural right, whatever - such an absolute decision is in the sphere of the individual. That individual being the soldier he can be ordered on a very dangerous mission where the objective is to fight and come back alive (even if this fails or is not expected; the difference is that dying is no an integral part of this mission); but a decision to make the ultimate sacrifice for his country is his own.

Long post, I know. But desperate times seek desperate measures. Kolatkar

Kamikaze

2007-04-03T22:04:00.000+01:00

I was mildly amused today when I read a certain article. Check it out here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6521311.stm

For those who choose not to click that link: apparently a high-ranging RAF officer decided to asses the ground for a new venue in air-warfare. He asked RAF-pilots if they are willing to fly kamikaze missions. He wanted to know, if they are ready to give the ultimate sacrifice and fly an airplane straight into the enemy. Who is the enemy? The terrorists, of course. Sacrifice his life for what? The war on terrorism, of course.

Haloa there! Mildly amused, you say? You might be right there - mildly amused may not be the right word. Certainly I must say deeply distressed down to the core of my very being. I just ask myself: what has become of us? What happened to our society? The officer claimed such orders would never be issued, but how can we even contemplate to use such drastic measures? Our way of life seemed to be considered safe; apparently not any more - there is talk about terrorists and imminent danger everywhere. Everyone is scared into oblivion by the news, so in this light it is no wonder our military leaders (seeing ghosts of their own) tend to search for new warfare tactics. But such drastic measures? How dare we even contemplate dehumanization of pilots in such a way as to turn them into bombs? In an age where all thoughts should be directed to the future, a future without warfare, we (or better they; I completely disagree with such actions) turn back and try to revive concepts that should lie forever in tomes of history, never to be forgotten, but also never to be brough to life again. These are ideas, propagated in a time much different than ours (one should at least think so); where value of all human life was not held in such high regard. The belief that it was the time and place that brough about such atrocities as had happened in world war II is utterly wrong. It is the people that live in every time and place.

One can only imagine what will be next? Is there going to surface a government official asking if the idea of concentration camps for terrorist is viable? Oh, hang on there: there already is such a place, and there is no indication that it will be closed. War-time courts, ignoring habeas corpus rights? Yes, we have them too. And what an irony: they are being revived in the one country whose major export articles are democracy and human rights.

We are coerced into dropping - in by one - the basic principles on which we based our coexistence in society. We are throwing or way of life out of the window, thus entering a society of distrust and unjustice, because of some ghosts that are shown to us on television. Instead of expanding our peaceful coexistence ever farther out we are systematically disassembling it and make it impossible. I just wonder where it takes us, being that many human rights we tend to respect are no longer to be respected. What will be the next step? More Lebensraum? kolatkar

My 50 cents

2007-03-29T23:31:00.000+01:00

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!

2007-03-28T23:22:00.000+01:00

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

2007-03-25T00:34:00.000+01:00

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?

2007-03-22T22:02:00.000+01:00

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