Jo S. Wun's Blog, page 14
September 24, 2011
Got It Covered
I have a love-hate relationship with cover versions of songs. I love the ones that add something interesting or unique, or even something perverse (if it's done well). The ones I don't like are those that do nothing but leech off the original, the ones that bring nothing to the party (but are not sheepish when it comes to helping themselves to the food and drink).
Here's a couple of covers which tick the boxes for me.
Knockin' On Heaven's Door by Gun N' Roses
Listen on Posterous
Sweet Child O' Mine by Flat Pack
Listen on Posterous
Fans of Cold Chisel, an Australian band, might cry foul, saying that Guns N' Roses copied the version which was on Chisel's 1981 release, Swingshift. I hadn't heard it until I came across this site, dedicated to Knockin' On Heaven's Door and its numerous cover versions. I still think that G N' R added their own stamp to it, but decide for yourself...
Knockin' On Heaven's Door by Cold Chisel
Listen on Posterous
If you are into covers, you might like to check out Brian Ibbott's Coverville, a podcast produced three times a week, dedicated to cover versions.
Guns N' Roses Greatest Hits
Flat Pack Sweet Child O' Mine
Cold Chisel Swingshift
September 19, 2011
What's In A Name?
There was a time when 'gay' usually referred to feelings of being 'carefree', 'happy', or 'bright and showy'. Although it had undergone changes in meaning well before the latter part of the twentieth century, it was during that period that what is now usually referred to as the LGBT community, embraced the term and made it their own, and in doing so, began to alter public perceptions of homosexual people.
In 2003, spurred by his dislike of the term 'godless', and inspired by the capture of the word 'gay' by homosexuals, Paul Geisert, working with co-founder Mynga Futrell, coined the term 'bright', for a person who defines her- or himself as an individual whose world-view is free of supernatural and mystical elements. The Brights' Net has a ton of information and is the place to register if you would like to declare yourself as a Bright with a capital B.
Nice logo!
It may be my 'English reserve', but I don't feel comfortable using the word 'bright' as a means to label myself. I understand the idea behind it (to use a positive word as a label, rather than the often negative alternatives) but it has the rather unfortunate side affect of easily being interpreted as arrogant, elitist and superior, something that has, unsurprisingly, given rise to derisory comments. The difficulty, for me, is what it silently says about people who are not Brights: Not a Bright = not bright = dull and unintelligent? I don't feel insulted being described as 'not gay', but 'not bright'? Language can be an expressive beast. but sometimes it's what isn't said which says more than what is said.
It often surprises me how careless people are in their use of language. Take, for example, the phrase 'I don't believe in God'. I often see it written, or hear it said, by people who declare themselves to be atheists. I can only assume they haven't thought very deeply, if at all, about what that short phrase really communicates. Are they unaware that it is the equivalent of saying 'I don't believe in David Cameron'? Not, I hasten to add, because David Cameron has any obvious god-like qualities, but because 'God' (with a capital G) is effectively a name.
As I understand it, atheists are of the opinion that gods do not exist. But just as saying 'I don't believe in David Cameron' carries with it the implication of his existence, so does.... well, you get the idea, right? So come on atheist people, time to buck your ideas up! Attention to detail. You know it makes sense.
So how am I going to squeeze in some music for this post? Hmmmm. How about a track from Bob Dylan's 1979 album, Slow Train Coming. It was controversial because of its evangelical nature, but here's a track which says nothing but the obvious: Man* gave names to all the animals. Well, duh! Who'd a thought it.
Man Gave Names To All The Animals by Bob Dylan
* We won't get into the issue of why women apparently weren't involved, and yes, I know it's a biblical reference - Genesis 2:20 to be precise.
|
September 9, 2011
Why I'm Not A Hindu
Right off the bat, I want to make it clear that I mean no offence to anyone by stating the fact that I am not a Hindu, and especially not to anyone who proclaims to be one. Whether that will stop someone taking offence is another matter entirely.
Be that as it may, what are my reasons for not being a Hindu? After all, Hinduism can, with justification, lay claim to the title 'oldest surviving mainstream religion'. Perhaps it's because it's ranked only third, in terms of number of followers, on Wikipedia?
Perhaps it's because I can't decide whether to worship Brahman (the supreme spirit that pervades the Universe) as Vishnu, Brahma, Shiva or Shakti? Or maybe it's the very fact that the choice exists which I find the stumbling block?
Possibly I feel unable to fully commit to the process by which ultimate emancipation can be achieved, as described in the third chapter of the Brahma Sūtras, one of the three canonical texts of the Vedānta school of Hindu philosophy, which attempt to reconcile the seemingly contradictory and diverse statements of the various Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gītā?
Is it because I don't feel able to accept a religion which caters for such a wide array of seemingly incompatible, and even what appear to be contradictory, beliefs, including atheism, which has no central doctrinal authority?
The truth of the matter is that I don't know much of anything about Hinduism. To write these few paragraphs, I Googled 'Hinduism', plagiarised some of the stuff I found on Wikipedia, and followed a link or two. Wanna know the real reason I'm not a Hindu? There's a clue after the jump.
Yeah...you guessed. I wasn't born into an Indian or Nepalese family. It's a safe bet that if I'd been born into a family native to India or Nepal (countries where more than 75% of the population are identified as Hindu), then I'd have had to deal with Hinduism rather than Christianity.
Ricky Gervais, when asked "Did you lose your faith or never have any?" in an interview he gave to New Humanist, answered: "I used to believe in God. The Christian one, that is. (There are a few thousand to choose from. But I was born in a country where the dominant religion was Christianity so I believed in that one. Isn't it weird how that always happens?)"
He often makes me laugh.
You Can Go Your Own Way by Chris Rea
Listen on Posterous
August 25, 2011
Apostrophe Atrophy
Okay, so I'm late to the party, again, probably due to some sort of atrophy of brain parts. Fortunately, a post from Melanie Pinola at LifeHacker popped up in my RSS reader which alerted me to the fact that I'd missed International Apostrophe Day, which apparently took the world by storm on 18th August, but mysteriously passed me by.
Anyway, the post quoted a tweet from Sam Tanner (which was later revealed to have been sourced from one Will Rolls).
"An apostrophe is the difference between a business that knows its shit and a business that knows it's shit."
Oh yes! That appeals to the punctuation warrior in me.
If you ever have the urge to correct bad punctuation while you're out and about, you might enjoy Eats Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation by Lynne Truss. Even if you don't go about with a black felt-tip marker at the ready, but smiled at the tweet, it's still worth a read.
Available from Amazon UK
August 21, 2011
The Search For Sharp Nipples
Every once in a while, mostly out of idle curiosity, I take a glance at the Google Webmaster Tools page that shows me various bits of info about my Irregularly Verbal posterous pages. It's usually mildly interesting but today I was surprised to see at the top of the Search Queries list, that is ones that returned pages from my blog, the words sharp nipples.
Sharp nipples!? What the hell are sharp nipples? Well, okay, maybe we can take a guess, but more to the point is, have I ever written about them? The answer to that last question is, 'not as far as I can recall'. But if the almighty Google says it's the top search query for my blog then perhaps I should submit to a senility check, just in case it's come upon me without me realising (which I suspect is usually how it happens) and, as a consequence, I have written blog posts galore about sharp nipples.
However, the odd thing about it is that a Google search for sharp nipples (warning: some might find some of the search results offensive) doesn't throw up any references to my blog - not on the first couple of results pages at any rate, and I didn't delve deeper than that. So it remains a bit of a mystery, which seems like an opportune moment to insert a track I like by 10,000 Maniacs, this one featuring David Byrne and Natalie Merchant on vocals, singing Iris DeMent's Let The Mystery Be. The track can be found on Campfire Songs: the Popular, Obscure & Unknown Recordings
Let The Mystery Be by 10,000 Maniacs
Listen on Posterous
I can only conclude, on the basis that I have understood the lyrics correctly, that there must have been a bunch of Christians in the audience who entirely missed the point of this song (at around 50 seconds into it).
Think I'll just let the mystery be.
Addendum: For those of you who are itching to tell me I can restrict a Google search to my posterous pages, doing so returns the following result.
Your search - sharp nipples site:http://joswun.posterous.com - did not match any documents.
But, of course, that will quite likely change, now that I have written this post!
August 14, 2011
That's Some Guitar Pickin'!
June 18, 2011
From Siddhartha To Deepak Chopra
I read Siddhartha, by Hermann Hesse, in the heady days of my youth, some forty years ago. I read it again just recently. I can't remember much of my first reading, but I do remember that my mind wandered off as I read this or that passage, just as it did this time around. The difference was that this time those passages didn't hold my attention because I got bored, whereas I'm fairly certain that the youthful me got hooked by the mysticism (which pervades the whole book), and no doubt spent a good deal of time thinking "right on!" and "far out!"
If you are not familiar with the book, the story goes something like this:
Good, middle-class boy, who wants to know what it's all about, gets frustrated with traditional life at home (he feels he's not getting anywhere), and goes off to join a cult, giving up all his possessions and spongeing off society in order to survive. Gets fed up with it after a while - still feels he's not getting anywhere - and goes off to listen to a celebrity guru type of chap who's supposed to have 'the secret'. He listens to and chats with the guru chappy, decides guru chappy probably does have 'the secret', but thinks he can't learn it just by listening to him. So, off he goes again, this time to the bright lights of the big city, where he experiments with sex and business (he's very lucky - really falls on his feet). Does that for a long time, very successfully, but eventually decides he's still not getting anywhere, so he dumps his long time lover, and his business partner, and goes off again, this time into 'the wilderness'. Shacks up with a simple ferryman, learns his trade, spends a lot of time sitting around doing not very much, except listening to the river flowing by, and comes to believe the river is intelligently communicating with him. Ferryman dies so he takes his place, and spends practically all his time listening to the river, eventually reaching the conclusion that it's all about the 'oneness' of everything, the realisation of which he feels is the enlightenment he had been looking for.
That's roughly (very roughly) the story. There is more to it, but I haven't bothered to mention any of that because it's just padding, there to bolster up the idea that everything in existence is all connected, all 'one', but the parts are meaningless, it's the 'whole' that's 'where it's at, man!'
Mysticism. It's just great, isn't it. You can feel like you really know something important but you don't have to go through all that tedious evidence stuff. You can just wing it, make it up as you go along. Assert something and support your assertion with another assertion, and another, and ... shazzam! You're one of the cognoscenti!
And when you're one of the cognoscenti, you can say stuff like this: While the body appears to be material, it is really a field of energy and intelligence that is inextricably connected to the mind. We now know that what used to be considered the “normal” experience of aging – a progressive descent into physical and mental incapacity – is in large part a conditioned response. The mind influences every cell in the body and therefore human aging is fluid and changeable. It can speed up, slow down, and even reverse itself. [source]
Or maybe you could talk about ways to tap into your inner reservoir of unlimited energy. [source]
If you're really switched on, you could set up a 'lifestyle workshop' (why not call it an 'event'?) and tell potential attendees: We will discuss the science of mythology and archetypes – powerful energies that are within us and demonstrated within our cultures. We will learn how to activate these archetypal energies within us to inspire, guide, and transform our lives. [source]
It doesn't matter that there doesn't appear to be a science of mythology, just making reference to it, as if it exists, is all you have to do. Of course, one might be tempted to cite a book entitled Contributions to the Science of Mythology (Max Müller, 1897), and another entitled Essays on a Science of Mythology: The Myth of the Divine Child and the Mysteries of Eleusis (C. G. Jung & C. Kerényi, 1969), as evidence of such a science. Unfortunately, the evidence isn't very convincing when Princeton University Press (the publishers of the latter book) include the following, about the authors, in their description: Both men hoped, through their collaboration, to elevate the study of mythology to the status of a science. Methinks you'd probably be wise not to do any citing at all.
Deepak Chopra seems to be wise. I'm not entirely certain if it's the wisdom which comes from a Siddhartha-esque understanding of what it's all about, or just a shrewd business head, but the stuff on the Chopra Center website undoubtedly strives to give the impression that he knows what he's talking about. It's not scientific, but it sounds as if it is. And that's what counts.
It's an odd thing that the phrase "blinded me with science" rarely applies to real science, but is almost always applicable to the bucketloads of pseudo science bullshit one can easily find.
Cue musical interlude...
She Blinded Me With Science by Thomas Dolby
Listen on Posterous
I was most intrigued by the claim that human aging is fluid and changeable. It can speed up, slow down, and even reverse itself. I did a little research and came up with this corroborating evidence.
Oooops. Perhaps someone forgot to tap into their inner reservoir of unlimited energy.
Source pictures: http://www.quotespapa.com/authors/deepak-chopra-quotes.html
and http://altreligion.net/?p=2113
Morph animation: Zizisoft Face Transformer
Thomas Dolby: She Blinded Me With Science available at Amazon
June 14, 2011
The Picture Of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde
The Picture Of Dorian Gray is one of those books that I felt I ought to have read, but somehow had never quite got around to it. On the whole, I'm glad that I have eventually done so.
Fortunately, I knew nothing of the story so I was able to read it without the bias one inevitably has when reading a book, or watching a film, after having read reviews or summaries. That's not to say I had no bias at all. Oscar Wilde's reputation for "... biting wit, flamboyant dress, and glittering conversation"[*] lurked in the recesses of my mind as I began to read.
According to Wikipedia, the book is considered a work of classic gothic fiction, with a strong Faustian theme. I wouldn't argue with that, at least not after having looked up the definition of that genre. In my uninformed previous state, I would have said it was a kind of horror fantasy.
I didn't know beforehand, but there were at least two versions of the novel. The first, consisting of thirteen chapters, appeared in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine in 1890. The author subsequently made alterations and also added new chapters, increasing the count to twenty, this revised edition being published by Ward, Lock, and Company in 1891. It was this version which I read.
Sadly, the insertion of additional chapters was probably a mistake. In particular, chapter eleven should have filed for bankruptcy long before it was inflicted on readers. It adds nothing of significance to the book, being not much more than a tedious set of descriptions of exquisite artifacts of one sort or another. I almost felt it was a case of Wilde rather vainly showing off his depth of knowledge of such things.
Be that as it may, it's actually not a bad story, providing you are willing to accept the fantasy nature of the plot which allows the main character, Dorian Gray, to indulge his own fantasies without substantial risk to himself or his reputation.
Reputation is a big deal in the society of which he is a part, a society which includes Lords and various other interesting chaps, who, if Wilde is to be believed, never sit down but rather 'fling' or 'throw' themselves into whatever type of seating is to hand. Perhaps if Wilde had had access to a word processor with word frequency analysis, he'd have noticed how often he used those words.
But that's just tittle tattle. For the most part it's an absorbing read which explores the murkier aspects of human nature. Certainly a good deal more shocking at the time of publication than it is today, it nevertheless takes the reader to places we don't normally go. Overall, I give it a thumbs up, but suspect the original, shorter version may well be the one to go for.
A replica of the version which appeared in Lippincott's Monthly Magazine can be downloaded as a PDF here, at the University of Victoria website. Alternatively, Project Gutenberg has both versions, short and long in various formats.
June 3, 2011
Shark Infested Waiters
I tried out a new freeware file manager (Master Commander) yesterday, and, as part of my testing, I watched a previously downloaded video in its built-in, pop up viewer. It's a pretty good file manager, but I'll be sticking with FreeCommander. It's more configurable, viewing videos doesn't need a pop up viewer, and it seems more intuitive to use (which I'm likely to think because I've been using it for years and got comfortable with any quirks it might have a long time ago).
I've also been trying out SpiderOak, an online backup/synchronisation service similar to Dropbox. If you follow tech/software blogs you'll know that Dropbox has come in for some criticism of late over its security. SpiderOak uses what it calls comprehensive 'zero-knowledge' data encryption, by which it means that, unlike Dropbox, it has absolutely no means of access to the content of files stored on its servers - the encryption happens locally on the user's device before it is sent. It works well and has some additional features too.
The standard free account offers 2GB of storage, but you can get 3GB by signing up and downloading the application via this link. (Yes...of course I get extra free storage as well!)
So what's all this got to do with sharks and waiters? Well, the video I watched was the one embedded below, which shows sharks as I've never seen them before. It reminded me how difficult it seems to be to convince authorities to curtail the trade in fins (the ones hacked off the sharks, fins which end up in soup served by the waiters). Perhaps the image of sharks as presented in films such as Jaws makes the public feel a bowl of soup is 'just deserts' (sorry!) for sharks.
Gimme A Hug.wmv
Watch on Posterous
It's a few months old, but this article in The Independent gives some info on the shark fin industry, together with some links to organisations which are trying to stop it.
And finally, twenty-two years ago today: Tiananmen Square
May 21, 2011
We're All Camping It Up Now, Mostly
It didn't come as much of a surprise to most of us, but Saturday came and went as usual. No rapture-like events, as far as I can tell. Unless, of course, there's a mystical significance that DownForEveryoneOrJustMe.com says that FamilyRadio.com is indeed down, and not just for me. Have they been raptured? Maybe we wouldn't notice if 144,000 people out of more than six billion quietly disappeared. And don't forget, what's actually supposed to happen is that the rest of us witness “horrible” events of destruction until October 21st, when the world allegedly comes to an end.
Okay. We've had our fun at the expense of those few who were taken in by Camping's campaign, and felt sorry for those close to them who have suffered as a result of such gullibility. So what's next? Well, weirdly, countless numbers of people around the world, having laughed or scorned at Camping and his followers, will, because it's Sunday today, not only pay heed to individuals who tell us that Judgement Day is indeed a fact, but they will also give them money. However, unlike Camping, who has reportedly amassed considerable wealth via his scam, those individuals' bosses are in it for the long haul, so they won't put a date on it. They prefer to drip-drip-drip the fear, water torture style.
Everybody Out Of The Water by The Wallflowers
Listen on Posterous
As a final 'comment', here's a picture that made me giggle...
ps. I stole this picture from Amy Rolph on Seattle's Big Blog. Please click through to read her post.
The Wallflowers at Amazon UK
