Wednesday 14 November 2012

the battle to summarise my dissertation continues!



My dissertation will either be entitled “Towards an Objective Aesthetic in music” or “On the cultivation of taste in music,” depending on what conclusions I reach based on my research.

In the piece I want to assess difficult arguments that present themselves when judging the quality of music. If music is a subjective experience how can we argue that some music is better than other music? What is bad music and what makes it bad? What is beautiful in music and what makes it that? Is music meant to be useful or beautiful in itself? 

While some of us may want to argue that Beethoven is a “better” composer than Katy Perry, what do we mean to say by better? Katy Perry is better for dancing and putting on at student parties. So is Stevie Wonder and he is a more sophisticated composer, but the quality of the music doesn’t reflect how useful it is for dancing. And then, no matter how many Adornos there are to demand that people want more out of art than immediacy, most people who listen to a Beethoven symphony will do it to help them relax while taking a bath.

It is hard to argue that there is an objective judgement of quality because all aesthetic experiences are in the subjective experience of the experiencer. On the other hand we know we know there is a distinction in the judgement of saying music is 'bad' as opposed to 'not my kind of thing.' 
  
This is the distinction between preference and taste. One has the right to prefer whatever they wish, but one ought to have a taste for what is fine.  The contention is that a great work does not yield its secrets upon the first listen.
 
When a qualified critic writes an essay in praise of a poem it is in the hope of showing others the beauty he sees in the art. A beckoning for them to share in a deeper knowledge of the joy that is available to them. Yes we often find “the beauty of simplicity,” but if you can recognise sophistication when you hear it you can be more appreciative of simplicity as well. The critic has to have a more cultivated taste than the public in order to offer genuine insight. If it’s all subjective then cultivating a taste is meaningless.
 
It could be that beauty is something that goes beyond the faculty of reason alone. We don’t use our eyes to hear, or our ears to see, and perhaps our sense of beauty extends beyond our sense of rationality to explain it. The trained ear experiences the nuances of a virtuoso playing a Bach piece on the experiential level, not by reason alone, while the untrained ear may miss them entirely.

In order to present my case I will be researching the history of the philosophy of art, familiarising myself particularly with arguments from those who focused on music such as Hanslick, Adorno, Dalhaus, Scruton and Kivy, but also acknowledging the views of big philosophers who wrote more generally (Kant, Hume, Mill, Aristotle.) I will present and address arguments to give my work some sense of historical context and to show that I am meaning to advance the dialogue by adding something new to what has already been written. It is important to me that the piece is philosophically rigorous so I will be making an effort to ensure that I address counter arguments that already exist to any points I want to raise so that the dissertation itself presents a dialectic of ideas that familiarises the reader with the history of these debates – they don’t have to have read everything that has already been written to have the foreknowledge required to make a good judgement because the relevant background will be contained and addressed within the text.


It could be that beauty is something that goes beyond reason alone. We don’t use our eyes to hear or our ears to see, and perhaps our sense of beauty extends beyond our sense of rationality to explain it. 
If having a trained ear raises your expectations and makes you less easily satisfied perhaps we best avoid it, there must be some net gain here!

Friday 9 November 2012

Reverse Temporal Engineering by Antony Sammeroff



A scratch night comedy in one act for two actors.
Acknowledgements to Finn Townsley and Gareth K. Vile.

Cast:
TOM.
An obnoxious self-described possibilitarian, probably in his early to mid-twenties.
STU.
Another character who is more obnoxious than Tom.

Reverse Temporal Engineering.
Tom enters the stage from one side speaking on his mobile phone.
TOM [speaking into his mobile]. Alright man? ... Yeah I'm at my parent’s house... Where are you?... Alright cool that's near mine. 
Stu enters from the other side of the stage, speaking into his phone, they are in different locations.
STU [speaking into his mobile]. Are you coming out tonight?
TOM. I would but I left my wallet in my flat so I'm waiting on my dad coming home and giving me a lift, but he's on night shift.
STU. Damn that sucks.
TOM. Yeah I know. It’s shit.
STU. It’s shitter than shit. It’s like - a turd sandwich with shit as the bread.
TOM. You’re a classy guy. Can you not just conjure up my wallet since you're near mine and I'll walk into town and meet you there?
STU. Well uhm... Maybe I could do that, if I dunno, I had your freaking keys.
TOM. Teleport?
STU. Not invented yet. Why are you at your parent’s house anyway gaylord?
TOM. Well my new brother in law was visiting.
STU. Haaaaa he's bangin' your sister.
TOM. Ummm… yeah. And?
STU. Well, it’s more than you're getting.
TOM. It is more than I'm getting from my sister... not quite as much as I'm getting from your mum.
STU. Touché good sir, I consider myself bested. I assume by your response you like him then?
TOM. Like him how? I'm afraid anything I say will just be construed as an excuse to make a gay joke.
STU. Probably. Well, just like, since you’re, you know, cool with him… how should I put this sensitively?… Ramming? Hm, no. How about ploughing? No, let’s go with Ramming, I like Ramming - original and best. Since you’re cool with him Ramming your sister every night - takin’ that cute little ass to town - I’m supposing you get on with him.
TOM. Such a way with words! I think you managed to make your point really clear there. What a talent. Yeah I get on with him great! Better than with my sister actually hahaha.
STU. Why’s that?
TOM. Well he smokes for one thing, and she doesn't, so we can go out for a fag.
STU. Ah true, that does make him the better human being.
TOM. Indeed.
STU. So when will I catch you? The weekend?
TOM. Balls to that, I’m coming out.
STU. …Of the closet, you surely mean. By the time you walk to yours and then back into town…
TOM. Teleport?
Stu checks his watch.
STU. Noooope… still not invented yet, try again in another half an hour.
TOM. Do you think teleportation will run on the principle of moving particles through a quantum wormhole to another location and reassembling them? or more like a copy and paste mechanism, where the model is molecularly replicated, but the copy is dispatched during the integral process?
STU. Don’t care. Why?
TOM. Well supposing I’m meant to be in two places at once, I could just teleport myself but conveniently forget to “cut” before I “paste” and then there would be two of me.
STU. Yah, but the real you wouldn’t even essentially be at both meetings, so you’d have no memory whatsoever of one of the events. And then what would you do with the copy afterwards? You can’t just Edit/Undo after you control/c control/v. That would be a bit inconvenient to explain away.
TOM. Hmmm yeah I guess you’re right. Maybe he would become unstable and break down of his own volition after filling me in on the details, or maybe his organs could be harvested for science.
STU. No, no, that’s a sentient life form! You’d have protests from People for the Ethical Treatment of Clones.
TOM. Damn those ultraliberal hippies at PECA.
STU. You only want two of you so you can suck twice as much cock as you normally do anyway. To be honest, you’d be better off Reverse Temporal Engineering it.
TOM. What, you mean sucking off one cock, and then going back in time afterwards to suck off another one so that I didn’t have to miss out on any of the juicy cock-sucking opportunities presented to me?
STU. Sure. I actually just meant Reverse Temporal Engineering it so you could be at both meetings at the same time and remember, but your admission of love for the cock was equally satisfying.
TOM. More satisfying, surely?
STU. Indeed.
TOM. How much more satisfying?
STU. Seven. Seven times more satisfying.
TOM. And yet, still not as satisfying as your mums vagiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.
STU. Damn! Struck by my own sword. You’d also age faster in subjective time while sucking on all those cocks, or being at each of those meetings.
TOM. That’s right actually - but that’s not the only risk. At the second event you could refer to something that happened at the first event which hadn't happened yet subjective to everyone else and confuse people, then – bam! – quantum time paradox, just like that! And the universe collapses in on itself.
STU. That I could deal with, it's all the bullshit you’re talking that troubles me-
TOM. Damn! You really know you lack charisma when a microcosmic temporal contradiction bringing forth the immanent annihilation of the universe along the axes of both time and space is preferable to what is presently occurring in subjective...
STU. Yeah, all that crap would be a relief!
TOM. Ok... I have an idea... Ask behind the bar if your friend left his keys for you.
STU. What are you talking about?
TOM. Look I'm 100% sure this Might work.
STU. Oh you're certain it'll work maybe?'
TOM. Approximately.
STU. On average.
TOM. As a distinct non-zero possibility. In a multiverse all distinct non-zero possibilities become actualities.
STU. In an infinite universe everything that can exist must exist.
TOM. Look, that’s pub talk. Save it for the pub.
STU. But, you're not coming out to the pub because you were at your parents’ house ramming your gay brother-in-law and you left your wallet in your flat.
TOM. Ask behind the bar if my keys are there.
STU. And how exactly do you expect this to work?'
TOM. Well let's see, I saw it in a movie once.
STU. Saw what in a movie?
TOM. This. Teleport isn't invented yet.
STU. Yes, I said that. Twice in fact.
TOM. But, if time travel is invented within my lifetime I can plausibly reverse-temporal engineer things so my keys are left behind the bar for you.
STU. O…kayay... But first - Is the movie you saw this in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure?
TOM. Fuck the shut up!
STU. Don't you mean...
TOM [interrupting]. Whatever!
STU. But was it though?'
TOM. Obviously. But that's besides the point.
STU. I think that is the point exactly. I think the point is you're taking your queues from a sci-fi-teenage-comedy genre-confused mash up.
TOM. Like Biodome.
STU. What the fuck is Biodome?
TOM. Watch it and see.
STU. You're a dick.
TOM. Yeah, but if you never watch it you’ll never know.
STU. If a man is alone at his parents’ house and no one has a clue what the fuck he’s talking about, will he shut the fuck up?
TOM. Get my keys.
Stu moves to the side to address the barman.
STU [to the wings]. Here! Mate!...
Stu produces a set of keys from the wings.
STU. ‘kin ‘ell! He had your keys!
TOM. See, told you.
STU. ‘the fuck dude?
TOM. ‘the fuck indeed. See, I’m a possibilitarian.
STU. You're a retard. Why didn't you just reverse temporal engineer the keys into your parent’s house?
TOM. Never thought of that.
STU. That’s because you're a retard.
TOM. Not too retarded to do this.
The keys disappear from Stu’s hand or person.
STU. 'kin ell where did they go?
TOM
[producing the keys from his pocket and jangling them]. Right here.
STU. Jesus Christ that's awesome!
TOM. Ask the barman for the drink I got you.
STU [addressing the barman again]. Here! Mate!...
Stu produces a pint from the side of the stage.
STU. The fuck dude!
TOM. Yeah you're totally getting in the next round.
STU. Except not I'm not because you're wallets still in your flat, and you're at your parent’s house, and I don't have your keys anymore to go and get it for you.
TOM. Dammit! I am a retard.
STU. I said it first.
TOM. Well, [Tom produces the wallet from his pocket] here it is now I suppose.
STU. You know, this is a very convoluted way to meet up under the circumstances.
TOM. Yeah you're right... We should sort that out.
Tom hangs up the phone and walks across to the other side of the stage to join Stu.
TOM. Hey man.
STU. Hey, Pint?
TOM. Fuck yeah.
They walk off towards the bar like best of friends.
END.

Contract law is an abomination. (prototype)

This is a prototype article and I am collecting feedback to improve it and address counter arguments.

Everyone knows that contract laws are litigious and that's why people have to train for so long to be lawyers, but what is the benefit of contract law being handled by the centralised monopoly of the state, when having third parties compete to insure contracts would optimise the process by having lots of great minds working on producing better, simpler and more easier to use models. Likely the best amongst these highly trained lawyers and judges would find fantastic work providing the full service of their skills for those end.

If you and I were wanting to go into business we could seek the arbitration of a third party who could insure our contracts. The more we did business well, the cheaper this would be as we were "trust worthy" and our premiums would go down and down, much like a no-claims bonus for not causing a road accident. If one of us reneged upon our contract, our third party would have to compensate the party that lost out on the deal and would likely never insure the person who broke the deal again until they had compensated them. They could also contact all the other companies that were providing the service and warn of the unworthiness of this client so their premiums for doing business in future would go through the roof.

What though, is someone was willing to renege on a "one time deal" for say $2.5 million and then they could just live happily upon their ill-gotten gains for the rest of their lives? Well, who would insure a contract for $2.5m without the appropriate assurances that their client would pay? Jail time for reneging could easily be written into the contract and voluntarily agreed upon by the parties engaging in the process. But that is just one option. Given the number of people who would be working in the field, surely their combined ingenuity would come up with better solutions than any either of us could come up with as mere individuals playing the game of philosophy.

The idea that the state is required to enforce contracts is not only misgiven, it's a complete waste of tax money for private individuals to subsidise agreements between corporations and other people they have no associations with to pay the inflated salaries of lawyers and judges who could have more important things to do within the criminal justice system such as handle violent criminals. In the meantime lawyers can charge upwards of £100 for writing a letter, or for the privelege of an hour of their time, because the service they provide has become incomprehensibe to the clients they are providing it to and impenetrable to anyone who has not jumped through the government hoops. Surely if alternatives were available society would soon do better.

Monday 5 November 2012

Do I know you?

-->
by Antony Sammeroff
A scratch night play in one act for one actor and one actress.
Do I know you?
April and Anthony enter from opposite sides of the stage as they draw close they catch eyes and think they know each other immediately, but then a moment of doubt creeps in.
ANTONY [with enthusiasm]. Hey!
APRIL [responding in kind]. Hey!
There is a moment of credulity
ANTONY [communicating with his hands]I thought we…?
APRIL.  I thought we…
ANTONY.  But we don’t.
APRIL. No, we don’t…
ANTONY.  Well I’m Antony. [He presents his hand]
APRIL. I’m April…
They shake.
ANTONY.  So next time we will.
He smiles.
APRIL.  Next time we will.
They part.

Saturday 3 November 2012

Psychohistory

I believe childrearing is the birth of society.
 
According to the data, countries who use less phsical punishment have less violent crimes, democracy emerged first in countries where parenting styles moved over to less authoritarian and more d
emocratic, countries with dictatorial parenting styles tend to be dictatorships. The shaping of childrearing is the shaping of the whole society. For more data, The Origins of War in Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause, and anything by psychoanalyst Alice Miller are excellent authoritative works in the field.