Mary Beard recounting and analysing Caligula’s excessess with fellow professors is a metaphor for how I think the obviously sociopathic emperor would have responded to any plebian queries…with total disinterest other than to serve as gladiator food.
The enticement of power is to offer freedom from consequences and what follows from such an unnatural state is, naturally, social insanity
Social insanity: the demonstration of insane thinking if and only if there is an obedient audience able to fulfil the acts.
A not infrequent attribute of those who have power over others and virtually a permanent record keeping audience.
When it is ones professorial duty to analyse,are such roles coupled with an acknowledgement that any hints of motives and agenda in the subjects of interest may have been totally shrouded from the subject’s consciousness by the momentum of the action itself
When you expect instant obedience and results do you even care about the meaning of your actions?
That you don’t, it seems to me, is the private understanding of those of us who peer over at the other side where excess amd indulgence seem to defy any unwritten codes of civil conduct…
Of course those on that side that even begin to contemplate such matters will stop at the point where they recognise they are in the group that does not actually need to pay any heed to others concerns for any reason other than populist posterity and even then notoriety for ignoring the masses is a pretty effective and probably easier alternative for recruiting a loyal cult fan base,at least.
So the chin stroking erudition of professorials is strictly for the plebs and other prfessorial types…
But is of no interest in determining the actions of future tyrants whose role ,by definition,is not to worry about their own motives…thats for the profs.
So this ridiculous division between opera and the other arts as an example of elitism or the two equally ignorant camps of classical vs pop music…however such sweeping terms are defined .. just shows that the analysis is far too often done by advocates who are either self flattering or see their role as a misguided philanthropy to “educate” the “stupid masses”
(whats a blog then?)
(exactly that…i prove my own point by my own self flattering convictions which are of interest only to the converted)
Bollywood was notorious for churning out formulaic movie equivalents to western one hit wonder pop tunes.
Does that mean the average Indian cinema goer lacks sophistication?
what is sophistication other than another badge that some are purportedly trying to do away with.
Apparently some poorly serving pundits insist that the virtues of opera and classical music are their complexity, their scale, their openness to interpretation.
When classical music pundits define themselves as such they have obviously already declared a huge degree of stereotyping in their thinking not to mention by their subsequent banding of all other music under the term “pop” which is so ridiculously ambiguous it is even worse than the term “classical”.
how does “jazz” fit into such a restrictive picture?
it used to be considered the “devil” music presumably for its disregard for established norms about timing and tendency to break from (an authoritarian) structure..that structure probably being the established and presumably restrictive “classical” conventions of the day.
is it complex to make a tune based on 3/4 time?
is it high brow to go off key?
surely the ability to appreciate it requires only the facet of feeling…which i dont believe is a privilege of any elite and in fact those who seek simplicity in art forms usually lack that simplicity in their own lives and those who have the time for opera and extortionate seating prices probably enjoy a degree of stability/predictability/simplicity that only going to opera manages to rock about a bit.
even those who probably see themsleves as underdog in the war of elitism lack the restraint to articulate their annoyance thus maintaining the division.
and whilst the oligarchs can bask in self certainty the proles ( which are statistically probably the fastest growing group however loosley defined) can immerse themsleves in the consolation of numbers..as any palestinian knows and any illegal West Bank settler fears.
at the end of the day complexity or not music offers the most widely accessible fix for our pattern recognising needs.
And something as simple as the anticipation of the next note and either having that gratified or not can evoke all sorts of rich and,on the face of it ,incongruous emotions that our brain then ties up with stories, wordless or otherwise and based on what bits it recognises and what bit sit doesn’t.
Is that complicated?Pretentious?
But it comes again from our need to sense patterns.
And tell me that oxytocin ,that new wonder hormone that is exciting New Scientist journalists and readers as being the miracle socialising hormone acting at the “socialising” receptor that makes women cry at weddings even when theyre happy, isn’t just another case of being preached to by the most avidly converted zealots.
That women arent actually making all sorts of empathic connections with another woman who is being lost to one family (her own) and gained by another isnt enough of a contrary emotion to explain crying than to have to pinpoint it to oxy-bloody-tocin.
never heard such a load of bollocks before.
when i shit myself (metaphorically) i release adrenaline by the bucket loads however if i am given adrenaline i will not shit myself…i promise.i will probably just die of adrenaline overdose because it was given in a completely inappropriate physiological situation totally regardless of my particular requirements.
stuff you dont need is probably bad..thats why you dont need it doofuss.
All good fit ,ligand/receptor and yes/no models are hopelessly pathetic simulations of reality.
Because after such an all or nothing description why does even the best randomised controlled trial settle for odds ratios which are barely decimal points greater than one (one meaning no difference at all) to be deemed as significant.
Seems more desperation than confidence for what are often very victorian mechanistic descriptions of purported phenomena.
We cannot nitpick for isolated factors for more than a fraction of our understanding.
And in contemporary times art has tried to tackle the heterogeneity far more seriously than science.
An arbitrary division of disciplines that the greeks would not have approved of.
We have acknowledged the difference between in vitro and in vivo for a long time.
But the power of digital efficiency has led us into Newtonian illusions of cause and effect.
Phenomena which Newton in fact never tried to explain but only to describe and Hume himself recognised as only extrapolations of our pattern seeking needs.
And that obsession with describing events used in current approaches to rationalist problem solving has warped our perspective about what is actually going on.
As far as capitalist ventures are concerned we have become very fast button pushers rather than original thinkers.
And since capitalist ventures are the drivers for most of current human progress this could be leading us down a huge data choked black hole of statistical mine fields.
And what Prof Joe Edwards identifies as the cellular location of consciousness still falls short of trying to understand what consciousness actually is and how it is related to insight and thinking and the need for a story in everything.
Feeling cannot be matter because as soon as we ascribe matter to it we lose the “feeling” in it.
Like position and momentum uncertainty looking for one excludes the other…the only conclusion that acknowledges both their existence is that neither truly exists
and if youre in the elite it doesnt really matter.
and the rest of us try to be citable as thats the only immortality available that can offer a weak and unconvincing substitute for the powerless and relatively impoverished masses.