音乐 – music


I like when I see people smiling at babies.

What a nice time to be in this world where a totally foreign organism might show a random gesture of kindness to someone else’s newborn. Imagine in the past when the world was raw, more savage, and unruly, and baby humans probably had a lot less nice of a time.

I had read somewhere about ideas on the evolution of human birth, and how maybe the reason human babies have evolved to be so remarkably helpless in comparison to some other animals (like megapodes and reptiles), is that it necessitated for caregivers with cognizance and dependability, qualities of which we have a pretty good neurological capacity for refining. That necessity then served as a system of evolutionary filtration contributing to the successful passage of genetic information for those that could adequately learn and adapt. This also goes hand-in-hand with finding innovative ways to share that information – which basically jet propulsed our collective species’ intelligence from generation to generation – and now here we are, with organized systems of language, and society, and music.

Sure, the product might not be perfect, but I don’t even know what that word means. I have a bit of a hard time understanding people that spend their time and effort lamenting the state of the world we live in, without facilitating productive discussion and trying to do something about it. Until tomorrow, this is probably the best time to be alive, and every time someone jumps on the sensationalist bandwagon, they help maintain the prevalent psychosocial problems that exist within, and because of, the way that we intercommunicate.

Life is not fair, and it has never been about being fair. We could try every day to make things “fair”, but I’m not really convinced we know what that means.

Is it fair for a gazelle to be eaten alive by a bunch of lions? Or is it more fair that the cubs starve to death? Is it just a matter of transient perspective? I’m sure you can find some sympathy for both parties here, and similarly, I’m sure you could come up with a number of scenarios in which you don’t. Though, the point I’m dancing around is that I think the development of society has strongly ingrained in humanity the notion that we are different, or that the circumstances are somehow different for us, because we’re complex, and thinking, or capable of “moral” reasoning.

And fair enough. But if history has shown us anything, it’s that different societies breed different cultures, and different cultures instill and perpetuate different “morals”, and in turn glorify and vilify different values. And so we inevitably return to this existential problem where we might be persuaded into thinking it’s as simple as “good” combating “bad”, when it’s so obviously more of a deep-rooted issue than that, grounded in the varying origins of language, and subjective belief.

Why can’t one act in a collaborative and non-exploitative manner, or simply help one another, without attaching some arbitrary ideology to it? I really dislike concepts that seek to govern our social behavior, like hell, or karma, because they are so painfully self-centered, and it ultimately means that you have given away your ability to reason for yourself. To act in accord with a random doctrine.. to avoid doing something because you fear retribution, or conversely, to purposely do something in the hopes – or worse, expectation – of pleasure, or benefit. That sucks right? It’s a strange thing.

I imagine if everyone equally refrained from imposing their will upon others, many of our existential problems would float away.

I love music because it is so inherently unassuming, and it’s accessible to anyone. It’s just a rhythmic gift, for nobody in particular, thrown into the world. Some people may, and will probably always, try to seize onto music for ideological purposes, but as with language, it’ll just be whatever it is, regardless of what we try to tie it to, or have it represent. The Chinese term for “music” is “yīnyuè” (音乐), which more literally translates to “fun sound”, and I think that’s pretty nice.

哀 – sorrow


One thing I admire about the Chinese language is that it’s so contextually based. It kind of necessitates that we are actively on the same wavelength, so to speak, if we are to understand each other fully.

A particular spelling of a word might have several completely different meanings based on intonation and intention of use. I can think of probably 11 or 12 different characters for the word “shi”, some of them even using the exact same tone and still having a different meaning. Complicated? Maybe, but it’s also pretty functional.

One such function might be less emphasis on the arbitrary construct of the word itself, the descriptor, the label… and far more emphasis on the information conveyed.

I think social and linguistic development has led to a lot of misguided glorification and overemphasis of surface-level ideas, and concepts, or those descriptors, at the expense of trying to really thoroughly understand the thing in question itself, as it is, if it even has any grounding in reality, without being inextricably tied to that artificial representation.

So let’s talk about love.

There has been, and still is, quite a lot of psychological and anthropological research going on seeking to prove that “love” is a universal emotion, and that it arises naturally in every culture. And so we let them. Because love is nice, right? And why wouldn’t it be conceivable that everyone else might be able to experience this thing we call love? Although, what is it exactly that is trying to be proven here?

Is your love the same as my love? Does that matter? Has this exploration of the phenomenon of love, and how it arises, viewed within the scope of such language, only served to skew the actual thing into fitting more neatly into our endless cascade of arbitrary definition, or have we actually gotten any closer to understanding what it is that we mean, and what it is that our word represents?

I think we often kind of chase ourselves in orbit around a thing, but without getting any closer to whatever it is.

People feel and express “love” in different ways, and probably have all sorts of different words to describe it. So why should it matter at all if those same words are common to any two people or places in the world? I would think it makes a lot more sense not to overvalue the representational term, but rather to simply value the feeling as you perceive it, and allow it to be what it is without tying it down with what is inevitably an arbitrary label. But that’s quite hard, because you can’t capitalize upon, associate with, and advertise an unspoken understanding, can you?

The Chinese translation for the word “love” is “ài” (爱), which I find interesting, because “āi” (哀) is also the word for “sorrow”.

recycling

You know what’s crazy?

In some form or another, every single atom that make up you and I has been around for an unfathomably long time.

I can’t bring myself to believe in the reincarnation of any metaphysical soul, but it’s undeniable that we are walking, respiring products of incredible atomic assembly, recycled from god knows what.

All living things decay, we become food for fungi, and every bit of the dust that made us is jettisoned back into the world to become something else for a little while.