A revelatory interpretation:

https://erikhall.bandcamp.com/album/music-for-18-musicians-steve-reich

I listened through 0-2 and enjoyed it. I skipped through, looking at episode topics, and it looks like he still hasn't made it out of late antiquity on episode 137 or whatever? I was a little bummed; I was hoping for some in depth episodes on more recent iterations, or even someone pre-renaissance like Bohme.

I mean maybe wisdom is something else other than a need.

Maybe wisdom isn't a need.

:up: Also a fan of The Quantic Soul Orchestra.

Interesting dude, used to play a lot at National Sawdust in NY where I used to work. I think he's untrained? He used to collab with Jefferey Zeigler formerly of Kronos Quartet.

edit: contact mics on the ping pong table, love it.

I think the glamour for us will be more to do with atheistic superiority. — unenlightened

Isn't that the world we live in?

To further bring home my point, I suppose "esoteric" is a Greek word, and a Western projection unto Eastern thought. It's esoteric to us. But the point remains that we interpret Eastern thought through a Western lens, i.e. your description of Taoism as "meat and potatoes philosophy".

Btw, thanks for the heads up on the podcast. Looking forward to cleverly "getting it wrong" myself. :up:

I think the charlatanism of a lot of modern western esotericism is related to a western way of thinking (involving capitalism, for instance), projected unto eastern thought. The west interpreting the east in a western way. This doesn't say anything about the actual ideas.

Don't ask me, Posty.

That piece blurs the line between ambient and...I don't even know. I'm a fan of ambient music, but don't blame anyone for not liking it. Ultimately I think I prefer music that flirts with ambient without being fully in the genre, which that album certainly does. I also make ambient music, though. :lol:

:ok:

Yeah Rogue Man — Srap Tasmaner

Rogue Moon, right?

Cordwainer Smith — Srap Tasmaner

Heard of him, but haven't read. More stuff added to the list.

I read my first PKD after college, and loved it. Different smokes for different smokers...

By the way, I have Rogue Moon on order ($6 total) from abebooks. :up: Always in search of recs for sci-fi that scratchs the PKD itch, i.e. stories about people dealing with weird shit, rather than hardcore sci-fi.

Just do it! I'm sure you can find a good copy on abebooks for like $5.

:up: See, to me I do consider that good writing. As @Srap Tasmaner was saying, PKD has a way of eliciting humanity. To me, his writing is coarse and unadorned, but this is what makes it human and affecting.

Woah, thanks, that sounds bizarre and awesome. Gonna see if I can find a copy. I'll do you one more: A Voyage To Arcturus by David Lindsay. If people think Dick is a bad writer, get ready for Lindsay. But it's a strange, addictive story that you won't forget anytime soon.

Just another confused guy you meet on the road, and he makes the journey more bearable. — Srap Tasmaner

No doubt.

I loved Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch. — Srap Tasmaner

I did too, although it was a bit overwhelming and sort left me with a sickly feeling for some reason.

Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said. — Srap Tasmaner

I know this is a perennial favorite, but it's the only one so far I didn't really care for that much. The ending left me cold I think.

VALIS I thought was...good. Obviously it's very bizarre. I actually really enjoyed The Divine Invasion, which is a very loose sequel I guess. As to the Exegesis, I have a copy and have read about 100 pages...it's a pretty dizzying glimpse inside his brain. As you said, a haunted man. If I'm being honest, I share some of his mystical preoccupations. It's hard for me to look away.

I kid not, the most reading I've ever done, was reading 14 of his books in a row, in 3 weeks. In my peak I was averaging a book a day. — Manuel

:lol: Sounds about right. I'm sure you're not the only person to have done this.

The underrated charm from me would be The Game Players of Titan. — Manuel

Noted. :up:

I've read a lot, but not everything, and I love him not for the what-is-real? stuff but just for the humanity. — Srap Tasmaner

For sure, although I’m a fan of both. Any favorites for you?

Though I think that in A Scanner Darkly, he steps it up considerably. — Manuel

Ahhh, that’s next on my list, although I feel like I should read some earlier work first. My brother recommended Martian Time Slip.

Yup. It's surreal, hilarious, and terrifying. A mind fuck.



To me UBIK is the best, but it's maybe an acquired taste. I would say The Man In The High Castle is a good intro to his style and themes, although it's a bit slow.

And weirdly, when I first started reading him I also was annoyed by what I thought was mediocre writing, but now I don't even notice it because I find his worlds so engrossing.

Fair enough; I usually begin with the assumption that people find him weird at best. If anything, I probably have an unhealthy obsession with his work. The only question I'll ask is have you read UBIK?

Maybe. Are you into/have you read Philip K. Dick?

I find that interesting because, while I didn't love it, I certainly didn't find it forgettable. Maybe that has more to do with my own weird taste in fiction. It reminded me of PKD's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", quite ironically, as that was just mentioned above by @john27.

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? — john27

Any thoughts? Have you read other PKD?

— Baden

Roadside Picnic - Arkady and Boris Strugatsky

Same question to you both. Any thoughts? I didn't love it, but I knew going in that it would be quite different than Tarkovsky's Stalker.

I'm currently reading The Penultimate Truth by Philip K. Dick.

No confusion of first person tenses there. :up: found it a very fascinating read, in fact.

Which change? I just edited out some stuff I felt unnecessary myself.

At the least, here:

As part of the goal of these writings, we will attempt to answer some of these questions based on our understanding of Wittgenstein. It would be the height of arrogance though, to think our interpretation is something Wittgenstein would approve of, or even agree with. However, it would also be an error to neglect Wittgenstein’s writings in our attempt to understand the concepts we are using; especially since Wittgenstein’s work sheds so much light on language use. — Sam26

I would say, "As part of the goal of these writings, I [ you the author ] will attempt to answer some of these questions, etc.".

Edit, if that came out harsh, I just meant "isn't there a way to do that?"

Can't you vacillate between first person plural and singular by distinguishing when you're talking to your audience as "we" and when you're referencing yourself as "I" as the author that's communicating the ideas? Especially if you're writing for a general audience, as you mentioned?

Does anyone else have an opinion on writing this in the first person? — Sam26

I think first person plural makes sense in the initial stages where you're talking to "us" about our collective philosophical issues, but when you get to the end, where you say

As part of the goal of these writings, we will attempt to answer some of these questions — Sam26

And the like, it feels out-dated in it's syntax. If there's a way to pivot gradually into the first person singular as the author yourself by the time you get around here, it would work, to my untrained eye.

Splurging on a lavish meal is underrated.

One of the most interesting new albums I've heard recently.

The whole album is a spiritual trip:

Gotta go but I'll be back. :up:

That's fine. The difference here, that I feel should be made, is that you're interfacing with the Tao Te Ching in a religious sense. No need to get defensive or carried away. I'm a student of different religious texts, to various degrees, and for various reasons. But I think we're moving away from the OP topic. In this context, we were talking about whether poetry is still an art form that is part of the (western) zeitgeist. I was saying it isn't.

But you were deeply moved by someone's translation of that document from an ancient language bearing scant resemblances at best to English; not by the document itself.