/J
See you there!
/Jonatan
“We ents never say anything that doesn’t take a long time saying. And we never say anything if it’s not worth taking a long time saying.”
That, ladies and gentlemen, is me. I’ve thought of these microblogs, Twitter and whatever they’re called, I could never do that. Instead I readily await the day the maxiblog arrives; where no post can ever be less than a 1000 words. When I write, what limits my writing is not that I run out of things to say, or various ways of putting it. My attempts to limit the amount I write is based on my concern for my readers. I simply prefer if they didn’t grew old and died, whilst waiting for me to finish my sentence.
But I stick by my ent-like approach: It’s better to say something that is close to your heart and feels important - even if it is in a roundabout way - rather than to say nothing at all, only because you can’t keep it short and retain the hip blogfactor your message ought to have. Man, that sounded like something that came out of a very old person. An ent maybe?
Enjoy
/Jonatan
- Well, all this theology is good and well, but Jonatan, are you planning on releasing any records?
Yes, I am, in fact. I am working on new songs, and although there is no deadline set in stone, there should be a new album out, before the end of this year. I don’t want to give away too much, but one of the singles will be with talanted US producer Joel Corelitz aka Waveplant.
Keep an eye out folks!
/Jonatan
To think that the sollution is within reach through scientific theories, is to put ones hope in a metaphysic of science, an eschatological hope of science. Exactly the ugly in wishing for a hope, an eschatology, which can explain life’s predicament, is something that christendom has been severly criticized about, i.e. from Marx and Freud. But to imagine that a christian worldview can be replaced with a scientific one is only a project made possible if one accepts science as a system of meaning, and one that proclaims a strictly materialistic purpose with the human condition.
Furthermore it seems ironic that Marx (and even more so Lenin) suggests that christianity’s eschatological hope is one of the core points to criticize and at the same time suggest that this view should be replaced with a materialist eschatology; an idea about a society where everyone has a little more things, money and status. This seems to be an incredibly dull hope, that we will all acquire more stuff in the future, and that this is what we all should hope for. This gives no pointers as to what either love nor thought or empathy is (or what these cateogories should be filled with), other than that it can be expressed through a formula where these emotions and experiences is equated with a precise measurement of things/stuff. This is a surprisingly dry eschatology and therefor an equally dry metaphysic.
Don’t get me wrong, things are not unimportant. There is a provertyline because it’s terrible having to live under it. But I ask myself, if I live under the calculated existential minimum, what means the most for me; belongings or love and a sense of belonging?
Enjoy!
/Jonatan
And for those of you who have commented, thank you, your feedback is important.
/Jonatan
A few comments on my last post (and its comments) and this article is in order.
Scientific research made popular headlines.
If there is already such a vast descripancy between the headline of the article (affirming that downloading is generally benefitial) to a subtext explaining that instaces occur when illegal activity leads to legal activity, you may need to be suspicious. Also, being an academic I know the danger of trying to sum up extensive research and scolarly fieldwork - which in its original form usually spans over hundreds of pages. At exams you are often asked to sum up the important features of a whole book in about three A4 pages, which is off course extremely hard, subjective and also due to what interests or tendencies you are trying to explain. The shorter the text, the lesser chance of accurately describing the content. This is a 305 word article, again far less than a three page summary. With what’s in the article there is actually no telling what this study find to be good empirical evidence, nor what is plausible tendencies that needs further research.
The difference between complaining and explaining.
Let me present my response to a blog comment I got saying that it was of no use to complain about the situation. I agree that the first question regarding piracy is what can be done to prevent people from stealing music. However, my suggested solution is of a moral kind, not of technical. As a humanist I prefer invoking empathy, telling my story and arguing that my side of the story is also one of truth (that said I do not argue that truth is one-sided), rather than conjuring up technology that prevents actual copying of files or that electrocutes motherboards. I firmly believe that there is a point to be made once people see that piracy is not something that only strikes at an evil empire “music business”, but also at people passionate about music, and which tiny boats are being sunk on a broad scale by the pirates.
I see a difference here between complaining and sharing my narrative. True, the story above is one of resignation, but never the less it emerges from my wanting to present new music to the world, but the avenues being shut/shot down by self-proclaimed “guardians of the uncompromisable human right to share (whatever you like with whoever you like)”.
My ambition is to tell a personal story of what piracy does, which contrasts what the pirates claim is a victimless crime, and hope that this will make one or more people think of my story and hesitate next time they are about to open their torrent tracker. If that should be accomplished, even once, then what I’ve written is not merely complaining, but will have achieved its intended purpose.
