You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2011.
The finale begins with an extended slow introduction based on several pregnant thematic ideas. The first, high in the violins, is a minor-mode transformation of what will become the main theme of the finale, but here broken off by an agitated pizzicato passage. A tense section of rushing scales is halted by a timpani roll leading to the call of the solo horn, a melody originally for Alphorn that Brahms collected while on vacation in Switzerland. The introduction concludes with a noble chorale intoned by trombones and bassoons, the former having been held in reserve throughout the entire Symphony just for this moment. The finale proper begins with a new tempo and one of the most famous themes in the repertory, a stirring hymn-like melody that resembles the finale of Beethoven’s “Choral” Symphony. (When a friend pointed out this affinity to Brahms he shot back, “Any fool can see that!”) The movement progresses in sonata form, but without a development section. The work closes with a majestic coda in the brilliant key of C major featuring the trombone chorale of the introduction in its full splendor.
A fine discussion on what science can contribute to morality and moral structures.
I’ve researched a little into the topic of Heteronormativity in our culture. It is a big word, but really it just means the structural framework of how we view women and men in our culture and the roles and expectations we define as normal and how these roles should be performed. All fine and dandy right? In reality, not so much. It does not take much to transform gender roles into gender stereotypes and beginning the process of ordering people into their “proper” gender identities based on their actions and appearance.
Being an outlier on the hetronormative scale invites a variety of negative responses ranging from quizzical looks and questions all the way to profane gendered slurs. Concepts like heteronormativity and Patriarchy, if you are part of the dominant majority, are sometimes very hard to see or even conceptualize. It is only until you breach a perceived norm (as a member of the privileged class, if you’re in the underclass you get oppressed by default 24/7) do things start to go sideways. I came to this little discovery point about twenty some years ago for something as basic as choice of adornment.
The cause of some controversy? :>
Having worn a gold rings on my index toes for some twenty years now let me assure you that I have received compliments all the way to outright hostility for a simple choice of jewelry. One of the most common responses I get is “Hey, aren’t toe rings for girls?” to which I usually reply to my (almost always) male questioner, “Hey aren’t earrings for girls?”. Which usually makes them stop and think for a bit as the realization that the cultural validity of gendered practices is not static, but rather quite fluid in nature. Okay, well I hope they realize this, but most of the time they, just repeat their first comment again (they having just passed a heteronormative judgment), to which I reply, “I think they look cool, and thanks for asking,” and politely steer the conversation elsewhere.
Less judicious or enlightened individuals have often questioned my sexuality dropping the familiar hetro-bomb, “Are you gay?” with the word gay dripping with scorn and derision. Does wearing toe rings make you gay? It has not worked yet, and I would not be particularly worried if it did because like most decisions of this nature, first and foremost it is my choice. And I choose the gendered slurs and disapprobation from various sources because when it comes down to it, it is their problem, not mine. I can come to this conclusion precisely because I am a member of the dominant class and still retain enough of my privilege so that my outlier choices do not negatively effect my social status much over all.
Still think that patriarchy and privilege are not integral parts of our society? Push your “normal” gender role a bit just to see, as an experiment, how closely heteronormative norms are enforced, I dare ya. :)
Men are not supposed to do nail polish either. I say bollocks to heternomativity. :)
Set phasers to bloviate!
The problem with “Climategate” and the rest of the braying noises emanating from the general direction of the climate denialist camp is that their claims are false. Being factually incorrect is not a particularly deep concern for fox news, but in science it matters. It matters a lot. The ‘scandalous’ emails circulated through the media were presented stripped of context and manipulated to be viewed in the worst possible light. If one propagandist reporter had actually bothered to do their homework they would have quickly seen the emails for what they were, mere correspondence between scientists, no booga-booga conspiracy attached.
17 minutes is a long time for a video, but well worth the view if you at all interested in the actual facts of the manufactured Climategate hullabaloo.
The radical form of Islam being preached in Afghanistan (and other places) is a symptom of the upheaval and chaos that is endemic of the region. With no security, no law and no justice, it is who has the biggest gun makes the rules. Currently the radical followers of islam occupy that role and the repression of women is the cornerstone of their particularly warped take on the religion of “peace”.
We recently received a comment on a similar post about the insane ass-backwardness of Islam, and religion in general, decrying the lack of respect and tolerance for religion and religious practices.
“While I have little respect for religion I have too much respect for the people that do practice it to support a Draw Mohammad Day, or for that matter a Piss on a Crucifix Day. It just seems like another opportunity for otherwise sane progressive people to join with the far right in attacking Muslims.”
This seems to be a fairly mainstream progressive opinion. Fairly wrong as well, but wrongness aside, the comment lends insight to one of obstacles progressive thinking needs to overcome when arguing the issues. Our opponents, usually people who sponsor socially regressive policies (pro-death penalty, anti-abortion, anti-socialism etc), decry progressive positions (for a myriad of BS reasons but I’m making a point here about cultural relativity and ‘tolerance’) because of the lack of an absolute moral position. Because progressives usually are not as xenophobic, racist or intolerant as regressive voices the progressive position is framed as being a moral willy-nilly free for all that permits all behaviour because it is believed that morality and the behaviour that stems from said behaviour is based on the society and culture being viewed.
Cultural Relativism (CR). CR is great in small doses, but should not be used as a basis for moral judgments because human societies are capable of cruel despicable laws/customs that by deontological standards, are atrocious. Allow me to cut off the boilerplate religious response to my admission that CR is heavily flawed when it comes to making moral judgments by saying that a supreme being in any form is not necessary for the formation of a moral system. We can make moral judgments without divine guidance or literacy in irrelevant ancient texts by using our reason and intuitions alone (see Utilitarianism and Deontological Moral systems).
In the video included in this post women, housed in their burka cloth prisons, are risking their lives for the simple act of attempting to become literate. They face persecution and death simply because they wish to free themselves from the torpid ignorance which is religiosity. So can one simply say that the cultural practice of cloistering and oppressing half the population merely because they have the double XX chromosome is a good one because we must only judge societies by their own intrinsic standards?
The argument is a gross simplification of what CR is, but some progressives seem to endorse the idea that tolerance means we have to condone the reprehensible actions of others because it is “OK” in their society. Basing your morality on any one system is a recipe for moral failure as all systems have inherent flaws that can amplify human suffering if taken as gospel.
The problem with morality is that, by nature, it is inherently complex and comes with many layers of conflicting values and ideas that must be judiciously weighed before coming to an (often unsatisfactory) answer. Regressives have little time for complexity and depth of thought and often adumbrate easy moral solutions based on unrealistic binary models.
So, to address the issue raised in the video clip, yes it is morally and functionally wrong to prevent women from becoming literate and educated. One must look at the problem not only through the prism of the CR analysis but also Utilitarian and Deontological moral systems. If all societies were to adopt the fundamental tenets of Islam would people be better off? Does the system promote great amount of utility for individuals and society? When cast in the light of a multifaceted moral analysis a moral stance can be taken that is nuanced and guided by rational thought (rather than musty rules from a magic a book). The system (delusional religious belief) that encourages such egregious misogynistic cultural practices must therefore be criticized for promoting such a view of women.
Truth is hard to come by when it comes to international relations and geopolitics. Noam Chomsky fashions an argument based on reciprocal morality, one of the tenets of the majority of prescriptive moral systems.
Also, Noam weighs in on Obama on RT.
Mozart’s music is used during the opening scene of X-Men 2, as far set pieces go to establish a movies ‘tone’ I think this one works quite well. (ed. Fox is being all DMCAish on youtube as of late, thus the changing of the link)
Go here to watch it on dailymotion.com.
For the more classically inclined, please see this video for the non teleporting, non-(physically)ass kicking version of Mozart’s Requiem.
The Requiem Mass in D minor (K. 626) by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was composed in Vienna in 1791 and left unfinished at the composer’s death. A completion by Franz Xaver Süssmayr was delivered to Count Franz von Walsegg, who had anonymously commissioned the piece for a requiem Mass to commemorate the February 14 anniversary of his wife’s death.
It is one of the most enigmatic pieces of music ever composed, mostly because of the myths and controversies surrounding it, especially around how much of the piece was completed by Mozart before his death. The autograph manuscript shows the finished and orchestrated introit in Mozart’s hand, as well as detailed sketches of the Kyrie and the sequence Dies irae as far as the first nine bars of “Lacrimosa”, and the vocal parts of the offertory. It cannot be shown to what extent Süssmayr may have depended on now lost “scraps of paper” for the remainder; he later claimed the Sanctus and Agnus as his own.
Walsegg probably intended to pass the Requiem off as his own composition, as he is known to have done with other works. This plan was frustrated by a public benefit performance for Mozart’s widow Constanze. A modern contribution to the mythology is Peter Shaffer‘s 1979 play Amadeus, in which the mysterious messenger with the commission is the masked Antonio Salieri who intends to claim authorship for himself.
The Requiem is scored for 2 basset horns in F, 2 bassoons, 2 trumpets in D, 3 trombones (alto, tenor & bass), timpani (2 drums), violins, viola and basso continuo (cello, double bass, and organ). The vocal forces include soprano, contralto, tenor, and bass soloists and a SATB mixed choir.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…