I'm bored, and I have nothing else to do till monday, might as well do something to pool my insect-like thoughts together.
No matter, what your religion is, it’s safe to assume that they're all based off of story books written during the early times of humanity's 'cultural self-awakening' (or maybe they're only a few hundred years old, maybe even 50), the main point being that all doctrine can be taken from this fiction books.
Wherever and whenever you grew up will determine what religion you were automatically assigned. I don’t know what the main religion of the US is, aside from the blanket term 'christian' (christianity is a media label for Abrahamic based religions who believe in jesus), but you'll probably be catholic, evangelical, baptist, whatever. Same if you went to the Middle East, where you will probably be sikh or muslim (here's a bad joke: The weather in England is like a muslim: it’s either Sunni or Shiite), and also if you went to Asia, where there's Buddhism, Taoism etc. (So its just down to luck where you're born).
This means that you have been/may have been raised in an environment that surrounds you in your religion.
he human mind is difficult to convince: Young children, not so much. It's easier to progressively tell and explain someone the same thing over and over with conviction rather than outright forcing them to accept A or B. This makes religion deep rooted and 'personal' to an individual, who won’t throw away years of processed information because one person says something they disagree with.
Religion is its own category: It’s a thinking process, belief system, moral system and fashion accessory all at the same time.
The thinking process is based on one of conflicting ideals must be put into either/or, one or the other, the false dichotomy of its either this or it’s that, and whatever is told to me to be right is only right if it comes from the source book where I get my faith from. This choice system comes from believing that actions are decided by all powerful deities rather than the will of the person making the decision, and if not that, then by the deities 'guiding' someone to make the right choice (due to no one knowing what 'deities' actually want or what their purpose is, this is basically, again, dumb luck).
The belief system is obvious: whatever the book tells you, that’s what you believe, and as pretty much every 'holy scripture' piece is 'the infallible word of something or other', then you DO believe all of it, or you believe NONE of it (as is the way when it comes to thinking like a religious person) and interpretation is not justifiable, as many modern religious followers simply pick and choose what to believe in, which is unacceptable to the core basis of their religion.
'I believe in a snake telling a naked lady to eat an apple, but not the approval of slavery and genocide, no no no' (the bible teaches that all these things are correct and appropriate for god).
The moral system is hit and miss: Most religions were based on one tribe finding something to make the other tribe be absorbed into their tribe, essentially making the whole tribe stronger (common ground and all that) while also sparking fear in other tribes due to the now bigger tribes increased manpower. Some are geared more towards personal than communal morals: Buddhism is by far the most pacifist and philosophical major religion, teaching towards self-improvement over group compromise ('I'll better myself rather than making you moving down equally to my level') and is probably closer to a perpetual self-help program that feeds off anxiety.
As a fashion accessory: If you're a US presidential candidate, you have to be 'christian'. The most famous scientologists are all actors and actresses. Bible verses are often used as tattoos. Showing off your faith to others of your faith will increase your rep with those also of your faith, much in the same way as if your new hairstyle makes you look cool.
If a deity of a religion is 'all knowing yet incomprehensible', where does one begin and the other end, if you BELIEVE that you've been told by your chosen (or forcibly chosen) deity some knowledge that is easily understandable and completely in line with the scenario you asked knowledge of/for, then it can be easily explained by saying that only YOU would know what you have been told by your deity, which is always what you knew before asking a 'divine being', therefore this should lead you to think that your deity of choice is none other than you telling yourself what to think and do, but within the guidelines of what you've been taught from your holy book.
This is the distinction between a religious person who is 'a rational member of the society' and someone who has schizophrenia: One of them can choose to have voices in their head, the other cannot (so a religiously motivated crime should be judged entirely as if the individual committing it is sane, as they have the ability to ignore their motivational delusion very easily, yet choose not to).
This explanation of the origins of god is based off of Darkmatter2525's video 'The Real God: An Epiphany':
'When someone is rejected, they feel despair and frustration. Typically, they'll feel resentment and anger against that person, the resulting chemical imbalance and overload of dopamine and cortisol in the rejected's brain even causes physical pain. Short term effects are aggressiveness and anti-social behaviour.'
'Person A is a theist and Person B is an atheist. They are having an argument over the existence of god. Any part of the argument can cause Person A to experience despair ('I feel sorry for you, I'll pray for you') and frustration ('Why do you care? Just let people believe what they want to believe'). Typically they'll also feel resentment ('You have no morals') and anger ('You're going to burn in hell!'). They may even exhibit aggressiveness (Death threats, discrimination), and anti-social behaviour (shunned, blocked, 'Dont call me again', avoidance'). The parallel is even clearer when a theist describes the atheist as 'rejecting' god.'
This draws a very very noticable parallel between the two states of being, but what does this actually mean?
'Person A (theist) wants to set up a blind date for Person B (atheist) with Person C (god). Person B doesn't even think that Person A knows Person C, or that Person A is the liaison or agent for Person C. Did Person B reject Person C? No. What if Person B doesn't even believe that Person C exists? Maybe Person A described them as too perfect, without flaws. Even if Person C does exist, were they rejected by person B? No. All Person C would need to do is show up and Person B would have no reason to doubt.'
'In all accounts, Person B is not rejecting Person C, yet Person A would not feel rejected if Person B didn't go through with the date.'
'So why does Person A feel rejected and yes the word rejection when encountering atheists?'
Because Person A is Person C. The believer is their own god. Person C wouldn't have felt rejected unless they were in the room, however Person A DOES feel rejected, or shows the signs of rejection. 'god' comes from your ego, your desire to think above yourself and understand your state of life. This is why 'god' tells you things you already know, why the options you have in a decision are the choices you knew all along. This is why you can agree with 'god' on every level. This is also why many modern religious people to not adhere to their chosen scripture: I already know god, I do not need a book to tell my what I already know. Yet this is the excuse that people can give themselves to perpetuate their own faith when it comes to criticism.
Its no hidden fact that, overall, people with a lower IQ have a tendency to be more religious (IQ is NOT JUST a measure of intelligence, but of mental processing and understanding). This isn't an attempt at pissing people off, its just true. That doesn't mean that anyone else who's not religious is more intelligent, but this graph at least supports the first point:
Of course, IQ is not a perfect way of showing someone's capabilites as a person, but its just an interesting factor to put in there.
Although Mitt Romney is pretty stupid.
Going back to the rejection explanation, it can also be understood why people wish to preach their faith openly, rather than let it stay as their own business. Humans are highly social beings, we cant go anywhere without seeing ourselves in each other, we have a base urge to be together, as it were. When someone is very openly preaching their faith, it explains the strength of their character: A more weak willed person will stand up in the bus and start ranting, and the priest will stand over his congregation so his voice is loudest, but both are essentially the same thing. A more mind/body centric religion, such as Buddhism or Taoism, where the body and mind are perceived as one, shows a stronger strength of character, as the followers accept their state of being and work with themselves to improve their understanding rather then outright refusing to understand and to just go along with whatever they've been told.. as is the way with abrahamic religions. This is of course, a generalisation: Not everyone is accountable for falling into one category or the other, but it is most telling of the majority of both parties.
This stems from a personal feeling of being aware that you are lonely.
Other people who do not believe in god wont be able to share god's company, but as we found out, religious people are their own 'gods', so the REAL desire is of one to be accepted and comforted by others but within their own minds, something that is currently impossible to achieve, and so the preachers will continue to preach, until they understand that their mind is forever lonely while their body is surrounded by other bodies with unreachable minds.
Why is reality the way it is?: The first person vi
Current mood: Terrified
So, today was my first day back from what was essentially a 4 day weekend. At that time and time of writing, I have/had a cold, and it was my great uncle's funeral on Friday. The strange situation of being at home in between jobs, figuring out my business plan for a record label, trying to understand the basics of all music theory, essentially being in sensory isolation (to put it in a blunt way) due to a cold, stuck in the same room for 3 days, seeing my dead uncles corpse and also completely obliterating my Skyrim saves cuz of faulty mods put me in this weird state of timeless, introspective analysis.
My findings after this period gave me this strange feeling of being a main character in a video game, maybe any given Bethesda game (where you create your own character and do whatever the hell you want) and everyone else around me is an NPC. Now the idea seems silly, but it does work in a way.
As the player, I have direct interaction with sensations, perspectives and the cause and effect of my surroundings, the same as we do individually with our real hands and sense (smell, sight, and so on). However, every aspect of this idea is heavily malleable: I may decide to be a mage vampire with an incredibly unwieldy sword, or perhaps a ninja with a lightsabre (there's mods for that, btw), much in the same way that we can choose to live as we please in 'the real world', although the choices are obviously more substantially varied for both states of being (You cant choose to be a lizard in RL, for example)
But is the place we live in so incredibly dry that it’s easier to use a video game as a context for our existence than actually using society's generally accepted viewpoints?
Obviously so if a video game is more immersive than actually living as a person.
Now, I know there's going to be that thought of 'Man, this guy just needs to get out more', but maybe my experience of going out isn't as nice as yours. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy people, I just don’t like clubs, bars, pubs, most venues, lots of alcohol, narcotics, places that literally take your piss from your bowels and give it to you in the form of enjoyment, basically where every person who's you're average person who has free time, goes to waste their free time.
This is just to clarify; I've had far too much time to think about this.
But back to the subject. Have you ever found it strange, that there's so much of this seemingly harmless visual input that’s around us?
Guy goes in bank, gets money. Pair of gloves on my table. Church bell in the distance. Coffee in Costa. This wine list seems incredibly dreary, darling. Dog smells your shoes, you realise you're wearing shoes. Mr Mime used Substitute!
What is all this? If I was born and raised in the deepest eastern European forests, only just coming into a current western country, I'd probably lose my shit. This thing with money, why is it a generally accepted fact that we need this shit? I mean collectively as a species, not in the 'TO BUY OUR STUFF WITH, DUUUH' sarcastic bullshitter way. If I went by the two big accepted thinking regimes (yeah, thinking regimes, not exactly a difficult thing to perceive when you think about it, then again, no one ever does that anymore) i.e. modern science and religion: one says that it is one of our 'adaptations' for surviving... something, while the other perpetuates the idea that everything automatically has a measurable value on it because 'the good book is right, so sayeth my imaginary friend, Jesus Muhammad Buddha Ganesh'. Why should we have to accept either/or? I personally would rather see a dedicated effort to prove both, as a mutual collective of like-minded human beings, rather than repulsively 'impassioned' religious nuts and bitter science people starting pissing contests over who's got the biggest fan base.
But then how can I say anything against either? That'd be like being Holland in WW2: Eventually, someone’s going to force you to choose, usually the one with the best explanation (or biggest gun).
It’s a forceful and uncaring automated society where your very perceptions of your own choices are skewed by external factors and variables placed around you by the people you read in the paper. From the day you are born, you are going to be put into an environment where your brain will get used to everything you live with which, as the American republican party will tell you, is all part of growing up as a natural human being. Fine, people are defined by what they're exposed to, that’s pretty much everyone’s question about personality answered, but when you're shown a set of beliefs by other people you don’t really understand (how can you, you live as yourself in your own body, you have no fucking clue what it feels like to be anyone else, don’t pretend to, don’t even try), all you can do is accept it.
To bring it back a little bit, Skyrim has a similar thing going on: Initiating conversation with someone in-game is a fairly simple ordeal, whereby, depending on the character, you're given 1 to 3 dialogue options, most usually the most banal things that pass for small talk like 'Who're you?' 'What do you do here?' 'Do you have something for sale?'. I really think Beth has hit it on the head here, where we've been able to parallel our own streamlined, low-thought process thinking regimes to that of the standard of a fantasy RPG.
If anyone owns a smartphone, then you're probably one of the groups of people I feel the most sorry for. Why? Well, you sold part of your brain for a £200 chunk of flimsy plastic and chips.
'Yeah, well, that doesn't bother me, Mr Blog person thing, I can talk to everyone I know at the press of a button! I can also download a GPS app, a multitude of free games, look at dem angry birds, dey so angry, it’s also gotten me laid, several times! I can even talk into my phone, and it replies back!!! OMG, SO OSSUM!!!1111eleven11one!'
Congratulations, you've concentrated your life down to one massive fucking distraction. Now you've got everyone of your identical friends saying the exact same inane thing on your Twatter, or whatever, after a £5 meal at Nandos while pictures of your chemical pumped greaseburger are being tagged by people you met on the street who you've met once and vaguely remembered the face of.
And yet, the big stupid fucking thing is, we young adults have so much freedom. Whether it’s mastering a guitar fretboard by 21 or shoving a firecracker into a dog’s mouth, we've got the entire world at our finger dipping pleasure. And yet still, this entire globe of hysterical teenagers still restrain themselves with talking to a bleeping piece of branded plastic as the next best thing that they think they can do for their lives.
So I guess my overall point with this blog was... well, I had to get this off my chest. Maybe I could be accused of being some random shit head, and yeah, I am a random shit head, but if you've ever wondered why there's a society, why money exists, why we're given these choices but not given a reason to choose them other than the reasons given by the ones around and before us, then you've probably missed that text from your 1000th Facebook friend, and need to get back to your iPhone.
Summin' I do nearly every year, compile a list of promising material for promising acts and so on. 2011 was practically oversaturated with amazing metal, and not just metal but some awesome as hell rawk'n'rooooll and also some mood choons.
2012 is looking conversely vague. Very few confirmed albums, but loads of demo material, but perhaps not as many artists releasing shit this year. So heres what I've been able to uncover so far:
Alcest - Les Voyages de L'Ame
Aborted - Global Flatline
Eluveitie - Helvetios (sounds awwwesome)
Every Time I Die - Ex-Lives
Soulfly - Enslaved
Spawn of Possession - Incurso
Down - Down IV
And whatever else comes. Also expect a whole host of recorded material by me ;D
This part of the song, after the long and energetic build up, is so unexpected but so so magical. The chord progression is unlike anything I've ever heard. The way the vocals strike the notes such a way that it feels like the crescendo of a violin movement, the solo glides over the chords in a soft tone, not needing any abrasive amounts of distortion, crazy effects etc. to change it. The layered sound of the keyboards and guitar amplifies the melodies to such an extent that when all the elements are combined, I literally cry. I did last night, in fact, was a nice moment..
See, if I wrote more like this in reviews, I'd do them more often, but honestly, its hard when you have trouble stringing a sentence together (semi-stammer).
I'm a little disapointed by this. As a regular, I'm usually indifferent about an argument about who's answer to everything is better than whos, but this particular one was filled with so much bollocks that I had to point it out.
In particular, the hate comments against Nergal himself. Like you, he is a musician, like you, he expresses his feelings in many ways, LIKE YOU.. he plays guitar. This is the first time I think I've seen hate used appropriately on this site. What is so bad about ripping up a book that has virtually no content in it what-so-ever? Is it because among the thousands of interpretable quotes about some man going down into the town to preach about a dream he had, there's something that specifically says 'thou shalt not progress, evolve and change as human beings, learning to accept and be reasonable' or 'thou shalt not let the man who has a pasty face and a sexy guitar say what he wants to say and do what he wants to do'?
I'm quite sure there isn't.
There is no need for crap like this, most of all in a place where so many people get along.
The way the human mind works, people need constant re-assurance of their safety. An in-built mechanism is to respond to threats. People think they have many ways of interpreting a threat, but the brain doesn't, so absolutely anything could pose a risk to your well-being.
A man ripping up a pointless book is not a threat, its a statement. Whatever Nergal wants us to think, there's no denying that it makes more sense to get rid of the damn thing entirely. And as proven from the article, all that the defenders of the faith do is fall back on that old Bible-y chestnut and quote away to try and explain their reasoning. Thats like forcing a 1 year old to live on Harry Potter until adulthood, then being made to believe its real, hence letting them use any quote they want to that has no real relevance to whatever it is they're using the quote for, then using their beliefs as a way through living.
I'd definitely do what Nergal did if thats all that the bible is and if thats all it makes people do.
On the lighter side, I earthed up some info on a band called Alchemist from australia. If you like Akercocke and Killing Joke with a lot of psychedlia thrown in, try it out.
College restarted yesterday and immidiately we were given the run down for a 13 week music project we had to do. We basically have to compose a set list of 10 minutes, learn how to play the set properly, then perform it all live. We're all marked on how we do as a team, so I had this frankly ingenius idea about how our group of 5 people can have equal parts in everything:
The way it works is two guitarists, a drummer, one guy doing the samples/synths/WOBWOBWOBWOB and the live stage engineer.
Now obviously this has something to do with the recent collab between KoRn and Scalectrix but this idea is something genuinly do-able. Even though I despise dubstep.
But even so, this could be a good idea, right? Bear in mind, we are playing to an audience of 18 - 28 year olds.
Death Metal/Metalcore vocals
Low tuned, distorted guitars
Extreme low end bass
Death metal drumming (blast beats, double pedals, etc)
Simplified death metal lyrics
...Breakdowns The Pros
Easy to follow.
The intended use of breakdowns is meant to be for live enjoyment.
Simplified riffs emphasise 'heaviness'.
Drumming is usually on par with most DM drummers.
'Catchiness' comes from the simplified musicianship.
A degree of experimentation/specialization is open to oppurtunity.
Usually monumental production.
Its easy because its unimaginative.
Breakdowns in deathcore are stretched and abused to make up for lack of musical content.
Simplified for people who are simple.
'Heaviness' is an effect of listening to music, not a literal trait. Deathcore is sonically rather light due to the production and is only 'heavy' when played live.
Most live bands have purposefully awful live mixing with bass taking a priority and drowning out everything else (to cover up bad musicianship? Who knows, but they do it).
Vocals are universally the same with no characterization in the vocalists voices.
'Catchiness' is relative to each genre, but for deathcore, a genre with little to no melody in it, catchniness comes through on vocal patterns. Who the hell bases a metal band on how fast the vocalist can scream?
Deathcore is already a stale genre because there are an absurdly small number of bands that do anything other than BLUUUUURG chugychug and 'progressive deathcore' doesn't really exist (all it is, is deathcore with sweeps).
The production is the standard fare given on pop artists. Most of the instruments are proccessed through multiple peices of hardware and the drums are almost always triggered. That kind of defies the point of the band if they have production that makes them sound good, but cant even play their instruments live.
Awful awful awful lyrics, most revolve around misogyny and 'empires' that are universally the same metaphor for some dude who punched the vocalist in the face.
The fanbase mostly consists of: Scene kids, 16-30 year old white farmer boys from the southern united states and also, canadians.
Most of the bands consist of people who are: Scene kids, 16-30 year old white farmer boys from the southern united states and obviously, canadians.
What should be a decent music genre is polluted by idiots doing it oh so very wrong.