there are things that cut across time, cultures, economic status, place and individual psyches... death is one such phenomenon, dreams another... of course, experiences surrounding death and dreams vary but every human has experienced the two...
some people claim that they don't dream so i'll make a counter-claim to this regard:
1. dreams are a way to deal with the discrepencies between your existence as you are living it and your existence as you'd like to live it. thus, though, there are people who manage to bridge the two, at some point in life, every human has dreamed.
2. it is entirely possible that you've dreamed and not remembered the dream(s).
the existence of these universal phenomena make me briefly wonder if there is such a thing as The Universal Truth... however, my interest lies less in similarities and a grand theory of everything and more in differences and the root causes thereof...
the other day, a young lady who was born and brought up in rural madhya pradesh was talking about how dreaming of weddings or food or wells was an indicator of something "bad" while dreaming of dead people was an indicator of "good" things... the wedding dream, in particular, interested me... i have always assumed dreaming of weddings was an indicator of a person's own desire for committment... and not of "bad news".
it was then that i realised that our cultural conditioning affects us in far deeper ways than mere conscious thought processes... i wonder if migrants continue to interpret their dreams the way they used to even if the context and the elements of their dreams change with the culture... however, i do believe that while dreaming is universal, dream interpretations are culturally rooted... economically too, perhaps...
studying dreams and dream interpretations as a cultural exercise could have some pretty interesting social implications... for one, it could lead to a deeper insight on what is socially acceptable to communities... another implication, of course, would be to understand what issues concern the community in question...
as for how to define the community, feel free to group people any way you want... the identity standpoint assures you that monotony and boredom will be kept at bay...
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
god is an astronaut is god
i'm a greenhorn when it comes to writing about music. i listen to a reasonable quantam of music but know little about how to write about it. of all the elements of culture, writing about music is by far the trickiest.
generally, i've noticed that when people talk about a band, there'll always be a certain band representative of the genre against which the band in question will be measured, either directly or through implication.
talk about post-rock and sigur ros will be that representative band. for me, however, the yardstick is ireland's god is an astronaut.
the first track of theirs that i heard came from their 2005 album, "all is violent, all is bright". today, i can safely say i've heard pretty much everything that they've ever released and i'm still longing to hear more.
their sound, like every band of their genre, has more layers than a lasagna has pasta sheets. unlike other bands of their genre, however, they make it sound ridiculously easy.
if you hear the band from their first album (the end of the beginning, 2002) to their most recent work ('no return', a single from 'all things lost below', an album slated for a 2009 release), it is evident that they're only getting better. the feel has slowly inched from being fresh to deep and mature, but the core remains the same- dark, beautiful and perfectly composed.
which is not to say that the sound variation is very high across albums- far from it. they use a similar set of notes across most of their compositions but it isn't boring. the build-up in every track is different, thus taking the track, and invariably, the album to a different plane each time.
their use of vocals is extremely sparse- even more sparse than the standard post-rock/shoegaze. there are no lyrics whatsoever. just sounds.
their album/track titles are simple yet strange enough to qualify as post rock. their album art isn't particularly unique but it does its function of being reasonably attractive.
i've heard that their live performances are rather stellar and no matter how small or large the audience, these guys give it everything they've got.
with so much going for this band, it's no wonder, then, that god is an astronaut is an ideal of sorts for the discerning listener of the post-rock genre.
generally, i've noticed that when people talk about a band, there'll always be a certain band representative of the genre against which the band in question will be measured, either directly or through implication.
talk about post-rock and sigur ros will be that representative band. for me, however, the yardstick is ireland's god is an astronaut.
the first track of theirs that i heard came from their 2005 album, "all is violent, all is bright". today, i can safely say i've heard pretty much everything that they've ever released and i'm still longing to hear more.
their sound, like every band of their genre, has more layers than a lasagna has pasta sheets. unlike other bands of their genre, however, they make it sound ridiculously easy.
if you hear the band from their first album (the end of the beginning, 2002) to their most recent work ('no return', a single from 'all things lost below', an album slated for a 2009 release), it is evident that they're only getting better. the feel has slowly inched from being fresh to deep and mature, but the core remains the same- dark, beautiful and perfectly composed.
which is not to say that the sound variation is very high across albums- far from it. they use a similar set of notes across most of their compositions but it isn't boring. the build-up in every track is different, thus taking the track, and invariably, the album to a different plane each time.
their use of vocals is extremely sparse- even more sparse than the standard post-rock/shoegaze. there are no lyrics whatsoever. just sounds.
their album/track titles are simple yet strange enough to qualify as post rock. their album art isn't particularly unique but it does its function of being reasonably attractive.
i've heard that their live performances are rather stellar and no matter how small or large the audience, these guys give it everything they've got.
with so much going for this band, it's no wonder, then, that god is an astronaut is an ideal of sorts for the discerning listener of the post-rock genre.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
research is the opium of academicians.
you know your research isn't going anywhere when...
there is a very fine line between genuinely beneficial research and mental masturbation. i don't know how many researchers actually bother listening to that squeaky inner voice which says, "how's this helping anybody?" or variations thereof.
definitely not the guy who's doing/did research on the iyers of matunga. i kid you not. there is such research happening. worse even. and before the natural scientists start getting all smug, there's pointless research happening on that side as well.
my question before embarking on any research, then, is this: "is it as pointless as the study on the iyers of matunga?"
curbing the urge.
economics, the queen of the social sciences demands that her researchers provide policy implications of their studies. sweet but i think it still isn't as effective a deterrent as it ought to be. people still come up with ridiculous research and gosh awful policy implications, thanks basically to shitty institutions that encourage these by means of awarding degrees.
the other ineffective method of doing this, of course, is awarding scholarships for research in specific fields. problem here is that it narrows the scope for research and people essentially keep churning the same research over and over with little or no variation.
it is interesting, however, to note the technique that sociology employs to curb shit research. sociology, through its very discourse, encourages research of the marginalised/the sub-altern. so, even if there are people who specialise in culture, they often have done their studies on tribes/marginalised sections of societies. this covert technique of channelising research actually achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do- it only produces more trash.
ladies and gentlemen, here's a revelation: india has not come up with a single comprehensive sociological theory on anything (not counting caste theories). this is because research subjects have been narrowed through overt and covert mechanisms.
self-discipline is the key
there's only one way to do this. researchers must practise self-restraint instead of spraying their intellectual cum all over the body of existing studies, which is a lot of dried cum, at any rate.
it helps that the researcher looks into what appeals most to him/her, to begin with. institutions need to encourage studies right across the spectrum. and the guides need to care enough to read up on the latest happenings on the subject and thus, guide the researchers down that path of the divine light- practical, applicable and liberating knowledge.
there is a very fine line between genuinely beneficial research and mental masturbation. i don't know how many researchers actually bother listening to that squeaky inner voice which says, "how's this helping anybody?" or variations thereof.
definitely not the guy who's doing/did research on the iyers of matunga. i kid you not. there is such research happening. worse even. and before the natural scientists start getting all smug, there's pointless research happening on that side as well.
my question before embarking on any research, then, is this: "is it as pointless as the study on the iyers of matunga?"
curbing the urge.
economics, the queen of the social sciences demands that her researchers provide policy implications of their studies. sweet but i think it still isn't as effective a deterrent as it ought to be. people still come up with ridiculous research and gosh awful policy implications, thanks basically to shitty institutions that encourage these by means of awarding degrees.
the other ineffective method of doing this, of course, is awarding scholarships for research in specific fields. problem here is that it narrows the scope for research and people essentially keep churning the same research over and over with little or no variation.
it is interesting, however, to note the technique that sociology employs to curb shit research. sociology, through its very discourse, encourages research of the marginalised/the sub-altern. so, even if there are people who specialise in culture, they often have done their studies on tribes/marginalised sections of societies. this covert technique of channelising research actually achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do- it only produces more trash.
ladies and gentlemen, here's a revelation: india has not come up with a single comprehensive sociological theory on anything (not counting caste theories). this is because research subjects have been narrowed through overt and covert mechanisms.
self-discipline is the key
there's only one way to do this. researchers must practise self-restraint instead of spraying their intellectual cum all over the body of existing studies, which is a lot of dried cum, at any rate.
it helps that the researcher looks into what appeals most to him/her, to begin with. institutions need to encourage studies right across the spectrum. and the guides need to care enough to read up on the latest happenings on the subject and thus, guide the researchers down that path of the divine light- practical, applicable and liberating knowledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)