<p>ThePinko, diagonal paradoxes wouldn’t be a bad topic to write about; however, I would find that an essay connecting the existential work of a philosopher with some sort of mathematics would be a damn good read if you could pull it off. Look into Christopher Langan’s CTMU for some inspiration.</p>
<p>Hahahaha, I’ve tried reading some of the CTMU! Interesting stuff! But, naturally, I’m a tad skeptical.
It definitely deserves a closer reading, though.</p>
<p>Ello chaps, good to see I have intelligent competition on being admitted to Deep Springs. </p>
<p>It will make for some interesting peers. </p>
<p>What opinions do you guys have on L.L. Nunn? And why are you guys applying to Deep Springs?</p>
<p>“And why are you guys applying to Deep Springs?”</p>
<p>This is for my essay and I don’t really want to share it here. :P</p>
<p>“What opinions do you guys have on L.L. Nunn?”</p>
<p>I think he was just one of the many great entrepreneurs during his time. To be fair his idea for Telluride and Deep Springs weren’t really new; he just had the resources and clear initiatives to pull it off. Of course he will remain as the great founder of Deep Springs, but I find the generations of its great alumni and associates to be equally venerable for maintaining this small and isolated institute for nearly a century and even bringing it up to national fame.</p>
<p>Hello! I am relatively new to CC, so bear with me. I’m a “woman applicant” to DS this year and I just wanted to compare with some of the other prospective students out there. What are your GPAs? I have around a 3.7 and my ACT composite is a 33. I took the SAT and got a 680 Math, 740 Reading, and 790 Writing, but I’m not submitting the SAT scores, only the ACT because I think it’s better.
I am also a vegetarian/environmentalist…
As for the third essay that we’re now discussing - I agree with you that L.L. Nunn had an idea that many people have, but he was one of the ones that actually had the opportunity to pull it off. I think that working both the mind and body rigorously is very important - and Nunn’s ideas could become even more useful as we enter the tech age. Going out to rural California to learn from nature, community, and working hard together is going to be increasingly novel, in an age when many uneducated kids in big cities think milk is made by grocery stores and rarely get a chance to experience hard, meaningful physical labor.
This is very hastily written, so apologies for any mistakes/undeveloped sense.
{:</p>
<p>I’m a bit hesitant to share stats.
L.L. Nunn’s notion of a leader, viewed in spatio-temporal context, was actually a very unique one. Myth-shattering as it is, entrepreneurs of the epoch were largely elitist and aristocratic. While Nunn did hold a belief in inherent superiority, a blacksmith (to use the common example) could be as great a leader as the president of a nation.
The notion that a leader isn’t necessarily defined as someone impactful or influential is actually <em>still</em> pretty weird, and it’s a notion I personally buy into one hundred percent.
As for the labor aspect, I view it mostly as a microcosmic representation of any democratic society. It teaches, in a very practical way, the function of representation, the value of compromise, and how one may lead as a member of a collective, rather than as an agent attempting to realize his or her own sole will.
I don’t know that the purpose of the ranch is to be “eye-opening”, or whatever, though I’m sure it will have that effect on most of the incoming student body. Well, I don’t think it’s meant to be “eye-opening” in the context of inspiring in <em>ignorant city slickers</em> some sort of “Oh, I didn’t realize how hard some manual laborers work”-style epiphany. That type of epiphany seems to suggest hierarchy on some axis, which, to me, is essentially anti-Nunnian. It’s more that there are simply large swaths of potentially highly educational opportunities for experiential learning that our paradigm of education doesn’t really tap into, at all. This kind of opportunity is realized in Deep Springs in a totally populist, egalitarian way. It’s not to show people, “Look how hard ranch-hands work”, but rather “Being a ranch hand can be just as fulfilling and <em>meaningful</em> as being the head of a prestigious university”. I mean – have you guys read “Deschooling Society”? If not, you really, really, really should check it out.
I feel Nunn was pretty unique in his ideas and his execution.
I’m applying to Deep Springs in hopes of finding like-minded people, a very rare and very desirable commodity. I also feel DS’ educational philosophy lines up almost exactly with mine.
The workload and structure seem to be exactly as intense as I want. I connect with the terrain and landscape on a very primal, <em>lustful</em> level.
It seems pretty generally perfect.</p>
<p>“in spatio-temporal context”</p>
<p>If this meant late 1890-1920 America, then yes, perhaps this notion of leader was rather foreign for a land of rampant capitalism and industrialization. But in the historical and worldly sense, this notion of leader, as defined in Deep Springs main page as: </p>
<p>“Not for conventional scholastic training; not for ranch life; not to become proficient in commercial or professional pursuits for personal gain. You came to prepare for a life of service, with the understanding that superior ability and generous purpose would be expected of you.”</p>
<p>Read up: [Servant</a> leadership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership]Servant”>Servant leadership - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Now, although the term has originated from an essay in 1970, I believe it is more strongly rooted in Christian philosophies, especially the Jesuit movement in 16th century. The early Jesuits were Christian scholars who were trained for a life of service in harsh conditions of new colonies. They started out very few and underfunded, but the order persisted through centuries and now it is the largest single religious order in the Catholic Church. They have also done a remarkable job in bringing education and improving living conditions in colonial frontiers.</p>
<p>I see the strong connection here in that Deep Springs rejects the notion of aristocratic leadership but upholds a leadership of service and stewardship developed through years of physical labor and intellectual in-breeding.</p>
<p>But although Nunn’s notion of leadership wasn’t very revolutionary, what was truly unique was his methods of instilling that leadership. Teaching leadership through isolation? Since a modern leader is/was faced with infinite challenges concerning cultural differences (immigrants, religious tolerance, etc), most people would have agreed that modern leadership is best developed by dealing with as many different people and environments as possible. Apparently Nunn disagreed. His method of gathering select individuals to create an intense microcosm is definitely not a common idea. But I like it.</p>
<p>Anyways, for the sake of continuing the discussion, who would actually be willing to take the butcher labor position? I for one cannot even imagine myself holding a butcher’s knife.</p>
<p>Yeah, I understand any tentativeness to reveal stats and stuff, I just saw in other threads that people were fairly revealing, at least with SAT scores.
I think that L.L. Nunn definitely took a lot from a servant leadership philosophy - one serves and through that perspective, leads one’s community/society in a positive direction. I think that Deep Springs is a place for people who are bold enough to want to rattle the world’s cage a little bit, in a way that is beneficial for humanity, whether that be through environmental means, the arts, politics, etc. The idea of working on the ranch, not necessarily to provide financial means for the education, is intriguing. It can keep the minds of the students more grounded (being an influential and needed part of the community life as well as doing the work that is often looked down upon by the majority of Americans) while they are being pushed to think big in their classes.
Another thing that I linked with L.L. Nunn’s philosophy is Thoreau’s concept of living “deliberately” and fronting “only the essential facts of life” to gain more from bare human qualities that we have, and learn to emulate nature - having a simple life. Deep Springs seems to be a place with little distraction, and L.L. Nunn wished its inhabitants to experience life to a deeper degree.
I would not mind being a butcher… although I don’t consume meat I realize that others do and if that is the best place for me to help… then that’s that. I would much rather work on the alfalfa farm or cook, to be honest though. :P</p>
<p>I have a few more things to add…
- “what was truly unique in his methods of instilling that leadership? Teaching leadership through isolation?”
– Nunn certainly has an emphasis on isolation, considering that DS has an “isolation policy”. I think that this is so the students there get to know each other and their teachers on a much deeper level - while it is good to get to know a ton of people and listen to lots of people talk about their backgrounds, forming close bonds with people and knowing them more intimately is a better way to gain an appreciation of where they come from. By learning to be interdependent in a small society, one can appreciate the scale of that in a larger community. The “intense microcosm”, as you call it, provides a space to experiment and practice new methods of leadership and working as a collective that is relatively safe. I know that a past student said that DS was as good a place for learning to try new things and possibly fail because there are always people there to support you and you learn to pick yourself back up and try another novelty. </p>
<ol>
<li>What do you guys want to do with your lives?
I know that I am going into the field of conservation to help protect the planet’s natural resources and to connect people back to nature. Probably through being a professor. I’m curious as to what you are aspiring to become! I’m excited to apply because the people who go to the college seem to be more serious with their future plans and dreams.</li>
</ol>
<p>I’m very familiar with Jesuit philosophy (my mother teaches at a Jesuit college), and, to be honest, I don’t see very much common ground with servant leadership. I have very strong feelings regarding the Jesuits, but that’s a conversation for another time.
Have you read “Fathers and Crows” by William T. Vollmann, by the way? It’s an absolutely riveting book with some interesting perspectives on the Jesuit tradition.
But yeah, I’m not sure how you’re making the connection between DS and the Jesuits, other than simply performing a highly abstracted pseudo-analysis of general missionary work and educational activism.</p>
<p>And, yes. The reason I included the “spatio-temporal context” line was in hopes that no one would feel compelled to make an argument like the one you just made. I clearly meant turn-of-the-century United States. The notion that the idea of servant leadership would turn up as recently as the 20th Century is absurd. What’s remarkable to me about Nunn’s philosophy is that it flies in the face of his zeitgeist.
I agree (as I earlier mentioned) on the uniqueness of the microcosmic aspect of Nunn’s project.</p>
<p>I would have no problem with the butcher position. But my ethics aren’t incredibly conventional.</p>
<p>val2go47: Yeah, the naturalistically ascetic aspect of DS (which you defined as Thoreauvian, but in my experience is more wholly epitomized in Hindu-Buddhist philosophy) is definitely a major draw for me. It’s just so darn romantic!!</p>
<p>What I want to do with my life…?
Hrm. I definitely (at least for now) want to study philosophy at a graduate level. I love to write poetry, so continuing to do that would be nice. But I don’t have any desire to be published, or anything.
I don’t know that academic life would be especially fulfilling, though, so I don’t think I’d want to take up any sort of teaching position. I suppose outside of what I want to <em>study</em>, the future is uncertain.</p>
<p>“I’m very familiar with Jesuit philosophy (my mother teaches at a Jesuit college), and, to be honest, I don’t see very much common ground with servant leadership. I have very strong feelings regarding the Jesuits, but that’s a conversation for another time.”</p>
<p>Well I am from a Jesuit school myself and I have personally heard that phrase used over and over.</p>
<p>“Have you read “Fathers and Crows” by William T. Vollmann, by the way? It’s an absolutely riveting book with some interesting perspectives on the Jesuit tradition.”</p>
<p>Sadly no. I’ve only recently been exposed to English (about six years) so I don’t have much catalog in my head.</p>
<p>“But yeah, I’m not sure how you’re making the connection between DS and the Jesuits, other than simply performing a highly abstracted pseudo-analysis of general missionary work and educational activism.”</p>
<p>Perhaps I am biased towards my own school’s Jesuit philosophy. I don’t really want to reveal the school (it’s an old one, I’ll give you that) but there are really a lot of similar grounds, especially the “preparing for the life of service” bit.</p>
<p>“What do you guys want to do with your lives?”</p>
<p>I’m dead set on science and engineering. Then people may question my love for DS, but really, what DS teaches are essential life skills including humility, self-governance, critical thinking, public speaking, and writing, which are all necessary to be successful in any field of study/work. Just the fact that most of the renowned DS alums are scientists proves that the school isn’t only for philosophers and historians.</p>
<p>I think that the Deep Springs connection with servant leadership is very real - Nunn’s quote that melody mentioned before:
“You came to prepare for a life of service, with the understanding that superior ability and generous purpose would be expected of you.”
relays a sense that those who attend are planning to serve with purpose. The emphasis on self-governance in addition to that of serving society shows that serving, and then leading with that attitude is very important. The students and staff work to help and serve eachother’s needs, and then to lead the school in a good direction together. That’s a very powerful concept that is even more so because of the small population taking part in it. </p>
<p>ThePinko: what do you mean by “But my ethics aren’t incredibly conventional.”? I am very interested in this! I’ve spent a lot of time pondering what it means to consume meat and treat animals in the way we do. Does your comment relate to this?</p>
<p>I have to say, the naturalistic approach is very romantic, and I’ve fallen in love with it. I grew up in the countryside of Iowa, but since 5th grade I’ve been living in suburbs or cities. To be able to return to a place of relative wilderness would be more than amazing! I referenced Thoreau because I believe that Nunn wanted to make the school microcosm that much more intense by incorporating the simplicity that Thoreau praises repeatedly in Walden. However, I am intrigued by your Hindu-Buddhist idea - could you expand a bit on that?</p>
<p>Melody: whoo! we’re both science girls. {: I particularly love biology, but I suppose that if you are focusing on engineering in conjunction with science, you probably have more interest in physics and stuff. Do you know what you want to become in that field?</p>
<p>PS - who is applying as a transfer, and who’s applying as a first-year? {:</p>
<p>Right, so the Hindu-Buddhist ideal that nature is truth is a potent and ancient one. The notion that possessions should be stripped away to be closer to truth (Nature) is represented in the dichotomy of “Maya” and “Sat”. Schopenhauer took many of his ideas from Hindu philosophy (specifically the Upanishads), and the basis of his Pessimistic philosophy was the idea that all human suffering is fueled by <em>desires</em> for possessions (similar to Thoreau), and since desire is an inescapably humanistic trait, all humans will always suffer.
The Buddhists and Hindus offer a solution to this – one which is much like Thoreau’s. Their solution is to strip yourself of positions and connections to the world material, and to eventually attempt to transcend all your desires. Your desire to eat good food, your desire to drink good liquid, your desire to view beautiful things, your desire to touch soft and pleasant things, your desire to hear riveting music, your desire to take in enticing aromas, and, ultimately, your desire to know the world, must all fall by the wayside. The Ego itself is forged in the fires of desire, and is only able to remain in a stable state while constantly heated by these fires. Through the elimination of desire, one eliminates his Ego (an absolutely <em>terrifying</em> prospect in the western (and now global, I suppose) meritocratic paradigm of supporting “me and mine”), and thus transcends to something beyond an Egoistic, essentially structuralist view of reality.
I got off on a bit of a tangent at the end, there, but yeah. Thoreau’s notion of a life of spareness and simplicity, free of desire and material wealth (which the Hindus said erected a wall of illusion, or “Maya”) is actually an ancient one.</p>
<p>On Ethics… hrm. Suffice it to say that I <em>have</em> read Peter Singer’s “Animal Liberation”, and I simply reject it. What I reject is the notion that being ethical is anything more than a set of pressures codified and infrastructuralized for a greater Utilitarian benefit. By extension, I also reject Utilitarianism as a system, but my teleology is Kantian, in that I believe our goal as a society is not to improve quality of life for the largest amount of people possible, but rather to advance our culture as best as we possibly can. From here, we can go into political territory – grounds where I’d rather not tread – but I’ll say this much: a Kantian teleology often gives rise to a monstrous philosophy of individualism and libertarianism. This philosophy, which one could argue is most epitomized by Ayn Rand, but is really much broader and far-reaching, diachronically, is downright dystopic, to me. If you’d like a short summary of my political beliefs, I would read “Anarchy” by Errico Malatesta. I’m always hard-pressed to find much to disagree with in that document.</p>
<p>Also, I didn’t emphasize my love for mathematics in my previous post. To be honest, outside of Biology and Chemistry, I’m interested in pretty much every single conceivable subject. I love the creative nature of Engineering (particularly Electrical), I love to program (it “clicks” for me, probably related to my interest in symbolic logic), I love reading Psychology, Sociology, Communications, Literary Theory, Film Theory, Economics, Political Science and all manner of things, and I’ve always had a strong interest in theoretical physics (I took an online Quantum Mechanics course this summer from Coursera, and have read quite a bit in philosophy of physics).
Riiight. Okay. I think that’s enough writing, for now. I’ll end with a question.</p>
<p>What kinds of music do you guys listen to? Got any favorite artists/bands/composers? I won’t list any of my favorites, right now, but I love most types of music.
Alright, that’s enough.</p>
<p>val2go, I’m sorry to let you down but I’m a guy… Hahahaha anyways, I’m an international transfer applicant so I don’t know how I’ll fit in the admission process. But I’ve heard about stories of international transfer students so it’s definitely possible.</p>
<p>My interest is in physics and computer. I honestly haven’t had any life-changing experience in these subjects but I really have an innate liking for them. Yes I’ve done some coding and lab work but nothing serious like internship or research due to the lack of opportunities in the country I studied, and also partly due to my simple lack of drive. Also I was a pretty late bloomer in everything so I believe I’ll have to give myself some time to really decide my specific course of study (which is, in fact, one particular reason why I want to go to Deep Springs!).</p>
<p>To Pinko, as an Asian, I was constantly exposed to some Buddhist philosophies to a very mild degree. But I must confess I never really took any chance to study it in detail. Could you recommend a book or two that can give me a brief overview of things over there in Hindu-Buddhism?</p>
<p>Also, music… Well music is easily the biggest part of my life but I am regrettably quite a choosy listener. First off, virtually all the artists I listen to are band-oriented with a very few exceptions (Massive Attack, for example). I also love sophisticated music, but not to the point of sounding excessively pretentious or out of control. I admit to being a little akin to a “hipster”, but certainly not the kind that just wants to smugly rub their interests on others (I tend not to talk about music except with a very few best friends). Anyways, I will give you guys some albums I love but you have to tell me your favorites in return. :P</p>
<p>Radiohead - Kid A
Sigur Ros - ()
Thrice - The Artist in the Ambulance
Tool - Lateralus
Herbie Hancock - Head Hunters
Meshuggah - Chaosphere</p>
<p>I could go on and on. These are pretty standard choices but I also listen to more crazy music like ‘Godspeed You Black Emperor’ and ‘UnexpecT’.</p>
<p>Just a disclaimer: I have a little aversion to classic rock, with the exception of Pink Floyd. I’ve tried albums like “In the Court of the Crimson King” and “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” among many others but they never really seem to click for me. It has something to do with the audio quality, which I’m sure the oldies find nostalgic and wonderful, but to me sound very outdated and colorless. Additionally, classical music is usually hit or miss for me.</p>
<p>Oh, I’ve never had any formal exposure to comp sci in terms of classes or internships or anything. It’s easy to learn Python on your own, and that’s where I started. It’s also a lot of fun. I’d give it a shot, if you could find time.</p>
<p>Okay, right, so music. I’ll stick to the 20th Century.</p>
<p>Pere Ubu - The Modern Dance
Swans - Filth
Charles Mingus - The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady
Dmitri Shostakovich - Symphony 15
Olivier Messiaen - St. Francois D’asisse</p>
<p>I’m familiar with all the albums you’ve listed. I used to be a big Radiohead fan, but after listening to a lot of similar music from the 60s and 70s, I find them derivative. Kid A seemed brilliant to me a few years ago, but thematically, I now find it very simplistic. Still a great album, just not one of the greatest, in my opinion.
Sigur Ros is very calming and nice, but I have a natural aversion to any band that tries to manipulate my frisson in such an overt way. It’s very self-absorbed, to me, and self-serious. A lot like Godspeed You! Black Emperor, a band which I actively DISlike.
Symphonic and complex rock has a storied history, but instead of listening to Moondog, or Glenn Branca, or Zappa, or Beefheart, people listen to GY!BE, thinking they’re cool and edgy for liking long songs. No. GY!BE just capitalizes on an absence, and does so half-assedly, especially when compared to the aforementioned greats.
I don’t really like unexpecT, either, for similar reasons.
That Thrice album’s pretty good.
Lateralus is my favorite Tool album, and pretty much the only one I still listen to. That’s a pretty good album.
Head Hunters is absolutely awesome.
Chaosphere’s a good album, but the elements of it I enjoy are most clearly found, for me, in simpler Math rock. Have you heard the album “Yank Crimes” by Drive Like Jehu? It retains all the intricacy and all the emotion without losing itself in a similar way to Chaosphere. That’s not to say Chaosphere’s bad, though. It’s an enjoyable album.</p>
<p>Now as for classic rock, Sgt. Pepper’s is a bad album. I’ll just tell you that immediately. Sgt. Pepper’s is not an interesting, unique, original, or even <em>good</em> album. It’s just an enormously famous band getting a little weird, and people go bat**** insane over that for commercial reasons. ItCotCK is a good album, also, but it’s one of those things that’s been co-opted by the internet, and consequently overrated. It really is a good album, but it absolutely does not represent the best of classic rock.
I would recommend Trout Mask Replica, but that’s a bit of a difficult listen even for those well-versed in classic rock. It definitely represents the best of the era, though.
In terms of audio quality, I mean… no. You can find audio from back then that’s much better than what we have now for pretty much every single major classic rock album. Any perceived drop in audio quality is either a simple mistake on your part, or an error in downloading the wrong version of an album. Are you an audiophile? Do you use mp3s or some other format? What media player are you on? What are your speakers/headphones like?</p>
<p>Ok so I’m just going to randomly respond to a variety of posts because I find you all lovely and fascinating (especially you Mr. Pinko… I can’t not wait to pick your brain (I have a lot of problems with Kant just you wait) so you better be making the first cut). That’s right, I totally just used a double parenthetical. I can’t be tamed. Also you should post some of your poetry because I’m a poet and I will judge you harshly. (Kidding. Partially). </p>
<p>As far as Singer-- where do you disagree? I’d assume you’re a monist so the consciousness argument should be sound. Have any of you read Alain de Botton? I LAHV HIM</p>
<p>Music Wise:
SIGUR ROS YES. Perfect for lighting candles and having little wicken ceremonies with your friends. Not that I do that… Or do I??
I beg to disagree about Sgt. Peppers. You all should be ashamed.
As far as classic rock, I’m a huge Fleetwood Mac fan. I also adore the likes of Carole King and Joni Mitchell, and of course our dear Dylan.
Modern music: hipster ****, unabashedly, and rap, also unabashedly. think kimya dawson meets azalea banks meets the weepies and mumford and sons. Anyone else imagining listening to Edward Sharpe out at DS? </p>
<p>Academically: politics politics politics. It seems odd to most of my friends that I’m even applying to DS because they’re sure I’m a Harvard type and future Senator (please guy… I’m going to be at least Secretary of State). I’m also into philosophy and anthro and I love love love where social science meets the hard stuff. Big fan of E.O Wilson and Dawkins and the like.</p>
<p>Only a few more weeks!</p>
<p>“In terms of audio quality, I mean… no. You can find audio from back then that’s much better than what we have now for pretty much every single major classic rock album. Any perceived drop in audio quality is either a simple mistake on your part, or an error in downloading the wrong version of an album. Are you an audiophile? Do you use mp3s or some other format? What media player are you on? What are your speakers/headphones like?”</p>
<p>I was right in expecting that part to cause some disturbance within you, man. Here we tread on the dangerous plane of subjectivity, thus I will not go deep in how much I like the modern production more (because obviously it may just be that I’m much more used to it). I’ve tried a great deal of classic stuffs, but I find myself constantly going back to the modern stuffs. I admit I cannot really afford (quite literally) to be an audiophile, but I do stick to the lower end of Sennheiser and FLAC for most of the albums that people tell me to be “essential listens”. But there’s something about old rock that just doesn’t click for me. Yes, I’m including Black Sabbath, Yes, Iron Maiden, The Beatles or any other bands that classic rock/metal geeks go nuts over. (I do have some exceptions though, including Queen, Jethro Tull, and aforementioned PF) It’s not the “audio quality” in the literal sense. I’m talking more of… the instruments, mixing, and production. Surely my ears can be tamed to get accustomed to these bands (repetitive listen is always successful), but there are loads of music I like in the present times, specifically 90s and 00s, that I do not find myself wanting to try out older and perhaps more foundational rock.</p>
<p>You called Kid A derivative. Of course, there’s no doubt about it; hell, most, if not all, of the albums on my top 10 favorite list have sounds that can be traced quite clearly in 60s and 70s. But the transformation over time is, for me, the genuine beauty of modern music. There are folks like you who would stick to the original and pioneering artists in the early days, and I have no qualms over that, but I do not think you have the right to call GY!BE or any other seemingly “pretentious” modern acts to be half-assed and self-absorbed. It’s their style, and people respect it in a different way they respect the “greats”.</p>
<p>As to your listed albums/pieces, I confess I haven’t heard any of them yet, but did check out a part from each on youtube. And I have to wholeheartedly thank you for Filth. That is totally my thing! Weakling is a CRAZY dark song.</p>
<p>Pere Ubu seems to produce the precise sounds that I get bored to easily. I listened to the title track and it didn’t do anything for me.</p>
<p>Charles Mingus album sounds very amazing. Though I’m not a fan of traditional jazz (more of jazz-funk and fusion guy) I loved the thick sound in Track A, Solo Dancer.</p>
<p>Symphony 15 sounds very familiar. But I never really take note of titles when I listen to classical music so… Whatever. Loved it anyways, but I do not collect classical pieces at the moment.</p>
<p>Opera eh? That is something I never really ventured to explore, and perhaps will not anytime soon. But this is a great one, very intense, and you can rest assured for having introduced me to opera in the right way.</p>
<p>I cannot tread on the territories of poetry and politics (simply not my things), so I’ll leave you guys to those for now and lurk behind. :)</p>
<p>Wrote a long post, but computer hiccoughed and deleted it. I’ll go over my thoughts quickly, then.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I agree that building upon the edifice of a genre is a beautiful aspect of music, but I don’t think Kid A does so in any way, but rather bolsters its foundations, a pointless and annoying act.</p></li>
<li><p>I worked a pretty absurd amount over the past year (landscaping and bagging groceries), so I managed to buy myself a very nice pair of headphones.</p></li>
<li><p>Don’t like the Beatles, don’t like Queen, don’t think Sabbath are good.</p></li>
<li><p>Livivid: Why do you like Sgt. Pepper’s? Okay, I can see how it’s enjoyable, but it’s just a really boring, saccharine repackaging of musique concrete-rock fusion. No vision, all pomp.</p></li>
<li><p>GY!BE are totally self-absorbed, and I don’t know how you could think otherwise. East Hastings is self-important tripe. </p></li>
<li><p>I never used the word pretentious, so your use of quotes is confusing. GY!BE isn’t really pretentious. They seem to know what they are.</p></li>
<li><p>Livivid: I have plenty, plenty, plenty of problems with Kant, too!! </p></li>
<li><p>Livivid: I hate to say it, but your taste in music seems to have very little overlap with mine. Fleetwood Mac are hacks!</p></li>
<li><p>Livivid: 1. I’m not really a Monist, but that’s a very different conversation. If you’d like, I could name four or five books for you to read that would more-or-less sum up my metaphysics.</p></li>
<li><p>Where I disagree with Singer is Utility! I feel our efforts should go towards cultivating and advancing culture and knowledge. I think a cow is more useful fueling a human than grazing peacefully, and I think using the cow to feed the human is <em>better</em> than leaving the cow alive. </p></li>
<li><p>Livivid: Harvard? E.O. Wilson? Richard Dawkins? I absolutely hate all three of those things. But if you’re into politics, let’s talk about that. Are you well-versed in Poli-Sci/Political Philosophy/Economics? Which books have you read in that area that you found influential? Where do you fit on the spectrum?</p></li>
</ol>
<ol>
<li><p>The Pinko: I like it because I like it-- I think there’s something to be said for recognizing that value doesn’t have to stem from capital-T Truth. “When I’m Sixty Four,” is everything you said. But it’s fun. Music deals with every aspect of the human experience and part of that is just having an unabashedly good time. Part of the appeal of the album is also its cultural prominence. It’s a link between people and mutual appreciation shouldn’t be undervalued. Also Hacks? Do explain. </p></li>
<li><p>As far as your metaphysics, why don’t you just summarize? I’ll take your word that you’ve got extensive backup, but my queue is pretty full right now (and there’s the whole college application thing I suppose). </p></li>
<li><p>Melody: I LAHV JETHRO TULL (ok outburst over)</p></li>
<li><p>Ok back to Mr.Pinko:</p></li>
</ol>
<p>“Where I disagree with Singer is Utility! I feel our efforts should go towards cultivating and advancing culture and knowledge. I think a cow is more useful fueling a human than grazing peacefully, and I think using the cow to feed the human is <em>better</em> than leaving the cow alive.” </p>
<p>Not really valid. (As a reason for meat consumption… I’m talking as me here, moving away from Singer’s premises). Even if we were to give no ****s whatsoever about the feelings of cows, using them to feed humans is incredibly inefficient and wasteful. Personally, I don’t have a problem with eating meat, but rather an issue with the vast wastefulness of factory farming. So, even if you think cows are better in our diets than taking up land, ultimately would it not be better to just have fewer cows and preserve our precious resources? We need to move past that unchecked consumption.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Never said I’m pro-Harvard. It’s just what people tend to assume about me, but I find it a bit too focused on networking and competition and the like. Not really my style.</p></li>
<li><p>Another “nay” for Dawkins and Wilson? Spill. </p></li>
<li><p>Depends what you mean by well-versed. I know nothing about econ (big names and theories of course, nothing further). In action, I’m a liberal democrat and I’m quite involved with party politics. I’m a strong feminist and socially liberal as well. That said, while I’m not a revolutionary, I am a socialist (and a utilitarian, sorry dear) and I’m attracted to the anarchists but not enough to bet on it on a large scale, at least not currently. As far as works that have particularly influenced me, I’d say my boy Nietzche (and Schopenhaur by association), Botton, Graeber, Sorokin (Historical… but still), Marx, Chomsky etc. A fairly random mix marked mostly by I HAVE A LOT OF FEELINGS ABOUT THIS (because you said influential not most descriptive of my personal beliefs). I’m more of a player than a contemplator, at least for now, so I’d of course welcome any recommendations.</p></li>
</ol>