Depressive Music
Update (3/15/16): If you don't want to read below, basically I was stating indirectly with lots of word soup that negative music may be a cathartic experience, it makes us feel in like company in times we may not feel like we are. But we should also ask ourselves, how much am I listening for catharsis, for emotional release, and how much am I listening out of habit so it then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle that's hard to break out of. I think the same could be said with a lot of minor vices people may have. For some, things like this wouldn't be something to worry much over but it's usually been my nature to sweat a lot of the small stuff. My brain just loves to find anything it can to worry about. But yeah, don't bother reading below unless you're bored.
A lot of my music taste is fairly depressive, literally. I think some may wonder how do you reconcile listening to such depressive music while still trying to maintain a fit, sociable mindset required to successfully live a meaningful life? Well, first of all, a lot of those adjectives are subjective. And meaning? Life is the meaning you and/or others give it. Sometimes people give you meaning because others mean a lot to you and/or they assign a certain meaning to you and you accept it. And lastly, I don't see myself as necessarily having a fit mindset and especially not a sociable one. But sometimes in this universe, things don't have to reconcile. Maybe in some greater scheme of things they do but we humans, we think we have to find meaning, sense or value and if we can't, it's useless, doesn't exist or may as well not exist. Once you accept nothing has to have meaning and nothing has to make sense, then you become more modest and accepting of the absurdities of life and in a lot of ways, take life more gracefully and graciously. Once you accept the absurdity, then you can more easily deal with it without the emotional baggage it may entail. You can then understand it and to understand is in some ways to overcome. If only I knew then way I know now before I was so judgmental.
But anyway, I like contrast. I like that I can go into a world that's generally upbeat, at least according to my calibrations, and people tell me their world, the way they see it, in how it operates differently and perhaps likely in a more optimistic fashion. I sometimes don't make friends for enjoying contrast. It causes me sometimes to see the "good" in "bad" people and also the "bad" in "good" people. I love to understand people and see what makes them tick. This duality is what makes life and the universe be. In a microscopic level, you see molecules clashing and coming together as well as atoms and sub-atomic particles. In the macroscopic, we see plants clashing over space and reproducing, animals fighting and loving, planets, stars, and other intergalactic objects colliding and colluding (not the best use of the world but I like the phrase). These constant phase changes is what makes being and observing. To a certain degree, I like change and being a dynamic person willing to change as well as change my mind to some extent, especially if I'm wrong. But sometimes that "wrong" is an opinion and a more general scope, we have to define what "wrong" is. But of course to some degree I don't like change. I don't tend to like it when I'm comfortable with the present. In an historical point of view, which I like to take sometimes, because entropy is a troublesome fellow to those looking to preserve the past.
Back to the topic of the meaning of "wrong". We have to go all the way back to the foundations of morality as well as those of science because sometimes the two have run-ins. Science, religion/morality, and philosophy have early roots together. Science to discover the world around us and the why's and how's, (though some will tell you science is about how's, not why's, but the two are often mutually inclusive), philosophy to do the same on a more meta level, and religion to, as some would claim do the above, as well as dictate one's behavior in accordance to those findings. But science is based on what I'd describe as axioms. That's, of course, not scientifically provable because such proof would be impossible without knowing everything as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would state but despite my hesitance to use a mathematical word for soft science, or in my case, anecdotal observation, I'll give it the go ahead. That's good enough for government work or a crappy blog in the dark reaches of the internet, eh? We can do the same expirement under the same conditions and come up with the same result because the conditions and results are based on the unchanging rules of the universe; axioms, as I'd say. The way I see it, everything in the universe is all connected, it's axiomatic, all reconcilable on some level. In a logical system as the universe, it would make sense that all subsystems within it are logical. All of it comes together in a sensible, logical system; every piece works as intended. Morality is a subset of this system. The more sense morality makes to one self and the more compatible it is to the self and the self's lifestyle, the more likely it's going to be adopted. The more people that adopt it, the stronger it becomes. People use their diplomatic, verbal, financial and sometimes militaristic and physical powers to perpetuate those morals, religions and/or cultures. Those are based on genetic, environmental and other such conditions which subsequently are based on previously mentioned universal axioms. The more social axioms that get established, the more powerful or "right" one is.
But this "rightness" based on dominance probably begs a philosophical dilemma about Utilitarianism vs other related lines of thought and Capitalism vs Socialism, etc. I see humanity working in a mostly Utilitarian fashion and so I believe might makes right in a certain sense. "Right" in that sense being a dominant driver of human evolution , not in a universal, typically moralistic sense. And might, of course, isn't necessarily evolutionarily beneficial as sometimes the stealth approach, staying small and hidden as say a mouse, is also beneficial. I also believe that in a universal sense everyone is "right", in other words, has a valid position according to his/her own environment, conditions, genetics, and other such factors. You are who you are and you are in and of the universe and something, some process, be it a god or gods, some elegantly simple or complex mathematical algorithm, or simulator, if you subscribe to the Matrix view, brought us into this position in the universe. So I believe the universe placed some sense of validity upon each and every one of us, but not in the divine sense we typically tend to think of pertaining to a god. I like to think of us as variables, 0s, 1s, 2s, etc. Some of us may be 0s evolutionarily speaking and may not count for much according to some people but we do play a valid part in the preceding calculations. I tend to see the universe as an ongoing calculation. But I digress. Moving on...
Despite this, we still use other trickery such as morality, verbal debate, physical fighting, war and such which manifests from our genetic need to dominate so as to try to find a kink in others' armor. Even the most "moral" of people I know seem to find some way to push themselves and/or love ones ahead of others and/or push others down to self promote their "rightfulness". Some may see my observation as a negative view of the world but I don't see it as positive or negative, just people and animals doing what they do, trying to get by to take care of themselves and/or loved ones. In as much as I know about the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, I think the gist of it runs parallel with my line of thinking, though I haven't read it, just read a brief overview about it. Dawkins can be a bit abrasive if you're a religious person but if you can tolerate it, I hear it's a great book and the man has a great mind. But as much as I see the world in a Utilitarian way, I can also be a bit apathetic and see things in a more Wu Wei Taoist sense in that 'that's the way it works and sometimes interfering is counter-intuitive to self preservation'. As the great Bruce Lee said, though I may be wrong in my attribution, "water flows, be water my friend".
Okay, now what does this have to do with musical taste? Because music is more subjective and morality is seen as less so, we have to find the roots of "wrong" and wrongness in lifestyle and show just what the term means in relation to lifestyle. Some would say my depressive lifestyle is wrong or not good, as in, I'm assuming, incompatible with a healthy lifestyle, so therefore the music. I don't see it as "wrong" but I'm careful to dance on glass and often ask myself am I fueling my depression with depressive music or just nursing it. To be honest, I think it's a bit of both. But in fairness, is an action an unwise thing to do for the self when the action is counterproductive to a healthy lifestyle? Well, this is where depression rears its ugly but in some ways, logical head. When you're depressed, you don't tend to care about life or in some cases may not actively want it. Sometimes you convince yourself the world is a better place without you so what you may have previously seen as unwise or dumb when you weren't depressed seems to make more logical sense. For the most part, clinical depression may not respond well to self motivation and as for typical temporary depression, if you're like me you convince yourself that it's intellectually dishonest to pretend to know what the purpose of life is so it's hard to find reassurance there. No one I've come across has proven they know the meaning of life and especially the meaning of other people's. As it isn't likely to be provable, dumb or unwise in regards to personal life choices has no real basis.
But back on the topic of depression. I see it likely, at least for myself, as a symptom of something greater, possibly being a response to my anxiety, at least in my case. Some recent studies seem to suggest that it's an adaptation and has evolutionary benefits. But few people I've heard rarely like having it or even fewer, actually no one I've heard of, wants it. It can make life difficult but sometimes that's what life calls for unfortunately. As there's very few people I know that like to be angry, so too can it be said of anger. Do aggressive people listen to aggressive music or does angry music make people angry? There's been debate in the past about violent video games and the consensus in the psychological community seems to be that normal healthy people don't become any more aggressive than previously. I believe in some ways art, video games in this case, is a healthy emotional release. Though there was one article I recall reading, forgot the source, that seemed to find in people predispositioned for aggressive behavior, there was a small increase in the scale of such behavior. I'm aware of this and careful not to perpetuate a depressive lifestyle to a certain point but I believe a certain degree of self expression outed in a reasonable manner is healthy for the mind, even if it is anger, depression, and so on.
On that note, Nirvana is my guilty pleasure. They're the only band that if I binged on would really get me down, more-so than usual. I've been there before in my teenage days and stayed there for a long time. It's probably the music and lyrics I can identify most with, at least my younger self, yet it's too incompatible with a healthy lifestyle that I have to stay away from it, at least the really depressing songs. But that's who I was, who they were, and who I am. I can't disregard the validity and worth of it, especially when I feel Kurt was like a friend, of which I didn't really have at the time and I feel like he and his music got me through a lot of tough times when I was younger. But Pink Floyd, on the other hand, is my coffee. Just enough soothing melancholy to get me through my day and inspire me yet not leave me emotionally wrecked, but I still have to limit my cups, at least for the sadder Richard Wright inspired songs. Coincidentally I just found out that twenty years ago today, the In Utero album came out. Where does the time go? RIP Kurt...
Oh wow, when looking at the wall of text above, I'm starting to wonder if I'm really looking for a justification for listening to depressive music or just using this entry as an excuse to hammer away at a keyboard to satisfy my coffee binge. It's like a big, manic word zoo.
A lot of my music taste is fairly depressive, literally. I think some may wonder how do you reconcile listening to such depressive music while still trying to maintain a fit, sociable mindset required to successfully live a meaningful life? Well, first of all, a lot of those adjectives are subjective. And meaning? Life is the meaning you and/or others give it. Sometimes people give you meaning because others mean a lot to you and/or they assign a certain meaning to you and you accept it. And lastly, I don't see myself as necessarily having a fit mindset and especially not a sociable one. But sometimes in this universe, things don't have to reconcile. Maybe in some greater scheme of things they do but we humans, we think we have to find meaning, sense or value and if we can't, it's useless, doesn't exist or may as well not exist. Once you accept nothing has to have meaning and nothing has to make sense, then you become more modest and accepting of the absurdities of life and in a lot of ways, take life more gracefully and graciously. Once you accept the absurdity, then you can more easily deal with it without the emotional baggage it may entail. You can then understand it and to understand is in some ways to overcome. If only I knew then way I know now before I was so judgmental.
But anyway, I like contrast. I like that I can go into a world that's generally upbeat, at least according to my calibrations, and people tell me their world, the way they see it, in how it operates differently and perhaps likely in a more optimistic fashion. I sometimes don't make friends for enjoying contrast. It causes me sometimes to see the "good" in "bad" people and also the "bad" in "good" people. I love to understand people and see what makes them tick. This duality is what makes life and the universe be. In a microscopic level, you see molecules clashing and coming together as well as atoms and sub-atomic particles. In the macroscopic, we see plants clashing over space and reproducing, animals fighting and loving, planets, stars, and other intergalactic objects colliding and colluding (not the best use of the world but I like the phrase). These constant phase changes is what makes being and observing. To a certain degree, I like change and being a dynamic person willing to change as well as change my mind to some extent, especially if I'm wrong. But sometimes that "wrong" is an opinion and a more general scope, we have to define what "wrong" is. But of course to some degree I don't like change. I don't tend to like it when I'm comfortable with the present. In an historical point of view, which I like to take sometimes, because entropy is a troublesome fellow to those looking to preserve the past.
Back to the topic of the meaning of "wrong". We have to go all the way back to the foundations of morality as well as those of science because sometimes the two have run-ins. Science, religion/morality, and philosophy have early roots together. Science to discover the world around us and the why's and how's, (though some will tell you science is about how's, not why's, but the two are often mutually inclusive), philosophy to do the same on a more meta level, and religion to, as some would claim do the above, as well as dictate one's behavior in accordance to those findings. But science is based on what I'd describe as axioms. That's, of course, not scientifically provable because such proof would be impossible without knowing everything as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem would state but despite my hesitance to use a mathematical word for soft science, or in my case, anecdotal observation, I'll give it the go ahead. That's good enough for government work or a crappy blog in the dark reaches of the internet, eh? We can do the same expirement under the same conditions and come up with the same result because the conditions and results are based on the unchanging rules of the universe; axioms, as I'd say. The way I see it, everything in the universe is all connected, it's axiomatic, all reconcilable on some level. In a logical system as the universe, it would make sense that all subsystems within it are logical. All of it comes together in a sensible, logical system; every piece works as intended. Morality is a subset of this system. The more sense morality makes to one self and the more compatible it is to the self and the self's lifestyle, the more likely it's going to be adopted. The more people that adopt it, the stronger it becomes. People use their diplomatic, verbal, financial and sometimes militaristic and physical powers to perpetuate those morals, religions and/or cultures. Those are based on genetic, environmental and other such conditions which subsequently are based on previously mentioned universal axioms. The more social axioms that get established, the more powerful or "right" one is.
But this "rightness" based on dominance probably begs a philosophical dilemma about Utilitarianism vs other related lines of thought and Capitalism vs Socialism, etc. I see humanity working in a mostly Utilitarian fashion and so I believe might makes right in a certain sense. "Right" in that sense being a dominant driver of human evolution , not in a universal, typically moralistic sense. And might, of course, isn't necessarily evolutionarily beneficial as sometimes the stealth approach, staying small and hidden as say a mouse, is also beneficial. I also believe that in a universal sense everyone is "right", in other words, has a valid position according to his/her own environment, conditions, genetics, and other such factors. You are who you are and you are in and of the universe and something, some process, be it a god or gods, some elegantly simple or complex mathematical algorithm, or simulator, if you subscribe to the Matrix view, brought us into this position in the universe. So I believe the universe placed some sense of validity upon each and every one of us, but not in the divine sense we typically tend to think of pertaining to a god. I like to think of us as variables, 0s, 1s, 2s, etc. Some of us may be 0s evolutionarily speaking and may not count for much according to some people but we do play a valid part in the preceding calculations. I tend to see the universe as an ongoing calculation. But I digress. Moving on...
Despite this, we still use other trickery such as morality, verbal debate, physical fighting, war and such which manifests from our genetic need to dominate so as to try to find a kink in others' armor. Even the most "moral" of people I know seem to find some way to push themselves and/or love ones ahead of others and/or push others down to self promote their "rightfulness". Some may see my observation as a negative view of the world but I don't see it as positive or negative, just people and animals doing what they do, trying to get by to take care of themselves and/or loved ones. In as much as I know about the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, I think the gist of it runs parallel with my line of thinking, though I haven't read it, just read a brief overview about it. Dawkins can be a bit abrasive if you're a religious person but if you can tolerate it, I hear it's a great book and the man has a great mind. But as much as I see the world in a Utilitarian way, I can also be a bit apathetic and see things in a more Wu Wei Taoist sense in that 'that's the way it works and sometimes interfering is counter-intuitive to self preservation'. As the great Bruce Lee said, though I may be wrong in my attribution, "water flows, be water my friend".
Okay, now what does this have to do with musical taste? Because music is more subjective and morality is seen as less so, we have to find the roots of "wrong" and wrongness in lifestyle and show just what the term means in relation to lifestyle. Some would say my depressive lifestyle is wrong or not good, as in, I'm assuming, incompatible with a healthy lifestyle, so therefore the music. I don't see it as "wrong" but I'm careful to dance on glass and often ask myself am I fueling my depression with depressive music or just nursing it. To be honest, I think it's a bit of both. But in fairness, is an action an unwise thing to do for the self when the action is counterproductive to a healthy lifestyle? Well, this is where depression rears its ugly but in some ways, logical head. When you're depressed, you don't tend to care about life or in some cases may not actively want it. Sometimes you convince yourself the world is a better place without you so what you may have previously seen as unwise or dumb when you weren't depressed seems to make more logical sense. For the most part, clinical depression may not respond well to self motivation and as for typical temporary depression, if you're like me you convince yourself that it's intellectually dishonest to pretend to know what the purpose of life is so it's hard to find reassurance there. No one I've come across has proven they know the meaning of life and especially the meaning of other people's. As it isn't likely to be provable, dumb or unwise in regards to personal life choices has no real basis.
But back on the topic of depression. I see it likely, at least for myself, as a symptom of something greater, possibly being a response to my anxiety, at least in my case. Some recent studies seem to suggest that it's an adaptation and has evolutionary benefits. But few people I've heard rarely like having it or even fewer, actually no one I've heard of, wants it. It can make life difficult but sometimes that's what life calls for unfortunately. As there's very few people I know that like to be angry, so too can it be said of anger. Do aggressive people listen to aggressive music or does angry music make people angry? There's been debate in the past about violent video games and the consensus in the psychological community seems to be that normal healthy people don't become any more aggressive than previously. I believe in some ways art, video games in this case, is a healthy emotional release. Though there was one article I recall reading, forgot the source, that seemed to find in people predispositioned for aggressive behavior, there was a small increase in the scale of such behavior. I'm aware of this and careful not to perpetuate a depressive lifestyle to a certain point but I believe a certain degree of self expression outed in a reasonable manner is healthy for the mind, even if it is anger, depression, and so on.
On that note, Nirvana is my guilty pleasure. They're the only band that if I binged on would really get me down, more-so than usual. I've been there before in my teenage days and stayed there for a long time. It's probably the music and lyrics I can identify most with, at least my younger self, yet it's too incompatible with a healthy lifestyle that I have to stay away from it, at least the really depressing songs. But that's who I was, who they were, and who I am. I can't disregard the validity and worth of it, especially when I feel Kurt was like a friend, of which I didn't really have at the time and I feel like he and his music got me through a lot of tough times when I was younger. But Pink Floyd, on the other hand, is my coffee. Just enough soothing melancholy to get me through my day and inspire me yet not leave me emotionally wrecked, but I still have to limit my cups, at least for the sadder Richard Wright inspired songs. Coincidentally I just found out that twenty years ago today, the In Utero album came out. Where does the time go? RIP Kurt...
Oh wow, when looking at the wall of text above, I'm starting to wonder if I'm really looking for a justification for listening to depressive music or just using this entry as an excuse to hammer away at a keyboard to satisfy my coffee binge. It's like a big, manic word zoo.
Comments
Post a Comment