civilisation

I find it really interesting that Middle Eastern culture and learning played a central role in the progress of Western civilisation. The medieval era in Europe was the golden age of Islamic/ Arabic scholarship, amd Arabic (not Latin) was the international language of scholarship. So, European scholars wanting access to the latest developments - wanting to read works on science, philosophy, and other fields of learning and/or wanting to read translations of the ancient Greek texts - would learn Arabic. Arabic scholars invented algebra, and developed astronomy, navigation, ways of telling the time and various other technologies. Concepts that were fundamental to the development of mathematics in the west, such as the use of zero in numbers and the use of decimals, came to the west from the Middle East. But what's most interesting to me, because of my interest in literature, is that all of the Ancient Greek texts were translated first by Arabic scholars, and that's how they came to the west, and that's a big deal because those texts were the driving force behind the rennaissance. 

So the Western canon and Western civilisation and culture have some very deep roots outside the west. It's also interesting that there's an Islamic influence, and that, for a very long time, there was an inter-faith collaboration in the area of learning and study. 

بحث

I've been listening to/ watching a lot of debates lately on youtube and twitch. I especially like Destiny (even though I diagree with a lot of his views) because I appreciate his ability to do something extraordinarily well that I'm not good at. 

Why I'm not good at debating or other kinds of adversarial discussion is that I find it really hard to hold the big picture and the details in my mind at the same time, and to easily switch between the two. To debate well, you have to be able to do that. I can sometimes do it well when the big picture is something I care about very deeply, so I can focus on the details and I don't lose sight of the big picture because it's more deeply ingrained in my consciousness. When free to hammer the details like that, I can be pretty adversarial, but it's because I care about the issue. 

My appreciation for Destiny is like my appreciation for Harold Bloom. I'm not really interested in their views, but I'm impressed by their ability to think. 

fallibility

I watched an animated version of The Pilgrim's Progress and I was struck by the pilgrim's stupidity towards the end. I thought, after everything he's been through why is he still thinking it's OK to leave the narrow road because there's a parallel path that is much easier? And then, he's specifically advised not to talk to the flatterer, and what does he do? he talks to the flatterer and gets trapped. 

But later I was thinking about it, and I realised that I am literally that stupid. Maybe 'stupidity' is the wrong word. It's more of a moral thing. All I know is that I do stupid and irrational stuff a lot. If anything then, I found the Christian pilgrim's mistakes reassuring. He made mistakes and went astray, even quite late in his journey, but he made it in the end. 

what you want

sometimes not getting what you want is a good thing. I don't think there is a single thing in this life that is the same when you have it as it appeared to be when you either wanted it or didn't want it - when you were either looking forward to it with pleasant anticipation or apprehension

bad art

I haven't made any art for two months. I made some deliberately bad art a month ago, but then I don't know if anyone would be able to distinguish it from my other art. I wanted to be kind of punk - and do something deliberately bad....I think because I watched a documentary about Sid Vicious, who wasn't actually as vicious as his stage persona tried to portray. 

I even bought a wacom one - a pen display where you actually draw on the monitor rather than on the tablet and see what you're creating on the screen. I was pretty impressed when I first tried out the wacom one. I'm sure that at some stage I will use the wacom one. It's like when I bought my wacom intuos. After initially trying it, I stopped using it and put it away for about a year because I had this idea of what 'good' art is and I can't even make good art on paper, never mind using a tablet. 

What got me started making art again - both on paper/ sketchbooks and digital art with the intuos - was just the desire to do it and to create whatever I wanted to create however I want to create it. I put aside all the ideas about what good art is and the desire to develop skills, and just started making stuff. Some of it's not too bad. An interesting thing was that, through using my tablet and the software to make digital art, and also all kinds of pens, pencils, paints, etc in my traditional art, I did actually start to develop some skills. 

So, I encourage that approach. Do your thing. Consider Jean-Michel Basquiat. His work is brilliant and unique. He would never have created it if he was trying to be like other artists. One of the really interesting things about people like Basquiat and other profoundly gifted creators, is that they know. They know that they are really, really good - that they achieve a kind of perfection. 

What stopped me making art and doing a lot of other things two months ago is the crisis I'm going through which has pretty much shut me down. But if I live, I'm sure I'll be making art again. 

polarisation

in my experience, arguments are a waste of time. You can think of all these great points to make your case, but it's as if the other person sees every single one of the facts or pieces of content through a different lens. You think, surely I've got them now, but they look at the same fact(s) or text and they're convinced it proves their point. What is going on? You feel like there's a mountain of evidence, but none of it changes their mind. They have an answer for every single point. And, to you, their answers seem contrived and convoluted - seems like they have to perform mental gymnastics to make their case, but they're totally convinced and completely closed to your argument. 

The paradigms, assumptions and narratives through which we perceive reality really are like a kind of lens. We don't see lenses, we see through them. We think we're perceiving reality, the texts we engage with, the things people say, the events we experience, directly, but we aren't. 

It seems like this is a more important issue in the 21st century than it's ever been before, because society is increasingly polarised, and, in many cases, there is literally no common ground between the opposing sides. There probably is some common ground, but it seems like people are more interested in the differences - the conflicts. The conflicts are all encompassing. The conflicts subvert any common ground. 

things developing naturally

I was watching some performances of INXS from around 2010, where Jon Stevens and J D Fortune were playing the part of the lead singer. They're both great singers. I actually really like Jon Stevens. 

Even though their performances were good, they made me appreciate a certain aspect of Michael Hutchence as a performer, when I watched videos of him performing with INXS afterwards. What I really noticed was the ease and naturalness with which he performs. He doesn't seem to be working hard. He's in his element. It's not that he's lacking in energy or taking it easy. He's a powerful performer. 

It's probably an unfair comparison though. Michael Hutchence was in his element with INXS because it was his band. It makes sense that performing with them would be natural. Whereas, Jon Stevens and J D Fortune were kind of performing as themselves, backed by INXS. In the performance I watched with J D Fortune, which was at the winter olympics, most of the songs were reworked - the arrangement was different - which I think makes sense because it's saying, this is something new - we're not trying to be Michael Hutchence's INXS without Michael Hutchence. 

I just learnt that there was another lead singer for a couple of years (2011 - 2012) - Ciaran Gribben. I watched some of his performances with INXS. To me, he seems to have done a better job at really being part of the band - actually being the lead singer rather than being a kind of substitute. But he doesn't seem to have done that much with INXS...not that Jon Stevens and J D Fortune did that much either. (I found out later that he actually did a world tour with them though). 

I watched an interview of Ciaran Gribben and the interviewer asked him how he ended up fronting INXS for a time. He explained that he just happened to be in Sydney, working as a support act for another artist, but he was good friends with Andrew Farris and they used to hang out regularly. Being musicians, they started jamming together, Ciaran sang an INXS song, and that gave Andrew Farris the idea. It's interesting....Ciaran Gribben is such a humble guy. He talks about how he was kind of in awe of INXS and when Andrew Farris first suggested that he might play a part one day, he was like, no way. But then a while later - after Ciaran had gone home to Ireland - Andrew rang him and invited him to come and sing with INXS. Then, after trying out a few songs, they offered him the gig. It's interesting - in the interview Ciaran comments on how casual the whole thing was. 

When INXS first decided to re-form, there was a big competition - I think there was even a TV show about it - with all of these singers competing to be the frontman of INXS - all working really hard and putting on their best performance. But it seems like the singers that emerged from that didn't really work out with the band. It didn't become a long term thing. Then, years later, through the friendship of Andrew Farris and Ciaran Gribben, and them jamming together and then eventually Ciaran meeting and working with the band, the role just developed naturally. And, like I said, even though there aren't that many videos on youtube of Ciaran Gribben singing with INXS, the performances seem so much more natural than the ones I watched with other lead singers. 

warmth

there's always something special about the warmth of the sun this time of year (early spring here)

it's a real warmth - not heat - that you can feel on your skin. I suppose it's because winter still lingers in the air. 

it's amazing to think that the sun, which is so hot, and so big (though there are much bigger stars) and so far away, can have such a benign and gentle effect

some differences between the way Americans and Australians speak

Through watching many youtube videos I've noticed some differences in word use between Australians and Americans. 

One of the differences is the use of the word 'whenever'. Americans use that word to refer to specific times, whereas we use it mainly to refer to events that happen regularly or events that we're unsure when they will happen. For example, an American might say, 'Whenever I first started reading War and Peace.....' which to me, doesn't make sense. There was a particular point in time that you started reading the book, so you would say 'when I started reading War and Peace.....'. 

Another difference is that we use the word 'of' more. Like, for example, I would say, 'a couple of people were walking down the street', where an American would probably leave the word 'of' out and say 'a couple people'. Or.....'in a couple of months I will start a new job' vs 'in a couple months I will start a new job'.