‘Metal’ in HMV

Oh dear, I hate to talk about droll things especially after Michael posted the Kant conference thingy.

So I was shopping today, getting some pretty shirts and a new wardrobe for the spring/summer period. Michael and Sinistre may have an oath of humilty which must find expression in their attire, but FUCK, I don’t!

Anyhoo. I was, only because M influences my music habits, went off to check out the metal section of HMV; I was really there to buy some DVDs and look at some cheap shit around. I was just humouring myslef nad looked for any good Finnish bands; to be fair, there were quite a few power metal acts; however, when I was looking for T-bands, and Ta-bands, and then Tar- bands. I found Tarja Turunen…ugh. At least they had the Nightwish album…the NEW one!

Antisophie

Tarja Turunen – Die Alive [Music Video]

Well she was part of Nightwish, now she’s going solo; I could have seen her in London…but….I’m saving my money for when Tarot comes to play…

To be charitable to her; this was perhaps one of the better tracks of the album. Maybe that isn’t charitable to her at all…see for yourselves.

She certainly is missed in Nightwish. The Tuomas/Marco mix makes it all better; except for Marco, they can’t really do as well on their own projects. Although I do need to listen to Tuomas’ solo projects a bit more… 

Michael

[15.02.2008]

Reciprocity between agent and patient

Reciprocity between agent and patient, is one of the most bizarre categories in the Critique. Some of them aren’t so bad; like modality (possibility, necessity, contingency). But…reciprocity of agent and patient?

Lets consider this ‘phrase’, or better still, the notion of reciprocity in some non-cognitive or non-Kantian (I assume) sense.

Well, I’m considering the normal usage, or at least the most frequent of usages. Reciprocity (def) is the return of one’s sentiment towards another.

I wonder how important the role of reciprocity is towards relationships. Many would hold that reciprocity is some key part of a relationship, to be civil, and have civility returned. To love an object, and have the object return such sentiment to the subject.

My prima facie case concerns loving those who cannot return their feelings. Children, or those, for one reason or another cannot by virtue of incapacity, cannot return the full extent, or even any response of compassion, or nurture, or affection, or understanding to the subject.

We might immediately dismiss the case of children as being a counter-case, why? Because of their potentiality to love and care for the parent subject in the future. Okay, then lets stipulate some case where it is nomologically impossible; brain damage or variance of emotional functioning (e.g. those interesting cases like P. Gate).

Many say it is some key component of interpersonal relations for reciprocity to obtain. The commonsense phrase that such relations must be two-way. Seems prima facie like some interesting ideal.

If a loving relation were to be one way; perhaps some may not even say it was a relation at all, but some one-way process. My old theological education is reminding me of the notion of perichoresis; which may be analogous in all human relations, but finds the paradigm case in the relation between Christ and God the father. The notion of reciprocity, and ideals of human relations towards the normative development of character seems a very important part of the furniture of our lives. Not so much as a metaphysical notion, but in how we live our lives, and the meanings imbued in life.

Maybe Kant was onto something for saying it was a condition for experience, it may be, our condition of understanding other people, in some more primitive way than I address, or, further still, some primitive of the ideal of how we shall live.

But why does it irk us?

Michael and Antisophie

Buridan’s Ass

The situation 

Imagine an Ass (Donkey!), who has two stacks of hay, which are equally distant from him, and he has to choose either stack. While the reasons for the choosing of one stack over the other are exactly the same (such as distance to the stack, size, shape, type of hay etc.) What will the ass do?

Let me elicit two options:

  1. The ass will make a decision
  2. The ass will starve

Let me also elicit some assumptions

  1. This is not a real situation (P), or
  2. This is a real situation (Q), and
  3. This is an issue of rational deliberation (R), or,
  4. This is an issue of arbitrary decision making (S)

So, we can say, of this situation, ((P v Q) & (R v S)) & (P–>¬(R v S)) v (Q –>(R v S))