classical – Unexpected Objects

What is a Philosophical Hack? The answer is quite philosophical. 🙂

But in this philosophy a number of things are challenged which then indicate that the hack must arrive from an aspect or element that exists which is not philosophical. This is a sort of truism: A thing cannot be in relation to another thing unless itself is first a thing. This is the problem with philosophy as we know it: Philosophy depends upon as it actively re-inscribes and enforces a particular regimen of power of bringing into existence the absolute truth of the universe; namely, in this case, everything is relative. Relativity is not a natural absolute and essential

truth that we come up on through our human ability of reason, it is a particular establishment of power.

One of the first imperatives of the philosophical hack thus must outline or bring into view not merely the postmodern critique of power which then ironically replays itself to maintain the systems of modern power already in play, and at that, as it is supposed to be bringing about emancipation or a removal from of that very power-state, but more how this power itself is not an omnipresent and omnipotent aspect of a fixed and closed absolute real universe.

Key is the disconcern the hack employs in its effort for truth. Not merely another power play of false promises but indeed a recognizing of truth about humanity and the universe in-itself. Indeed it is less a disruption than a revealing despite populism and identity politics.

The Philosophical Hack uses analogy with terms borrowed from what we know of science to describe the issues involved in being able to identify a thing that is called philosophy: Quantum physics is a project of physical description which does not comply nor answer to what we generally call classical mechanics. Quantum physics is nevertheless a viable and true manner (albeit theoretical) of coming upon –and application of — the world, but indeed its methods and concepts do not fit nor concord with classical conceptions of the world, even while quantum conceptions may explain the classical in manners which classical physics cannot reconcile or even agree with; both nevertheless function and operate.

Presently, philosophy is caught in a “classical” , or what philosophers have called correlational, mode, what I have called together as a true form of subjectivity (subject-object duality) to no longer challenge and to thus identify as conventional philosophy. The key to this move is thus to see that just as quantum physics does not negate, invalidate how classical mechanics indeed operates and functions, the identification (the operations of the hack) does not invalidate nor argue against the modes of conventional philosophy, even while it may challenge its method towards absolutism (in whatever forms its takes). Rather, the hack consolidates objects unto themselves by showing the weaknesses in the systemic facade. This move thus concerns an orientation upon objects because the hack allows conventional philosophy to be itself, as a thing in-itself to function as its does. The move is thus two-fold, unilaterally dual in its estimations and methods.

The book by Cedric Nathaniel is involved with the the first efforts to make visible what is invisible and sacrosanct to the conventional philosophical mode.

16175_3_bonis

THE PHILOSOPHICAL HACK: The Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Event.

THE SECOND PART. Coming to a thought near you.x

I love classical music.

and I would say I probably enjoy can 2/3 of the music that is available to me over the radio or in general online stuff actually. I am able, that is enjoy Most music, but I don’t really seek out new music though very often, to be honest. I make new music, but I don’t often seek it out; it usually finds me.

Anyways.

Anyone who enjoys classical music and probably most people who don’t listen to classical music, recognize the typical signature way that classical music sounds on any recording you ever hear: it sounds like you’re listening to it in a pristine concert hall.

And I get it. An Orchestra is made up of many people playing one part. I don’t know what the exact count is, but for example you might have three violin parts and have two or three people playing on each of those parts. As well for all the other instruments, except maybe, I don’t know, a tuba, or maybe specific percussion instruments, or maybe a bassoon or something but I feel like there are often more than one of those players also.

Again I’m not totally sure, but I believe this is the case for the purpose of having the instruments being heard. Like, you need more than one violin in order to be able to project that line of music out into the audience sufficiently so It can be heard.

And even with small chamber groups in general it sounds like they’re sitting on stage in a sound hall. I mean that’s pretty much the way that you record classical music even if it’s not recorded in the hall, is to add reverb to it so it sounds like it is.

So, maybe this is not a new idea.

Nowadays we have a great ability to record anything well.

So I’m thinking about the different ways that people record, say, rock music or pop music. We don’t hear the same types of approaches to recording all the time.

I mean for sure there is a standardization for genres and if you listen to the popular music stations that’s why all the music that’s played on the various music stations pretty much sounds the same: if you listen to the hard rock station all the sounds all the songs have the same production timbre. If you listen to the rap music stations all the songs sound the same. All the classic rock songs have been remastered to the same standard and they all sound like classic rock. Etc..

If you listen to the Jazz Station at all sounds like jazz recording. And so with classical music to.

But if you listen to independent labels or are you listen to music that’s made for sound cloud or all these kind of not institutionalized industry productions, Everyone has got a different way to produce the sound that they’re making, and I got to say that the idea of a standardized industrial way that you’re supposed to produce various genres of music does not equate to better sounding productions. Ideally it may be the “best” way to record things, that is scientifically or from an engineering standpoint, but it doesn’t mean that it sounds “the best”.

But then again I like hearing different things. I think most people just want to hear the same thing over and over again so, there’s that.

OK… so what I’m getting at is I think it would be cool if we took one part, one instrument for each part of an orchestra and play whatever orchestra song, like I don’t know Beethoven’s ninth or something or the Peer Gynt Suite. And have one instrument per part recorded with one microphone per instrument, or at least that one instrument in isolation however microphone many microphones you might want to use.

And then have the producer put it together.

I think that would be a new and interesting way to hear classical music.

So if any of you reading out there knows anyone who plays classical music or as a conductor or is a recorder or has anything to do with classical music, please circulate this idea because I don’t know who to contact to give this idea to, know if anyone would be into it, and nor do I have the money or the resources or the time to in active myself.

Tag: classical

What is a Philosophical Hack?

Classical music: An idea for recording.