Everything comes to an end,
That's just the way of the world.
Every new fashion and trend
Like a spring flower unfurled.
Try as you might, you can't mend
Petals when withered and brown.
Enjoy the moment, my friend,
Go with a smile, not a frown.
Cycles forever repeat,
Memories all that transcend.
Life springs from death, born complete.
Everything starts from an end.
Tuesday, 14 February 2012
Friday, 10 February 2012
Fantasia
One of my work colleagues, having read my post Music and Mood, asked me whether I had ever seen Disney's Fantasia - in particular the abstract animation accompanying Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. He was curious to know whether my mental images would match the animation at all.
I hadn't seen the picture at that point, but have since watched most of the segment in question. The short answer is that the images it conjures up in my mind do not match those in the movie at all. In fact the mismatch was so great that I stopped watching because I found the animation distracted from the music rather than complementing it; however I did find an audio recording of the piece played on a pipe organ which I found much more satisfying than the orchestral version because of the purity of tone.
It is somewhat curious to me that what is essentially an abstract piece of music - there is no evidence that Bach intended any narrative in his composition - should inspire concrete images in my mind's eye. The opening bars bring into being a darkened landscape, hills rolling to the horizon, the scene widening. And then as that powerful chord is built up the sun rises above the far horizon, flooding the bucolic land with its warm golden brightness. As the piece progresses there is movement as flowers spring up out of the ground, streams and waterfalls cascade and great towering trees thrust skywards, propelled by the strength of the deep bass notes.
There is a lot of detail and movement in my images, especially those that are produced by rapid sequences of notes - this is in complete contrast to the simple nature of the animation in Fantasia, where the complexity of the music is not matched by the visuals. There are odd moments that begin to show promise but they still fall far short and I am left with a feeling of dissatisfaction because the combined experience of music and video ends up much less involving than the music alone.
I hadn't seen the picture at that point, but have since watched most of the segment in question. The short answer is that the images it conjures up in my mind do not match those in the movie at all. In fact the mismatch was so great that I stopped watching because I found the animation distracted from the music rather than complementing it; however I did find an audio recording of the piece played on a pipe organ which I found much more satisfying than the orchestral version because of the purity of tone.
It is somewhat curious to me that what is essentially an abstract piece of music - there is no evidence that Bach intended any narrative in his composition - should inspire concrete images in my mind's eye. The opening bars bring into being a darkened landscape, hills rolling to the horizon, the scene widening. And then as that powerful chord is built up the sun rises above the far horizon, flooding the bucolic land with its warm golden brightness. As the piece progresses there is movement as flowers spring up out of the ground, streams and waterfalls cascade and great towering trees thrust skywards, propelled by the strength of the deep bass notes.
There is a lot of detail and movement in my images, especially those that are produced by rapid sequences of notes - this is in complete contrast to the simple nature of the animation in Fantasia, where the complexity of the music is not matched by the visuals. There are odd moments that begin to show promise but they still fall far short and I am left with a feeling of dissatisfaction because the combined experience of music and video ends up much less involving than the music alone.
Wednesday, 8 February 2012
Filling in the Blanks
"Yeah, mumble mumble last night mumble mumble meal mumble Friday?" Oops. You just asked me something. What did you just say? Well, based on what you were talking about before - the bits I managed to catch - I guess you just asked me if I want to go out for a meal Friday. I'd better see if I'm correct - ask a hopefully relevant question and see what you say: "A meal this Friday? Where?"
At this point I either come across as "normal", following the conversation, or I just dropped a spanner in the works and confused the heck out of you. And I never know which it's going to be! The problem is that if there's any distraction - background noise or movement in particular - then I fail to distinguish the speaker's voice. I know they're talking to me, I can see their lips moving and hear sounds, but even concentrating intently I can only interpret the odd word and have to guess the rest from context.
More often than I care to admit somebody will say something to me and I'll respond with some acknowledgement. It's several seconds later that I finally work out what they said and can tell whether my response was appropriate. Or whether I just looked stupid again.
See if you can work out the meaning of this short extract. To make things easier I've left in most of the nouns:
The thing is, I don't have hearing problems. I can pick up faint sounds like the clock ticking at home. I score in the average range in hearing tests. But if somebody says something while the TV is on - or there's music playing or other conversations going on around us - then although I can hear all the sounds, I can't separate them very well. It's a problem with processing the sensory input and I find it hard work and very frustrating, so I often keep out of conversations in noisy environments. In fact I prefer to avoid noisy social environments altogether.
With all this it's no surprise I prefer to communicate in writing - through email, text or similar mechanisms. The words are in front of me, not obscured by noise, and there is no need for an immediate response. I can take the time to compose my reply, re-reading their comment if necessary and thinking of le mot juste - the right word that will exactly convey my intended meaning.
At this point I either come across as "normal", following the conversation, or I just dropped a spanner in the works and confused the heck out of you. And I never know which it's going to be! The problem is that if there's any distraction - background noise or movement in particular - then I fail to distinguish the speaker's voice. I know they're talking to me, I can see their lips moving and hear sounds, but even concentrating intently I can only interpret the odd word and have to guess the rest from context.
More often than I care to admit somebody will say something to me and I'll respond with some acknowledgement. It's several seconds later that I finally work out what they said and can tell whether my response was appropriate. Or whether I just looked stupid again.
See if you can work out the meaning of this short extract. To make things easier I've left in most of the nouns:
__________ impairment ___ social _________ stereotyped and restricted patterns ______ activities and interests, and _____ally signi_____lay in cog______opment or general _____ language.This is from a description of Aspergers Syndrome that I've quoted previously. I admit I've been selective in the bits I blanked out, but this is only for the purpose of illustration. In a real situation there would be snatches of other conversations interleaved with this one, and the whole would be obscured by background noise:
The thing is, I don't have hearing problems. I can pick up faint sounds like the clock ticking at home. I score in the average range in hearing tests. But if somebody says something while the TV is on - or there's music playing or other conversations going on around us - then although I can hear all the sounds, I can't separate them very well. It's a problem with processing the sensory input and I find it hard work and very frustrating, so I often keep out of conversations in noisy environments. In fact I prefer to avoid noisy social environments altogether.
With all this it's no surprise I prefer to communicate in writing - through email, text or similar mechanisms. The words are in front of me, not obscured by noise, and there is no need for an immediate response. I can take the time to compose my reply, re-reading their comment if necessary and thinking of le mot juste - the right word that will exactly convey my intended meaning.
Friday, 3 February 2012
The Joy of Darts
A post by C. S. Wyatt started me thinking about what games and sports I enjoy, and why.
I have always enjoyed word-based puzzles, particularly crosswords, and complete at least one cryptic crossword most days - my favorite is the Daily Telegraph which I usually finish in under 20 minutes. What attracts me is the challenge of interpreting the clue in the correct way to construct the answer - it's a combination of an extensive vocabulary, an awareness of multiple meanings of words and logical reasoning.
I occasionally solve Sudoku puzzles but find them much less satisfying because of the purely mechanical methods involved. I found it much more interesting to write a computer program to apply the methods and solve the puzzles that way.
Quizzes in various forms can be fun. I used to enjoy taking part in a local pub quiz but after a while got bored by the consistently variable level of difficulty of the questions - the first few would be insultingly easy, while the final ones would often be so obscure that they just resulted in a random choice of one of the multiple options provided. I enjoy playing Trivial Pursuit now and again but get frustrated by the element of luck introduced by rolling a die to determine where I can move my counter.
I have played card games in the past - blackjack, poker - in social settings for chips rather than "real" money in a casino. While I did very much enjoy studying and designing strategies to guide my play (I bought a copy of Hoyle as a reference), I found that the random turn of the cards and the unpredictability of other players meant I did not get nearly as much pleasure from actually playing the games.
I play pool (8-ball) on occasion - I used to captain a pub team - and ten-pin bowling, but the sport I play most has to be darts. In all of these sports, how well I do depends on my individual skill - there is no significant random element apart from the very small variation in ambient conditions - these being indoor sports - which affect all the players equally. I also enjoy the fact that, unlike in team sports such as rugby, I can play at whatever pace suits me.
In summary, I have a strong preference for games of skill rather than chance. I much prefer turn-based games. I enjoy puzzles and other activities that exercise my mind. I prefer games where it is only my individual performance that affects the outcome, although I have played pairs matches in both pool and darts. I believe that the individual turn-based nature of these is a much more significant factor than any interaction between myself and my partner in the pair - there is not the depth of strategy and real-time interaction involved unlike a regular team sport.
In fact, having considered the reasons why my preferences lie in a particular direction, I can see strong parallels between these leisure activities and my love of programming. There are the same elements of skill, knowledge, problem-solving and individual effort. Just as I am happiest and perform best when left to my own devices at work, so I prefer those leisure activities that involve solo endeavor.
I have always enjoyed word-based puzzles, particularly crosswords, and complete at least one cryptic crossword most days - my favorite is the Daily Telegraph which I usually finish in under 20 minutes. What attracts me is the challenge of interpreting the clue in the correct way to construct the answer - it's a combination of an extensive vocabulary, an awareness of multiple meanings of words and logical reasoning.
I occasionally solve Sudoku puzzles but find them much less satisfying because of the purely mechanical methods involved. I found it much more interesting to write a computer program to apply the methods and solve the puzzles that way.
Quizzes in various forms can be fun. I used to enjoy taking part in a local pub quiz but after a while got bored by the consistently variable level of difficulty of the questions - the first few would be insultingly easy, while the final ones would often be so obscure that they just resulted in a random choice of one of the multiple options provided. I enjoy playing Trivial Pursuit now and again but get frustrated by the element of luck introduced by rolling a die to determine where I can move my counter.
I have played card games in the past - blackjack, poker - in social settings for chips rather than "real" money in a casino. While I did very much enjoy studying and designing strategies to guide my play (I bought a copy of Hoyle as a reference), I found that the random turn of the cards and the unpredictability of other players meant I did not get nearly as much pleasure from actually playing the games.
I play pool (8-ball) on occasion - I used to captain a pub team - and ten-pin bowling, but the sport I play most has to be darts. In all of these sports, how well I do depends on my individual skill - there is no significant random element apart from the very small variation in ambient conditions - these being indoor sports - which affect all the players equally. I also enjoy the fact that, unlike in team sports such as rugby, I can play at whatever pace suits me.
In summary, I have a strong preference for games of skill rather than chance. I much prefer turn-based games. I enjoy puzzles and other activities that exercise my mind. I prefer games where it is only my individual performance that affects the outcome, although I have played pairs matches in both pool and darts. I believe that the individual turn-based nature of these is a much more significant factor than any interaction between myself and my partner in the pair - there is not the depth of strategy and real-time interaction involved unlike a regular team sport.
In fact, having considered the reasons why my preferences lie in a particular direction, I can see strong parallels between these leisure activities and my love of programming. There are the same elements of skill, knowledge, problem-solving and individual effort. Just as I am happiest and perform best when left to my own devices at work, so I prefer those leisure activities that involve solo endeavor.
Thursday, 2 February 2012
A Bit Aspie
I suppose, people being people, that other Aspies have tried to explain how the condition affects their functioning in some way, such as difficulty reading non-verbal signals, only to hear, "I, like, get that too, you know: maybe I'm a bit Aspergers." Even after ignoring the involuntary wince that is triggered whenever language is tortured in my presence, I struggle to respond to that. While I don't want to dismiss out of hand the possibility that they might be correct, it can be hard to explain how AS (and autism) are about more than being awkward in social situations.
What I want to say to these people - but can't because my AS makes it too difficult to formulate an adequate response without zoning out for too long and dropping out of the conversation - is that I doubt very much whether they do have AS. AS is not like a salad bar where you get to choose how much of each symptom you want. It's not something I chose to have - I have it, live with it and cope with the challenges as best I can. Each symptom taken in isolation does not define the condition: it is called a pervasive disorder for a reason. It is a set of symptoms, usually with varying degrees of severity, and having AS means you pretty much got the lot.
What is "the lot"? To quote the Wikipedia article which summarizes the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria,
I doubt that any sighted person would describe themselves as "a bit blind" because they close their eyes occasionally. Likewise, they are not "a bit Aspie" because they sometimes feel awkward in social situations or have a fanatical interest in, say, football. There is evidence that the Aspie label is somehow becoming seen as "cool" - I can't understand why this should be so, because I know first-hand that the reality is that even in a mild form it causes significant difficulties for those directly affected, and also indirectly for those such as partners in relationships.
What I want to say to these people - but can't because my AS makes it too difficult to formulate an adequate response without zoning out for too long and dropping out of the conversation - is that I doubt very much whether they do have AS. AS is not like a salad bar where you get to choose how much of each symptom you want. It's not something I chose to have - I have it, live with it and cope with the challenges as best I can. Each symptom taken in isolation does not define the condition: it is called a pervasive disorder for a reason. It is a set of symptoms, usually with varying degrees of severity, and having AS means you pretty much got the lot.
What is "the lot"? To quote the Wikipedia article which summarizes the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria,
[...] a pattern of symptoms rather than a single symptom. It is characterized by impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities and interests, and by no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language.This doesn't even attempt to explain why these symptoms occur: it is just a "pattern" that recurs and has been labelled as Asperger Syndrome. The label is a convenience, nothing more, to cover the effects of particular cognitive differences. It does not describe the differences between individuals with AS, the varying degrees of difficulty we face in everyday situations. Couched in the most general terms it says nothing about how it feels from the inside - how exhausting it is to deal with "normal" life, to feel so often that we have to consciously act "normal" with other people so that we are not seen as alien, to face censure for "inappropriate" behavior when we don't conform to their "normal" standards.
I doubt that any sighted person would describe themselves as "a bit blind" because they close their eyes occasionally. Likewise, they are not "a bit Aspie" because they sometimes feel awkward in social situations or have a fanatical interest in, say, football. There is evidence that the Aspie label is somehow becoming seen as "cool" - I can't understand why this should be so, because I know first-hand that the reality is that even in a mild form it causes significant difficulties for those directly affected, and also indirectly for those such as partners in relationships.
Tuesday, 31 January 2012
À la Recherche d'une Qualité Perdue
Childhood days -
Endless summer
Over so soon.
School routine -
Facts and figures
In place of friends.
The shy boy
On the fringes -
Mock his strangeness.
Building Lego
Sat for hours -
Transcendent joy.
Exam success,
Afraid to speak -
Social failure.
Computer geek,
Obsessive interest -
The world forgotten.
Curious mind
Always learning -
Child-like wonder.
Naïveté
Jamais perdu -
Le retour de l'été.
Endless summer
Over so soon.
School routine -
Facts and figures
In place of friends.
The shy boy
On the fringes -
Mock his strangeness.
Building Lego
Sat for hours -
Transcendent joy.
Exam success,
Afraid to speak -
Social failure.
Computer geek,
Obsessive interest -
The world forgotten.
Curious mind
Always learning -
Child-like wonder.
Naïveté
Jamais perdu -
Le retour de l'été.
Monday, 30 January 2012
Freedom
Freedom is an illusion. Freedom of expression, freedom of movement, freedom of action; all are constrained in one way or another by the written and especially the unwritten rules - conventions - of society. The uncomfortable truth is that there is no such thing as freedom from consequences.
Everything we do, everything we say has an effect, whether large or small. Every time I articulate an opinion it colors somebody's feelings towards me: if they agree then they feel more closely aligned with me; if they do not then they feel alienated. Even the way I express myself has an effect: my vocabulary in the workplace is more extensive and less coarse than when I'm in the pub. This is because social conventions exist in both places. There are certain behaviors that would be seen as inappropriate in the "wrong" context, such as swearing or drinking in the workplace. So while it is physically possible for one to, say, drink a beer at work, one would certainly face serious consequences as a result.
Can one be said to be free to act when one is physically able to perform an action that will result in censure or punishment? I do not believe so. I believe that freedom implies that no harm will befall one as a result of one's actions: that there will be no consequences that one is unwilling to accept.
Unwilling to accept - that is the crux of the matter. If one truly does not care about what happens as a result, either to oneself or to others, then one is free to do as one pleases. Greater freedom comes at the cost of diminished responsibility: being responsible for one's actions means being aware of and accepting the consequences.
Respect is a factor in this: respect for the right of others not to be offended or harmed by anything one might choose to do. Consider the idea of freedom of expression: a concept that many, especially in the Western world, feel is an inalienable right. A liberal interpretation of it could be construed as a license to lie, offend, incite hatred or violence - one has the freedom to say anything at all and because of that one is absolved of any responsibility for the outcome.
I recall the controversy over the publication, initially in Denmark, of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The publishers used freedom of expression as their defense; however there appeared to be an almost complete lack of understanding of the degree to which many Muslims would be offended, of the utter revulsion they feel towards those committing what they see as blasphemy. It is the same revulsion that many people feel towards those who desecrate Jewish cemeteries with Nazi graffiti, or those who abuse children. Would you say that people should have the freedom to commit those acts? Or should they instead have enough respect for others' rights that they could not do something so harmful? Understanding that, I feel I have a responsibility not to cause such offense - and in this it does not matter whether it offends me: it is about respecting the rights of others. Is it not reasonable to expect other people to behave with the same respect?
Having started on the subject of freedom, and dismissed it as a chimera, I have ended up reiterating my long-held views about respect and responsibility. I do not worry about whether I am "free" - it is a concept that carries little meaning for me with my consciousness of the social constraints within which I must navigate my daily life. I try to act intentionally according to my beliefs: in basic terms, to treat others as I would wish to be treated in return. It is more important to me that I be treated with respect than that I should feel free to do as I please.
Everything we do, everything we say has an effect, whether large or small. Every time I articulate an opinion it colors somebody's feelings towards me: if they agree then they feel more closely aligned with me; if they do not then they feel alienated. Even the way I express myself has an effect: my vocabulary in the workplace is more extensive and less coarse than when I'm in the pub. This is because social conventions exist in both places. There are certain behaviors that would be seen as inappropriate in the "wrong" context, such as swearing or drinking in the workplace. So while it is physically possible for one to, say, drink a beer at work, one would certainly face serious consequences as a result.
Can one be said to be free to act when one is physically able to perform an action that will result in censure or punishment? I do not believe so. I believe that freedom implies that no harm will befall one as a result of one's actions: that there will be no consequences that one is unwilling to accept.
Unwilling to accept - that is the crux of the matter. If one truly does not care about what happens as a result, either to oneself or to others, then one is free to do as one pleases. Greater freedom comes at the cost of diminished responsibility: being responsible for one's actions means being aware of and accepting the consequences.
Respect is a factor in this: respect for the right of others not to be offended or harmed by anything one might choose to do. Consider the idea of freedom of expression: a concept that many, especially in the Western world, feel is an inalienable right. A liberal interpretation of it could be construed as a license to lie, offend, incite hatred or violence - one has the freedom to say anything at all and because of that one is absolved of any responsibility for the outcome.
I recall the controversy over the publication, initially in Denmark, of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. The publishers used freedom of expression as their defense; however there appeared to be an almost complete lack of understanding of the degree to which many Muslims would be offended, of the utter revulsion they feel towards those committing what they see as blasphemy. It is the same revulsion that many people feel towards those who desecrate Jewish cemeteries with Nazi graffiti, or those who abuse children. Would you say that people should have the freedom to commit those acts? Or should they instead have enough respect for others' rights that they could not do something so harmful? Understanding that, I feel I have a responsibility not to cause such offense - and in this it does not matter whether it offends me: it is about respecting the rights of others. Is it not reasonable to expect other people to behave with the same respect?
Having started on the subject of freedom, and dismissed it as a chimera, I have ended up reiterating my long-held views about respect and responsibility. I do not worry about whether I am "free" - it is a concept that carries little meaning for me with my consciousness of the social constraints within which I must navigate my daily life. I try to act intentionally according to my beliefs: in basic terms, to treat others as I would wish to be treated in return. It is more important to me that I be treated with respect than that I should feel free to do as I please.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)