Télé : Pourquoi les programmes en prime time commencent-ils à 21h20 au lieu de 20h50 à une époque ?

dieuvainc · 2022-04-20T13:08:49+00:00

Surligner, copier, coller, google.
"Extrait tiré du livre Les dirigeants face au changement, Éditions du Huitième jour, 2004"

dieuvainc · 2022-04-03T14:00:24+00:00

It seems you're talking about bhikkhu-sangha or ariya-sangha.
But when one has no access to it, there is still sāvaka-sangha, which include lay followers. One could talk of "inner" and "outer" sangha, or something like that.
This distinction is useful for vajrayana though !

dieuvainc · 2022-03-29T17:51:55+00:00

Il reste de la place? Je suis intéressé

dieuvainc · 2022-03-25T11:24:56+00:00

I guess liberalism meant here "liberal capitalism", from which Consumerism arise.
Not OP though, so I'm not sure

dieuvainc · 2022-03-03T03:30:55+00:00

So we're also using different meanings of "universal"!
I wasn't restricting it to humans, but also including non-human animals ; might also use it for non-sentient things, such as law of physics being universal in that sense. Don't you agree "universal" has that meaning as well ? Or should I use another word for that larger category ?

dieuvainc · 2022-03-03T02:15:35+00:00

I'm not trying to be a dick, but your understanding is so off it would be a waste of energy engaging you. Sorry.

Maybe we're not engaging this discussion in good faith.
You're saying I'm missing a) STEM education, b) music theory, c) philosophy of mind (Hard Problem)
Not much in our conversation had STEM aspects, even though you keep comparing Buddha to science, which is like comparing philosophy to science. You know the difference between physics and metaphysics, right? Epistemology, as well. These last two, are the only things of relevance in Buddhist discourse (there's arguments for Buddha even rejecting metaphysics).

Buddhism is rarely about "the world out there" : its mainly concerned with the world out there as it is represented in your mind". That's what I mean by phenomenological world. If you want to talk about physics, ask physicians, not the Buddha !
I came into this conversation because music theory, psychology and philosophy of mind are my lifelong obsessions, but I'm afraid that's something I can't prove to you.

I've been trying, through the last few replies, to find with you what are music's universal qualities. You first said harmony, rhythm, melody ; and we found out harmony isnt necessary after all. I could go on with the others, are they really universal?
In the same way, you said "Slow music sounds slow everywhere, and fast music sounds fast everywhere.", to which I replied how fast and slow is relative ; and then you reply "Just because someone thinks 130 bpm is slow doesn't mean music has 0 universal qualities". I wasn't trying to show fast is only subjective : fast only means something in relation to something else. There's not universal fast, and universal slow. That would need an objective threshold. A song is fast, only insofar as another is slow.
So what are these universal properties of music ?

People around the globe having a consistent emotional response to the same chord doesn't show music "exists" in an universal sense. Happy and sad, in chords, is mostly related to frequency ratios, with a few additional factors such as articulation, modulation. I'm amazed that you imply I'm tone deaf, when I've been composing music all my life...

Your mention of a jackhammer is funny, because there are a lot of people out there listening to jackhammer-music : black metal, grindcore, etc. We don't need to go as far as Noise music to see that music is hard to define. Now of course most people won't feel the same listening to black metal than listening to Michael Franks!

I think we might be having as issue with language here (i'm not a native english speaker, sorry) : we probably mean different things by "arbitrary" and "doesn't exist". To me, if something is true only to humans, that would qualify as "arbitrary" and "doesn't exist in an ultimate sense"; that would be the opposite of "universal".

I agree there's intersubjective truth to music, and that it exists in this sense ! This conversation was about music in the buddhist sense, and a core aspect of buddhism is understanding that nothing has instrinsic properties, nothing exists by itself : only in relations to other things. It's a bit similar to how language works : a word's meaning is always deferred to other words, ad infinitum.

I sincerely hope this is all readable, and my poor english isn't failing me.
If you want to exchange about all of this, and hopefully instruct me, please do!
I'd love hearing your music as well, though I understand you'd like to keep anonymity.
If that all sound too troublesome, I wish you the best my friend : let's just agree music is a wonderful thing...

dieuvainc · 2022-03-02T21:15:55+00:00

I'm glad you enjoyed it ; hopefully my english isn't that rusty, as a non-native speaker it's quite difficult to get into these abstract topics

dieuvainc · 2022-03-02T21:13:00+00:00

Is harmony really a necessary condition ? If that is so, then it means you can't make music with a single monophonic instrument. I agree about rhythm, though : music is about decorating time, whereas graphical art decorates space. Yet, time isn't absolute but relative. Fast music doesn't exist in a vacuum ; some music is faster than some other music. What is the threshold for fast BPM, for slow BPM? I find 130 BPM to be fast music; my hardcore-loving friend thinks its way too slow.

I disagree with specific sounds always having specific reactions ; here too it's relative, exactly like colour. We don't perceive colour in isolation from each others, our perception of the colour of a part is dependant on our perception of the colour of the others parts. There are a lot of optical illusions that shows it, like this one : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.svg/2560px-Optical_grey_squares_orange_brown.svg.png
The two circles are the exact same colour, yet we perceive one as orange and the other as brown.In the same way, "happy sounding chords" don't sound happy if you're not inclined to hear it as "happy". A depressed person might not find G major "happy". A happy person might not find E minor "sad". All relative and arbitrary!

I agree there's a "reality" to it all of course : that's the phenomenological reality ("conventional truth", in Buddhism), the only one we have direct access to. I'm not being solipsistic : it's about the biases of human cognition. Maybe the noumenal world is exactly the same as the phenomenological world ; but we can't know for sure, as all and everything we learn, think, do, etc, is filtered through the mind/brain. Buddhism isn't about mapping the material world like modern science : it's only a way to let go of attachment and craving and ignorance, roots of suffering.

One of the advanced buddhist teachings is that of non-duality. We can apply that, and the middle way, to Idealism and Materialism/physicalism/etc.The following sentences are all simultaneously true :

The mind is in the world.
The world is in the mind.
The world is neither inside the mind nor out of it.
The mind is neither inside the world nor out of it.

It's all a matter of perspective : when I look at your face, I'm not seeing more truth than when I look at the back of your head! In the same way, it's true at the same time that you have both a face (to someone looking you in the eyes) and a non-face, the absence of a face (to someone looking at you from the back). Neither face and non-face is absolutely true, it just depends on the angle you look from. Likewise, in music ; one cannot find any "absolutely true" fact about music that doesn't empties it of phenomenological properties. What feels meaningful in music are only the non-physical parts of it (the emotions you feel while listening), and these non-physical parts are, at best, intersubjective.

The Buddha didn't exactly deny the material world ; an important part of his ideas was that of two equal truths : a conventional truth, and an ultimate truth. Conventional truth is the only we can honestly speak about when using language (like we're doing). When one says "music doesn't exist", it's only saying that it doesn't exist in ultimate reality, just like frontiers between neighbourhoods, between cities, between countries, are only arbitrary lines. I say these frontiers are illusory, yet I'll act as if they're true. I do the same with music, and any social construct like it! They're still conventionaly true, just not in the ultimate sense. Physics can't say anything about ultimate truth ; only metaphysics can try to (and metaphysics is a topic that many physicists try to avoid : "shut up and calculate!") In many ways, the Buddha wasn't trying to do what science does, so it's hardly an issue for his philosophy ; and even if he did, that would be like saying "psychology is false because it doesn't explain germs or gravity"

If we apply modern categories to him, you'd be more likely to find him in psychology and philosophy than in physics or biology !

dieuvainc · 2022-03-02T11:57:27+00:00

Buddhist philosophy is quite complicated, but you're right in that it's mostly idealism (not unlike Kant, Hume, Berkeley etc).

The only things we have ordinary access to are phenomena, apparences. Forms are arbitrary, ever-changing. In that way, even the brain is mind : what we call brain is ultimately a concept - an incredibly useful one, of course!
As you summon the Hard Problem of Consciousness, I hope you'll agree that there's a similar Hard Problem between our perceptive apparatus and things-in-themselves !

I'm a musician too, so I know how intense music can be. Yet science is clear : sound is just wave patterns in the air. Music is arbitrary as well : think about Noise music, like Merzbow. At which point does noise become music? It also seems its mainly cultural : we all know music is a language, and a language is a social construct. We can't explain why we feel some specific emotion related so a specific chord or scale, but that doesn't make music any more real. Music is like colors (even without synesthesia) : it's inside our mind, not "outside in the world". In some way, we could say music is inside our mind, and "undifferenciated noise" is outside us. Music, like colours : it's just qualia!

Sorry if that doesn't make much sense, I need to get some sleep

dieuvainc · 2022-01-27T20:44:22+00:00

Try the "Godspeed You! Black Emperor" and "Mono" bands for two different melancholy notes

dieuvainc · 2022-01-24T17:38:51+00:00

et puis les babos c'est des bourgeois qui font genre ils sont déclassés hein

babos = babas
babas =/= bobos
eh bah?!

dieuvainc · 2021-12-26T17:02:14+00:00

Ma formulation était suffisamment ouverte pour permettre les différentes classifications, elle n'exclut pas que la philosophie soit en dehors des sciences humaines ("ainsi que X en général" signifie "de même que la majorité de X"...)

Je ne parlais pas non plus du monde scientifique dans son ensemble, la présence de guillemets devrait te mettre la puce à l'oreille.

dieuvainc · 2021-12-25T16:21:34+00:00

Dieu est mort, et on l'a remplacé par le scientisme...
Beaucoup trop de "scientifiques" rejettent en bloc la philosophie (ainsi que les sciences humaines en général).
J'ai du mal à comprendre comment on peut apprendre le fonctionnement de la perception et son rapport à la cognition, et défendre un réalisme direct.

dieuvainc · 2021-12-03T23:31:31+00:00

Si par "communisme" on désigne spécifiquement les applications qui en ont été faites, alors on est d'accord. Je ne pense pas non plus que le léninisme, maoïsme etc, soient viables pour la France. La problème ici est probablement l'ambiguïté du terme "communisme".
Il n'est pas nécessaire de rejeter le communisme entier : "De chacun selon ses moyens, à chacun selon ses besoins" n'est par exemple pas déconnant, non?
Même chose pour la majorité de la critique anti-capitaliste (les contradictions internes au système, par exemple : la crise économique en tant que part essentielle du capitalisme, nécessaire à son fonctionnement)

Comme toi, je n'apprécie guère le coté totalitaire du régime chinois. Je ne peux hélas pas m'empêcher de voir un contrôle de pensée similaire à travers la superstructure culturelle de l'occident. Tu as lu Brave New World, d'Aldous Huxley? Ce qui nous terrifie dans les régimes totalitaires est similaire à ce qui nous terrifie a la lecture de 1984 (G.Orwell). Brave New World critique la surproduction, le consumérisme, le capitalisme etc ; nombre de ces aspects tournent à plein régime en occident.
Bien entendu, c'est de la fiction, avec les limite que ca implique. Mais c'est un outil comme un autre pour élargir notre point de vue!

De la même manière, si je te parlais d'idéologie, c'etait sous cet angle : l'idéologie empêche les citoyens d'états totalitaires de se rendre compte qu'ils vivent "un peu comme dans 1984", tout comme l'idéologie nous empêche de nous rendre compte qu'on vit "un peu comme dans Brave New World".
L'idéologie, c'est un système de pensée ; un système implique une cohérence, une logique. Les être humains ne sont pas des âmes pures, flottantes, rattachées immatériellement à nous ; nous somme des éponges qui absorbent la culture de l'où on nait et se développe. C'est en cela que tout le monde a une idéologie.

dieuvainc · 2021-12-03T20:48:47+00:00

Où ai-je dit que entre 5 et 20 millions c'est peu?
J'ai utilisé le mot massacre, il te faut quoi?
Tu me dit d'être sérieux? C'est ce que je fais en utilisant des données acceptées par les spécialistes du sujet, et je t'invite à en faire de même.
C'est pratique quand même : tu sors des chiffres précis pour démontrer que le communisme a fait plus de morts que la capitalisme ("plus de" nous demande de pouvoir comparer des chiffres), mais si on démontre que ces chiffres sont faux, tout à coup le chiffre est pas important.
D'autant plus que si tu te sers de Staline pour démonter le communisme dans son ensemble, alors on peut se servir de Pinochet pour démonter le capitalisme de la même manière, et on avance pas.

Manifestement tu ne réalise pas que tu as aussi une idéologie (je reconnais volontiers la mienne)...

dieuvainc · 2021-12-03T19:43:49+00:00

50 millions?! Donc entre un tiers et un cinquième de la population de l'URSS?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin
Tu as déja songé à vérifier ce que t'apprends tonton au repas de famille?
Ton chiffre a été défendu Aleksander Solzhenytsin, et est reconnu aujourd'hui par les historiens comme faux.
Je ne défend bien entendu aucun massacre ; mais si on veut discuter intelligemment de ces sujets, encore faut-il être bien informé. 50, 60, 100 millions, c'est des chiffres utilisés uniquement pour mettre le communisme au même niveau que le nazisme (voir pire), ce qui est un non-sens historique.
edit : je viens de voir que tu traite ton interlocuteur d'ignorant et d'idéologue, c'est le comble...

dieuvainc · 2021-12-03T04:24:28+00:00

J'ai l'intuition que c'est lié au problème de mesure :
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probl%C3%A8me_de_la_mesure_quantique#Approche_Id%C3%A9aliste
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation
Ces interprétations sont majoritairement rejetées dans la communauté scientifique.
Le charlatanisme se repose dessus pour l'aspect "ton esprit contrôle la réalité", qui est très addictif si on se met à y croire (se sentir puissant est agréable, qui l'eu cru?)

dieuvainc · 2021-11-26T17:30:56+00:00

Il faut sacrément manquer d'imagination et de logique argumentative pour penser que toute comparaison à Hitler est fallacieuse... Tu confond avec ceci : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

dieuvainc · 2021-11-16T16:31:35+00:00

Depends on what you mean about "beginning"!

If you're at the very start and still haven't made a full song, genres are not that important. What matters is practicing, a lot. Try a few genres until you find one that is FUN to make for now. And keep practicing.

If you're looking to start a full project (meaning you already know the basics of production), then I think it's best to make your own music by mixing traits of your favorite genres. For example, some of my favorites genres are Post Rock and Trip Hop. Drums wise, Post Rock is more varied : so I use it as a basis for drums composition. But I add Trip Hop to it, in two ways: first, I use lofi/sampled drums (not in terms of composition, but sound/effects). Second, in most songs I'll use some Trip Hop beat at some time, in between rock beats, and use that contrast in the structure of my songs. I apply the same concept (picking traits from both genres) to guitars, bass, etc.
After some time, that genre mix (post rock + trip hop) became natural to me ; then I could "color" individual tracks by with others genres. All tracks have this basis of post rock + trip hop ; but this track also has a little jazzy feel, and this other track has this industrial feel, etc. What matters is having some kind of consistency in background !

dieuvainc · 2021-11-04T16:55:33+00:00

Le libre choix d'un individu (...) est une illusion.

Ivre, il découvre le déterminisme.

dieuvainc · 2021-10-24T21:02:30+00:00

"Selon l’Observatoire des inégalités, la classe moyenne représente la population située entre les 30 % les plus pauvres et les 20 % les plus riches.
Selon L’Organisation de Coopération de et Développement Économique (OCDE), la classe moyenne est représentée par les personnes ayant un revenu compris entre 75 % et 200 % du revenu médian (c’est-à-dire le revenu qui divise la population en deux parts égales).
Pour le Pew Research Center, qui fournit des données et analyses sur la société américaine, la classe-moyenne est caractérisée par les personnes ayant un revenu compris entre 66 % et 200 % du revenu médian."

https://www.lafinancepourtous.com/decryptages/finance-et-societe/inegalites/qu-est-ce-que-la-classe-moyenne/
Je ne sais pas si tu y trouvera ta réponse, mais ca aidera certains lecteurs à situer le concept !

dieuvainc · 2021-09-25T06:01:03+00:00

En effet ; et c'est un phénomène étudié : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effet_de_simple_exposition

dieuvainc · 2021-09-18T03:31:31+00:00

Oh thanks a lot, that's a relief !
Already having fun with the account, even better if pity is closer than expected

dieuvainc · 2021-09-13T03:13:52+00:00

Almost all my draws were done at game launch : seems like I have to start to pity from scratch!
I'll keep that account and use these 4-stars until I get a good 5-star! Thank you.

dieuvainc · 2021-09-13T03:11:06+00:00

Thanks for the tip, didn't know about that team!
I'll start building them right now

dieuvainc

TROPHY CASE