Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

Buckethead Peralogue | joined 10 January 2007 | 69 posts


What philosopher suits you most? posted 10 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat philosopher suits you most? by Buckethead, Peralogue

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari's first chapter of "a thousand plateaus capitalism and schizophrenia" entitled "Introduction: Rhizome" (is my favorite piece of writing (cultural theorists count right?) but it's taking long enough to read that book and i haven't read anything else of theirs. otherwise i'd have to vote for Lao Tzu, real easy to read but important. ethics don't get the attention they deserve. view post


What introduced you to philosophy? posted 10 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat introduced you to philosophy? by Buckethead, Peralogue

while attending art school i was quite obviously submerged in cultural theory which i was quite resistant to at first, however the more academic classes i took the more the philosophical and conceptual my studio work became. by the time i finished i was thouroughly enjoying the hours of reading and discussion i was having with friends, professors and classmates... especially over a few pints. i truely feel sorry for those in life who don't ever get the time to really stop, learn and think about things for a while. i truely feel as though i went through another stage of mental puberty at that time of my life. though i think that perhaps the most important thing about philosophy is that it teaches you how to learn with an open mind and that you will never be done learning. like life the information you intake is all just part of a journey with no destination. view post


sranc posted 12 January 2007 in The Darkness That Comes Beforesranc by Buckethead, Peralogue

I never really thought of sranc as being like a werewolf or trolloc (re:Jordan) at all, i always considered them to be a little like the orcs of tolkien, only a little less cognisant and a little less stupid. Less like dumb humans, more like smart animals or predators (pack hunters: wolves or something). at the same time i never thought of them as being bright green or covered in hair. i thought of them as being almost human but not nearly enough to be confused as one.... (almost as ambiguous as bakker keeps it) view post


Life and Death posted 15 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

Sokar
If you have never experienced one moment of beauty then i feel terribly sorry for you, otherwise from reading your post i can only reasonably figure you are either being extremely pessamistic or playing devil's advocate. Learning to enjoy even the hard moments of daily life is not easy, but for periods of my life i have even been able to see beauty in dirt and it makes living more than worthwhile. Life is both amazingly important, and completely redundant at the same time (with a billion grey areas inbetween) and either way i think it does not just boil down to a series of interests and habits. Human behaviour is part and parcell with perception and thought. Our actions are not all that exist. It is only natural at times to feel a will to live and at others a will to die (or at least a will to no longer exist). One of the things that holds us back from gaining understanding of life is that we are continually looking for these ridiculously unobtainable answers instead of the little pieces of insight that would help. The answers ARE NOT THERE (for us at this point), only theories and bits of insight, accept this,learn to see beauty in learning and gaining awareness and you might find that perhaps the most amazing things you've ever experienced are as basic as your own senses. view post


Life and Death posted 16 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

great clarification sokar, i appreciate it.

in reply i did not mean that behaviour comes from perception and thought, only that it's importance does not preclude those things (i should have been more clear). also that the secular existance of these two things (within our own brains) does not make them more or less concrete....
example: if our actions are determined through the perceptions and thoughts of others, is importance of existance based solely on the quantity of people (beings) who "experience" something or can a single person's "experience" be just as important and/or satisfying.

i tend to believe that too much importance is put on the approval other people's adoration and criticisms.

also, the snow has been beautiful here lately. view post


The Meaning of Life posted 26 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

My two cents...

i don't like the way the thread started (or was continued in some ways) in terms of being told that speculative theories are how things are....
i feel that anything beyond speculation (re: how the dinosaurs were destroyed or the simplistic meaning of life) seems a little ignorant/arrogant coming from the human race (no offense meant to the darkness or his/her post... i understand it was not coming from a negitive or opressive place and i did find the point of view interesting).

another point i disagreed with is the theory that animals are not capable of questioning their existance or higher thought. if i remember my psych correctly it is still theorised that the corpus callosum is what attributes higher thought and that it is much more developed within the human brain than it is in other mammals. So does this count out the possibility that an animal may have a less developed or less concrete ability to question one's own existance or to form thoughts on a higher level rather than an inability? even considering what we do know about the brain i still don't think we know enough to state how or what an animal thinks beyond it's behavioural thought process.

Also who's to say the center of the universe isn't in orbit around some other vast form of matter? we don't have the tools to see or percieve things from certain positions (re:size or distance... just like the physical strings concerned with string theory). besides what kind of power would that which is controlling have if that which is being controlled did not exist? everything has it's "gravity" or "weight" in relation to everything else.

perhaps i am a little over obsessed with what we don't know, but it seems that historically the failings of so many scholars before us were because of their inability to admit that they didn't know something. i think we're a lot better off gaining understanding by filling holes with admitted conjecture instead of unfounded and assumed facts. view post


The Meaning of Life posted 28 January 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe Meaning of Life by Buckethead, Peralogue

to clarify... i was trying (horribly unsuccessfully) to use the term "in orbit" simply to explain the gravitational pull that two or more pieces of matter have on each other.... i obviously was not very clear. who says that the expanding universe is not at the same time being affected by something else? who knows what sort of reaction the universe is having to whatever else (or lack of anything else) that is out there. we can only compare things to other things we can percieve.

"the universe is shaped exactly like the earth, if you go straight along enough you'll end up where you were".
Isaac Brock

also...
Astronomy is a part of philosophy, that is the beauty of philosophy (similar to art). All subject matter is fair game.

"...though he consorts with man, woman, and child, though he lays with beasts and makes a mockery of his seed, never shall he be as licentious as the philosopher, who lays with all things imaginable."
R. Scott Bakker (TDTCB) view post


Now listening to... posted 26 February 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Buckethead, Peralogue

Emily Haines' album "knives don't have your back"...
beautiful. view post


Your First Time posted 26 February 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionYour First Time by Buckethead, Peralogue

I was 13 when i read the hobbit, then lord of the rings, then the hobbit, then lord of the rings....
i just read the hobbit again a month ago. I'm not embarrased to say these are still four of my favorite books. view post


Music..not generally... posted 11 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Buckethead, Peralogue

I think this topic is a little awkward. I really enjoy pink floyd as well but i don't think you can ask that question.... what makes music greater?

that's like asking who's the greatest artist of all time? if you have an answer for that, you're simply shortsighted. I can guarrentee there are one hundred more artists you'd relate to or enjoy more that you've simply never heard of (whether it's because they never showed their art or it's just not popular). A favorite i can see, but not simply GREATEST. At work I consistently hear different radio stations calling U2 the greatest band ever for god's sake... U2!!! could there be a more redundant, repetative recipe card band.

for their time Pink floyd was a very explorative and experimental rock band and are still relative, but in terms of explorative and experimental music? hardly anything to get excited about. They still function under western pattern based song writing techniques (like most rock bands, not to say i don't enjoy western writing techniques). Although they have influenced entire generations of musicians to become 1/10th of a step different.

so to answer your question, i could name ten bands i think are poetically and acoustically "greater", "better at making music" or "more interesting", however i am sure you probably wouldn't agree (no offense to anyone meant, but especially after reading the "listening to..." entries on this site). And I wouldn't expect or want you to. You can't always grade art... but if you did, pink floyd would get an A in my book... but they sure wouldn't be the only ones.

PS and as for tool being a modern day pink floyd? in my opinion, NO WAY. Tool (and i've listened to them A LOT more than i would like) needs to write a song about a new topic, find some different effects and change ANYTHING once in a while. Floyd (for a rock band) was quite a bit more creative. being dark and mysterious doesn't mean you automatically have depth. view post


Music..not generally... posted 13 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Buckethead, Peralogue

Just listened to floyd's "animals" at work today.... damn, i forgot how good it is.... view post


Music..not generally... posted 15 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMusic..not generally... by Buckethead, Peralogue

In terms of moving the soul? I find that some of my favorite musicians, artists and poets have work that is not aesthetically speaking "technical" or "skillful". However like picasso (who could paint realism incredibly well) they were not always doing so because of a lack of technical skill. Daniel Johnston is a musician who blows me away because his music is so visceral. He's one of the most pure hearted, open and totally messed up musicians i've ever heard. If you haven't seen it i suggest the film "the Devil and Daniel Johnston". Modest Mouse, Tom Waits (especially the album "alice") and Elliott Smith all have a tendancy to hit me in the gut the heart and the brain all at the same time. Almost like reading Ginsberg or looking at a Basquiat painting.

I don't think you're being narrowminded, i think i was just confused with the terminology.

and melancholy? as frustrated as i get with it i don't could there be a more receptive state to listen to music in...

waiting to be moved by somebody... view post


Question about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* posted 21 March 2007 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

I read this passage the same way i have approached the haloed hands issue... that perhaps kellhus can visually decieve people into seeing what they want to see the same way a professional hypnotist or magician can use illusion. Our brains really do filter the information that our eyes recieve, this is fact. my first year at art school in visual perception our teacher put a yellow square against a white wall, we concentrated on it for one minute and when it was removed there was the illusion of a purple square on the wall. why? because the human brain always seeks balance and orginization. your brain attempts to balance the vibrant yellow with it's complimentary colour.
I tend to think that kellhus manages this both through slight of hand and building the expectation of the supernatural through his words and actions. this may explain why serwe sees haloes around the hands of the skin spy. Her brain is projecting those haloes in response to trying to make sense of the unbelievable and fantasmagorical actions and speech of kellhus...
just a thought.

also, ambiguity in moderation can make a good story great. most of the story is quite clear. i think scott uses ambiguous amd creative writing to his benefit, especially with the amount of philosophy entrenched in the book... i find it refreshing to read fantasy that i can reread, think about and discus at length. too much clarification can make something boring the same way ambiguity can confuse. view post


Life and Death posted 25 March 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

For the record, i do not consider myself religious and i do not surround myself specifically with people who are or aren't....

Jamara, i have to say i found your post pretty close-minded.

i find it funny that non-religious people and atheists consistantly see those who believe in organized religion as weak. i have heard this time and time again. i come from a religious family (with family members who are also decidedly not religious) and know lots of religious people, plenty of whom lean on and need the support of a "higher being". however at the same time i also know religious people (jews, christians and buddhists) who are sophisticated, philosophical thinkers and intelligent people who are more than willing to engage in questions of why and how we exist outside of the realm of their particular religion. Just because you read the bible and/or are christian DOES NOT mean you actually believe adam and eve started the human race, or that the earth is ten thousand years old. This is one of the greatest fallicies of non-religious people. They think that the followers of organized religion are cult-like and all the same. They think that every follower believes or agrees with everything to do with the religion; principles, ethics, belief in history etc.
over the years of my life i have found that the followers of organized religion and those who choose not to are exactly the same in one sense: 90% of each of them are completely ignorant about the others and believe that they're lifestyle is "right" and that the others is "wrong".

to say that being religious is an easy cop out? i'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. i know religious people who are in pain every day because of what the believe and what they want. not everyone can turn being religious OFF, and to say anything else is just plain stupid. Religious people CAN and DO question they're religions the same way you and i do.

Jamara, to say that the will to live is purely instinctual in a way denies the idea of sentience. in being sentient (by definition) we are all aware of our instinctual drives and needs. are you saying that people create excuses to make their instincts seem like cognitive purpose? i would agree that it happens, but i would not say it describes every action. if an old woman wants to finish writing a book before she dies, is that instinct? is she foolishly trying to leave something behind to give herself purpose? and if all of our actions beyond eating and reproducing are all self-deceptive or falsified purpose to fill the gaps.... why did you post your thoughts on the internet? view post


Marvel and The Dark Tower posted 25 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

i have a friend who is excited about that as well, although i didn't read past the second book of the series, as an avid comic book reader i can almost undoubtably guarantee you MARVEL will find some way to screw it up.
worst comic book company ever.

he's probably got one already... i'll ask him about it. view post


Scott Bakker ruined it for me. posted 25 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionScott Bakker ruined it for me. by Buckethead, Peralogue

I love that bakker is able to indulge with non-violent and non-sexual adult topics within the series as well as the sex and violence. As much as they are there, i don't feel like they are the purpose of the series. i found myself relating to the books more than any fantasy i have ever read, mostly because of the human attributes of the characters i suppose (their insecurities and shortcomings, with the exceptions of kellhus i guess). he does a great job changing the narration of his story while at the same time using it to display the thoughts and feelings of his characters. view post


Question about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* posted 25 March 2007 in Author Q & AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

i am reading the thousandfold thought right now and have just finished the part where kellhus hypnotizes achamian so he can speak to seswatha... i totally forgot about it... view post


Are there female skin spies? posted 25 March 2007 in The Thousandfold ThoughtAre there female skin spies? by Buckethead, Peralogue

this may have been covered, but i haven't seen it...

When Xerius is killed by the skin spy posing as his mother, he discovers it when reaching for her pelvis and finding an erection... one would think that if there were female skin spies one would have been used then. The thing that made me question this was the fact that Cnaiur has the skin spy depicting serwe come to his bed multiple times... we all know a penis wouldn't scare Cnaiur away, but is he so insane at the time to not notice? (although i guess it is obvious that on some level he understands it's a skin spy and has given up caring)

mind you he was pretty fricken mad.... view post


Life and Death posted 26 March 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

read my post again jamara

i find it funny that non-religious people and atheists consistantly see those who believe in organized religion as weak.

over the years of my life i have found that the followers of organized religion and those who choose not to are exactly the same in one sense

This is one of the greatest fallicies of non-religious people

i mentioned atheists once, in the same sentence as "non-religious people"... thereby implying that not all people who choose not to follow organized religion are atheists. the only other times i mentioned people who don't follow religion are in the other two quotes.

i am not an atheist. i have my own undeveloped sense of spirituality the same as many other people. that being said, i do not believe in a conscious "greater being" or god. I have come to the conclusions and questions i have much the same as you. learning how to learn and think critically is a skill, once you have it it's hard to understand how you ever thought any other way. that doesn't mean it's wrong to believe in something more solid. also, believing in a more concrete structure does not mean you haven't thought critically before arriving at your conclusion. accepting organized religion doesn't mean you've bought into all the dogmatics presented and thrown away your ability to criticize. now more than ever with the desicions facing christian communities, many christians are becoming speculative or disenfranchised by the positions held by their particular churches.

this is not to say that many people don't give in to all the aspects of one religion... because there are millions of people who follow religion blindly, but just as you are presumably not the sinning, hellbound, slumming creton that many people would think you are (because you don't follow their religion), not all followers of religion are bumbling, unaware, mindless slaves who don't think for themselves. view post


Marvel and The Dark Tower posted 26 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

exactly... he did give us the x-men....

(granted i enjoyed them before i became an adult...) view post


Marvel and The Dark Tower posted 26 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

Marvel historically has worked differently from other comic book companies in that the dialogue is not usually written by the writers of the book. they give the letterers and artists vague descriptions of character development and let them insert what they want. Thus you end up with soap opera quallity comics... much like good movies vs. soap opera television... those who enjoy things like the x-men, the avengers, the hulk... are somewhat comparable in the comic book world to those who listen to radio pop in the music world, or WWE wrestling in the sports world. It's totally fine, if you are looking for entertainment and not concerned with depth or development, but i assume that since so many speak so highly of the dark tower series those things wouldn't be comparable.

as for good series? anything with a final issue, an impending final issue or ending storylines is a first clue that it's been written, drawn or created bywriters and/or artists that have some sort of vision. I personally love anything by tony millionaire, &quot;sock monkey&quot;, or &quot;maakies&quot;(if you want to, i suggest you hit <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.maakies.com">www.maakies.com</a><!-- w --> you can see every maakies strip in existence). mike mignola, the creator of &quot;hellboy&quot; is an unbelievable artist and storyteller (please forget about the movie). A favorite series of mine was &quot;automatic kafka&quot; by ashley wood (who does beautiful artwork) and joe casey. although it failed to sell to anyone more than myself i believe. &quot;american splendor&quot; by harvey pekar. if you don't know what this is, it's okay to see the movie, it was very well done. i could go on forever. view post


What is your favorite sport? posted 27 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat is your favorite sport? by Buckethead, Peralogue

hockey, hockey and hockey.
followed by a rousing game of hockey. view post


Marvel and The Dark Tower posted 27 March 2007 in Off-Topic DiscussionMarvel and The Dark Tower by Buckethead, Peralogue

SAM KEITH!!! awesome. the maxx, zero girl, ojo... all great.

admittedly i still own far too many marvel comics....
that's how i know this.

i still haven't gotten rid of the damn things... view post


&quot;Murderous Children&quot; posted 27 March 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]&quot;Murderous Children&quot; by Buckethead, Peralogue

a friend of mine theorized that kellhus took esmenet into his bed specifically because she appears to be the most cerebral woman he met in the three seas. if the dunyain are interested in breeding for cerebral purposes then she would be a better choice than anything else offered. of course there is the thought of: own esmenet = own achamian = get the gnosis. and what better way to gain ownership of emsi than to make her pregnant... but then why maintain your marriage twenty years later? we all know loyalty isn't one of kellhus' strong suits. view post


Life and Death posted 27 March 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionLife and Death by Buckethead, Peralogue

no offense taken... only healthy discussion. view post


Drugs posted 27 March 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionDrugs by Buckethead, Peralogue

one of my favorite quotes on drug use and art was from perry ferrell....
i can't remember exactly how it went but he said something along the lines of: any creative person who &quot;needs&quot; drugs to increase their ability to create things, was not a creative person in the first place... (&quot;needs&quot; being the important point in this sentence to me) funny coming from a completely permafried ex-drug abuser.
yeah drugs can be fun, and they can give you energy, and i still do some from time to time, but i find that if i sit down and REALLY let go of my inhibitions without the help of chemicals my poems, drawings, paintings and music all turn out better, more honest and i am far less lazy and callous. view post


Questions that haunt me after just reading TTT. posted 28 March 2007 in The Thousandfold ThoughtQuestions that haunt me after just reading TTT. by Buckethead, Peralogue

I think he is referring to the Compulsion of Esmi, but I agree that it is not possession in the same sense as the Synthese. Still it is pretty close to &quot;demonic possession.&quot;


i just finished re-reading this chapter... there is no compulsion (in the sense of this book or by it's normal definition) that wouldn't be considered more closely possesion. The inchoroi, controls her actions (her body), knows her thoughts, memories and controls her speech (mind). Esmi is there, but not nearly in the same sense as xinemas with the cants of compulsion. afterwards she isn't upset because she felt she had stated that she wasn't in love with him, rather it was because the inchoroi found it in her mind and kellhus agreed. how that's not demonic possesion is beyond me.
also the synthese are shells meant to hold a mind and project one of the consult's soul (mind, voice and vision). if you are possesing a body with no soul or mind is that demonic possesion?

to me the only real difference is that the synthese doesn't have an existing soul...

splitting hairs i know, but i'm getting confused about the inchoroi around these boards. i have a feeling i should stop reading so much speculation... view post


Punishing the Shrial Knights posted 28 March 2007 in The Darkness That Comes BeforePunishing the Shrial Knights by Buckethead, Peralogue

when kellhus convinces saubon of this, he brings the look of dread to his own face as if he was as upset about it as saubon. add this to the fact that saubon so quickly convinces himself to the fact that kellhus on some level is communing with the god, and there you go. view post


The Prologue posted 28 March 2007 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeThe Prologue by Buckethead, Peralogue

how do you know it's mekeritrig? where do you find this information? view post


Question about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* posted 29 March 2007 in Author Q &amp; AQuestion about the ending of TWP *Spoiler Warning* by Buckethead, Peralogue

if he is truely a prophet, it would be a little strange.. only because it is quite clearly stated repeatedly that many of the messages he preaches from god to men are &quot;lies&quot; (bakker uses this term from kellhus' point of view more than once to explain them). which in turn would mean that the god/gods had been using him without his knowledge. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown