The blogging experience

Before I started writing out my blog, I had conceived that it would be about my wild adventures traveling around Mexico and India last year. Then I realized I had to include music in it for my blog to be sustainable for me. However, because of a course I took called philosophy or religion, it evolved into a blog discussing content about God and music. It has been a strangely rewarding experience for 2 reasons. Firstly, people I’ve never known or connected with left comments on my blog. Even though I can only count that number of people on one hand, it doesn’t diminish the experience of feeling good about knowing someone took the time to read what I had to say. Secondly, I’ve noticed how writing can develop your train of thought to move into directions you weren’t aware of previously. It’s helped me to observe certain hypocrisies about myself. I think it’s important that you continuously contradict yourself as you grow older for it’s a sign that your mentality and perhaps maturity are growing. Blogging has been well worth my time emotionally and psychologically.

What are some true positive assertions and relevant implications I can make about God?

There were 2 things that inspired me to write this. First has been my shift away from organized religion. The major problem that I have with organized religion is that it makes people overly judgmental, accept principles without any logical rationale, believe in things blindly and can make them close-minded. A mentality, that I’ve been a victim of, for the majority of my life. As a result of my upbringing, I never thought to question anything about God’s existence or God’s divine attributes. While the issue of believing in God was never a contentious issue for me, the question of “What does God mean?” has never even crossed my mind, till I took philosophy of religion. I’ve been wondering what truths can I predicate about God with the presuppositions that I have. Having said that, my limited and inadequate knowledge, is basically derived from Christianity just because that’s all I’ve ever been exposed to. Second, the problem of evil, made me question how humans can be judgmental of what God’s attributes are like. We tend to judge things from their essence, where Mark for instance, is a rational animal. But how can we make judgments about God’s attributes when we don’t even know what God’s essence is? I don’t think its fair to make claims of God’s attributes because its not well grounded as we lack evidence. But with the help of my presuppositions, experiences and by the way of remotion, I intend to flesh out some possibilities of God’s divine attributes that are logically consistent with my beliefs.

Initially I had titled this essay as, “is it possible to say true things about God?” I realized I had to rephrase it, when I thought about one of my presuppositions being that God exists. An automatic positive assertion that comes with this claim is God is alive. I’ve never heard of anyone believing in a non-living God. So my study has led to an examination of what do I accept and believe about the living God. Also what are some of the implications of accepting these beliefs? I will go on first to assert my presuppositions, then by the way of remotion I shall discuss what God is not and subsequently form arguments for how God is omniscient, omnipresent, just, omnipotent, possesses human attributes, loves purely, communicates through the numinous experience and is singular. Then I shall conclude and pray that you interpreted my work as making some sense rather than nonsense.

I would like to establish the presuppositions that I have made in writing this paper as the presuppositions you start with could cause different conclusion formations. (5) I believe and accept the first 3 ways of Thomas Aquinas’ proof of God’s existence. The first and second argument are similar and work like this,
P1 some things are in motion,
P2 if anything is in motion, it is moved by another mover
P3 If there is another mover then there is a first mover since it is impossible to regress to infinity in the order of movers and things moved.
C therefore there must have been a first non moved mover and this first mover is God (4) Phrases such as “What goes around comes around,” or “You get what you give,” which I think originates from Karma, is a fundamental principle of our universe. (2) Everything happens for a reason. To some extent, I think that this is almost the same as saying every effect has a cause. (7) Humans have freewill. (6) The numinous experience exists. (1) God exists. (8) Humans have a purpose on earth.
As a result of reading some of the Summa Contra Gentiles, I managed to learn about a number of predications a theist can make about what God is not. I want to explain some of the things that Thomas Aquinas has stated that I accept as well as the kind of implications it has to me on my understanding of God’s essence. While the “knowledge will not be perfect, we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not.”

I have always been fascinated by time and how we never seem to have enough of it. As I’ve gotten older, time seems to slip by faster and my needs seem to increase as to what I would like to do with my time. Aquinas proposes the nature of God’s eternity as a result of being the first cause and mover. “God is absolutely without motion and is consequently not measured by time. There is no before and after in Him; Since God is absolutely immutable, He is eternal, lacking all beginning or end.” This has been a very interesting argument for me to accept as it implies that God is not subject to time. Hence God does not age and has an infinite existence. God also does not have needs like us humans do. God does not need to complete activities or to make decisions. Granting that God is the first mover and is capable of making decisions, God has already made all the decisions and actions that God has wanted to. Therefore, God knows what God is going to do and is therefore omniscient. Another interesting point to note here is that we humans experience things in the present where “one instant is superseded by some new thought and another” and “each succeeding now is different from the one before.” God however differs by the fact that “God’s thought do not change.” Therefore since God’s thoughts do not change, God has thought of everything that God will be influential upon and is therefore omniscient of all the decisions that God will make.

“The being whose substance has an admixture of potency is liable not to be by as much as it has potency; for that which can be, can not-be. But God being everlasting in His substance cannot not-be. God has no admixture of potency but is pure act.” There is no passive potency in God. Aquinas has a very interesting and intelligent succession of arguments where accepting certain conclusions opens up doors to accepting more conclusions. “Whatever matter is, it is in potency.” Therefore there is no matter in God. These 2 arguments together have a number of very interesting implications. For instance, if God is not material, God does not require food like we humans do to sustain Himself. He is therefore self-sustaining and not contingent on anything material. Therefore God cannot have a body for having a body encompasses possessing matter or being in some form of potency. God can’t have any composition either, for having parts means that God is contingent on parts for God’s existence. But God is not contingent. Also having composition means that the “composite is potentially dissoluble.” But as mentioned earlier, there is no potency in God. Therefore from showing that God has no parts, body or matter, God can be omnipresent and has to be invisible to our naked eye. God can reside everywhere at all times. God could have an infinite number of ears and eyes listening and watching over everything. God’s ears and eyes would be of a different kind of sensory system superior to that of the human sensory system. But the functioning of God’s sensory system cannot be conceived by the human intellect in this life.

Did you ever find it strange how consistent Karma can be (refer to my presupposition for my definition of Karma here)? For instance, if you insult someone in a condescending and derogatory manner, it comes back to you in a manner that’s unpredictable and of the same harshness or worse. If you are kind and generous to another person, the act of benevolence is returned to you in an equally unpredictable manner. It’s difficult to pinpoint which action causes which action of reciprocity. Also there are certain other elements that can come into play here such as being contrite and being greedy. If you are condescending to another human being and feel sorry for your act, apologizing to the human can act as an amulet to ward off the unpredictable pending insult due to you. If you are generous to another individual and expect that individual to return the favor to you, that expectation is a form of greed, which corrupts the intention of your generosity and the favor does not get returned. I have noticed from experience and from observation that these principles are universal for all humans. Therefore, there must be someone who is always watching what we are doing all the time and someone who is able to listen to what our mind and heart says. This being must also be able to make interventions into our world to ensure that the principles of Karma are consistent. Only an omnipresent and omniscient being, can ensure that the principles of Karma are consistent. Therefore, God must be listening, watching and intervening in everything you are doing. Therefore God is just. God “gives you exactly what you deserve.” Now I’m going to carry on this argument a little further. My presupposition of freewill suggests to me that maybe God doesn’t choose our decisions for us, but responds in kind when we make our decisions. Since God is omniscient, God already knows what decisions we will make and knows how He will intervene. Therefore, since everything happens for a reason, God must be the cause of everything happening. God is omnipotent.

Thomas Aquinas suggests that we exhibit characteristics of God but in a less excellent way. “"Whatever good we attribute to creatures, pre-exists in God," and in a more excellent and higher way.” I find it interesting how this comment suggests that there is evidence within me that is present within God. Intuitively it makes sense because creations have characteristics in it that’s inherent within the creator. A simple example would be, whenever you write emails, articles etc, giving your own opinion is in some sense giving the reader some insight as to what your attributes are like. Therefore me being a product of God’s creation (since God must be the cause of everything happening), there must be some attributes in me that are present in God. There are attributes of creation that pre-exist in God.

I think its fair to say that we have freewill and we can choose to believe in God or to not believe in God. Elaborating upon a point that Brian had suggested in class, imagine if God showed Himself to us in the sky. The search for truth would be over as to whether God exists or not. Then imagine if someone was to tell you that you must love God and do good things in the world or else you'll go to hell. Think about the purity of your actions from that moment onwards. I will define purity here as any of the following, clear and true; without any discordant quality; untainted with evil. Every time you were to do something good or out of love, you would do it because you would be thinking that this action has a means to my end. If I do this good deed I will go to the kingdom of God but if I don't I might go to hell. All your actions in life from then on would be dictated by the knowledge that God exists and wants you to do certain things. However lets say you don't know that God exists and you then do good things. Which case of doing goodness is nobler now? Just to illustrate my point a little clearer, imagine that there’s a hungry man at the side of the road and he asks people passing by for food. 2 strangers walk by the hungry man at different times. One is named Tom who is a theist and is conscientious that God is watching all the good and bad things Tom is doing. The second stranger is Andy who is an atheist who does not believe in God at all. Tom gives food to the hungry man because he knows God would have wanted him to have done that. Andy gives food to the hungry man because he feels sorry for him and feeds him out of sympathy. I think Andy's deed is nobler and is of a purer good than that of Tom. I think freewill is closely related to the purity of our intentions. Having freewill permits experiences, which are of pure intentions. God having given us freewill and not revealing Himself to us allows us to make a conscience decision as to whether or not we purely want to love God back. I am capable of loving others with pure love. Since there are attributes in us that pre-exist in God, God loves purely.

So how am I so sure about the existence of God? When I was about 15, I happened to go and attend a friend’s worship service in a small hall in the colony I lived in Oman. I had a profound mystical experience where I might not have seen the essence of God but I do believe God spoke to me. I didn’t understand the experience very well at the time when it happened. It occurred while the congregation was singing hymns praising Jesus. I felt my whole body start to glow, time seemed to stop and I don’t remember clearly what the voice said to me but it confirmed something about the existence of Jesus being real and loving me. During this intellectual apprehension, I remember that I couldn’t stop smiling and I couldn’t open my eyes during this “divine illumination.” Aquinas seems to capture this experience of mine in his book Suma Theologica, “Now since the natural power of the created intellect does not avail to enable it to see the essence of God, it is necessary that the power of understanding should be added by divine grace. Now this increase of the intellectual powers is called the illumination of the intellect, as we also call the intelligible object itself by the name of light of illumination.” I can’t say that I was able to adequately comprehend the experience, but I feel blessed that I had it. I also acknowledge that it was supernatural and credit it to a source that is holy and divine. I notice now that during this experience, there was no material being involved in my imagination and it was because of this experience, I am able today to irrationally confirm, “whether it is” even if I can’t reason “what it is.”

It was only last year in December that I remembered this experience and it inspired me to take this course. There were 2 very important things that I learnt about this experience. One is that God is real. The other is that God chose to speak to me in the presence of music. This has taught me that through the channel of music, I can communicate to God. Also it was here that I was introduced to the numinous experience. “Rudolph Otto identifies and explores the non-rational mystery behind religion and the religious experience ("non-rational" should not be confused with "irrational"); he called this mystery, which is the basic element in all religions, the numinous. He uses the related word "numen" to refer to deity or God.” I just want to make a mention that outside of the “divine illumination” experience, I have had a series of recurring numinous experiences which have been of a much lesser profundity. I would categorize the “divine illumination” experience as “mysterium fascinosum,” (The numinous fascinates or draws us to it with a force that is nearly irresistible. Otto calls the alluring quality of the numinous the mysterium fascinosum. At its most intense, this fascination becomes "exuberant" and transforms into the mystical "moment" or direct, complete contact with the numen, a state which few people experience). Rudolf Otto further goes on to explain how “every individual has the potential to perceive or experience the numinous. The numinous state of mind or the feeling of the numinous must be evoked in us or brought into consciousness; it cannot be taught.” Just in layman terms let me try to explain the numinous experience. Have you ever heard words of a song, or read a phrase from a book or a movie that has moved you in such a way that your skin starts to feel like its having goosebumps but not exactly? That in my limited understanding, is a degree of the numinous experience. Apparently people who are artistically inclined have a better ability to receive the numinous experience.
Since there is no rational explanation for the numinous experience, it can be defined as a supernatural experience originating from something that is completely other. I postulate that the something completely other is God. Feelings can evoke thoughts and imagination, which can be a form of communication that takes place within the intellect. The numinous experience that is triggered by feelings produces thoughts and imagination. God communicates to us through the numinous experience.

I have had trouble reconciling the fact that if you don’t pray to the Christian God, you will go to hell. You can be a good, pious human being and still you will go to hell because not praying to the Christian God is praying to an idol. Praying to an idol is worshiping a false God. Now lets assume there is a thing called the numinous experience and it can be experienced across all religions. I’m going to postulate that an experience of divine revelation involves some sort of an experience with the numinous. Here is my final argument to say that there is truly only one God and that all religions pray to the same God.
P1: Numinous experiences of divine revelation occur across all religions
P2: If it can be proved that there are different profundities of numinous experiences, then there can be multiple sources disseminating the numinous experience.
P3: It cannot be proved that there are different profundities of numinous experiences.
C: There is only one source that disseminates the numinous experience (and this one source is the one God that all religions pray to)
For a while, I thought that I was an agnostic. But after writing this, I’m certain I’m a theist. This paper has helped me give significance to my understanding of what God is. It has helped me to re-evaluate my relationship with God in a more meaningful manner and opened new doors into how I can and how I do conceive God. I understand now that there is no necessity for me to determine what God’s essence is because it is beyond my capabilities to attempt to do so in this life. I will only get to know more of God’s essence if God chooses to reveal His essence to me by divine grace. This article has also helped me to ask 2 new important questions through which I imagine my next focus of readings will be upon. One is what does God want me to do while I walk His earth? I am not interested in the question of what is the purpose of life but what is my purpose in life. John Coltrane said “the main thing a musician would like to do is give a picture to the listener of the many wonderful things he knows of and senses in the universe.” As an aspiring musician, I think this may possibly be my purpose in life. To tell the world, of the many wonderful things I know of God and hopefully along the way impart a numinous experience. The other question is do we have an afterlife?

A bright intrusion of fusion - tribute to the Amit Heri Group

I went randomly to Vaayu in Eva Mall in Bangalore last year, to watch a jazz group I’d never heard of, perform. It turned out to be a mind blowing display of fusion music that provided a stimulating feast for the eyes, ears, skin and soul. The Amit Heri Group consists of seasoned musicians with excellent technique, timing and feel. Individually and as a group, they freely improvise to create pleasant vibrations that frequently gave me goosebumps. The music was a magical mix of Indian classical with rock, funk and jazz. I had to find out more about the architect of this marvelous musical entity. What followed was a heartfelt conversation of what it takes to connect with the audience as a fusion performer, the future of jazz and music education in India.

Amit is a schooled musician, who learned the piano at the age of 9. He then picked up the guitar when he was 12 and sitar when 14. A pursual for a serious education in music took place in 1989 aged 17. He went to study jazz performance and composition for his undergraduate degree in Berkeley. “I went to Berkeley at an age where my mind just opened up. Sometimes if you don’t have that opportunity you will get stuck with what’s here. Traveling and seeing other places gives you a diverse perspective and can help you to contribute in a different way.” He has also studied and grown up on Carnatic music.

So, what does it take to become a good fusion artist? The music is twice as complicated as playing or composing one type of music, because it requires a thorough understanding of all styles of music involved. Amit points out how “Unfortunately, there are very few people who have this understanding or depth. First of all you need to be a strong musician yourself. Then you have to know what the other music is about and feel it in a way that’s natural.” He has noticed that a lot of people get into fusion music, “just to get on the bandwagon.” He stresses on how lots of Indian classical musicians are culprits of this shallow mentality, “They don’t understand western music concepts, structures or have an emotional relationship with that music. They get together just because it’s fashionable. Anyone can call a drummer or a guitarist, pay them money, and ask them to play. Very few people do it in a way that is authentic and that has depth.”

Amit’s advice for aspiring musicians is simple, “First concentrate on the music. Many people play music for the glamour. But if you don’t have depth, it won’t sustain you, even if it’s commercial pop music.” He suggests studying what great musicians have done in the past and using that information as a tool to come up with something original. “Take time to develop your skills by having a strong foundation so that when a great opportunity arises, you’re ready for it. Don’t worry about the goal at the end. Just concentrate on what you need to do right now.”

In spite of the plentiful availability of western education in India, there aren’t many choices for contemporary music fields like jazz, rock or pop in India. People interested in opting for this line, tend to flock to foreign countries. However, many get too caught up with the excitement of going abroad, that a realization strikes after they reach, that their musical ability is inferior to people from the west (because this stuff is taught in high school). Amit feels that this could all change quickly, “Anyone interested in making an investment to open a couple of really good schools with good teachers, is looking at a great opportunity. There are so many people and no real decent schools. If someone opened a great school in Bangalore for contemporary music, not just classical, it would do very well.”

Along with the proliferation of foreign influences in our lives and lifestyles, Amit is optimistic that Jazz and music in general, can only go up. The change is noticeable when one looks at the number of big acts performing concerts in India, and the increase in platforms like Vaayu, Bluefrog and Opus that have music as their agenda for people to perform. “Earlier there might have been more musicians playing at home. With more platforms, clubs and festivals, the growth of the music scene, naturally gets better. Bluefrog for example, has concerts everyday, which promotes a culture for people to go out and more musicians to come. People always want entertainment and there are always going to be takers for music no matter what style.”

His upcoming new album (set for release in October) is comprised of works originating from various regions in India such as Leh, Shillong, Goa and more. Basically he went to different villages, found out what the traditional folk and classical music was, recorded it as the core melody and composed songs around it. The tricky thing about folk music, is when heard in its raw form, it might be difficult for an audience unfamiliar to that culture to relate to it. So the challenge is to breathe a unique expression into it and make it appealing to an audience today. “India is such a treasure for music. The concept of this album is to take those treasures and to bridge it into a modern contemporary language that people can appreciate and evoke an emotional response.”

One of Amit’s most amazing attributes is that he is constantly smiling while playing on stage. It’s an infectious demeanor, which spreads to the band and the audience. I had a strong feeling yoga and meditation was accountable for this attitude. Amit confirmed my prediction and added that, “when you are in a profession that has to do with energy transference like music, I believe that its important to tune yourself and state of mind to a good place because that’s what you transmit to other people.” He further elaborated on the key thing to performing being, creating a connection out of positive energy, “Life is about overcoming negative with positive. A lot of the music that we play can be quite complicated. Sometimes people can’t get what that is when they think from the head. But everyone can appreciate positive energy that comes from the heart, by relating to it with their own hearts.”

In my opinion, the Amit Heri Group is a powerful musical being that’s able to sway the emotions of the audience to blend with the emotions of the band. “Sometimes in life some of us get that calling this is what you need to do. Even if you find yourself in a different place you have to make a move so to speak so that you can do what you want do,” comments Amit Heri whose calling I believe was to make emotional connections to people through music. Whether it’s listening to the sound of the sitar on a guitar, participating with claps to the vocal percussions of Konakol, or watching a group of highly trained musicians thoroughly enjoying their music, the Amit Heri Group is a spectacle of virtuosity and limitless creativity, that’s guaranteed to delight and excite anyone interested in wonderful music.

http://www.myspace.com/amitherigroup

Could God have created a better world than the one we're in now and Bob Brozman

This post is associated with the previous post. I recommend you read the first part of the previous post before you get into reading this post.

There's a very nice thought experiment that Robert Adams came up with which goes like this;
Imagine if there was a couple that loved handicapped children immensely. Now say this couple took a drug so that they could conceive a child which was handicapped. Then they gave this child all the love and the care in the world. The question that arises now is have the parents wronged the child? And in general have the parents done wrong? Intuitively the first thing i thought of was no they haven't. Maybe because the capability of the parents to love a handicapped child exceeds that of their capability to love a normal child. Then i believe if you are to truly to accept or reject any premises or conclusions of an argument, do so by trying to imagine yourself as being the party that is on the receiving/giving end of the premise/conclusion. Which basically means i imagine what if i was that handicapped child. I hate being sick, or injured in anyway because it diminishes my potential ability to do things the best that i can. It limits my capabilities to be retarded in anyway. So i thought definitely my parents would have wronged me if i had been handicapped. But the problem is still not adequately answered. Here's the crux explained by Adams. He says no because there are 2 possible beings in this case. Lets say there are 2 possible beings, normal child Norman and handicapped child Harry. Its important to understand that Harry and Norman are completely distinct and different from each other. So if the parents took the drug and they got Harry, Harry would not have been wronged. For if they didn't consume the drug then they would have had Norman. However lets say they did have a normal child Norman and if after 5 years they decided, well actually we would like our child to be handicapped. Then they turn the child upside down and drop him on his head a few times so as to make him retarded. In this case the child has clearly been wronged. This analogy can futher be extended into our current world. Its easy for us to think of a better world than the one we're in. For instance i think it would be better if we lived in a world where tigers were vegetarian to save the cruel torment that deers are victims of and women spent less time complaining on their looks. However it doesn't make sense to complain about there being no better world because there could be infinitely possible better worlds. The question you should ask yourself is, has God harmed me by creating me? No i dont think so. By giving me existence God has done something good for me. If God made a better world than this one, it would entail that God would have made a world that doesn't include us. Has God harmed those other better worlds by not creating them? No because they are only possible worlds and God could only possibly harm them, but not actually do so.


Ok anyone wanna explain to me how i can embed a youtube video straight onto my blog please? Anyway Bob Brozman is one of the greatest musicians of our time whome i would pay anything to go and watch live. He loves indian music, blues and plays solely with his heart and ears. Definitely should check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUv5tPXIrrg&feature=related

Dulcinea: Facing fear with music and art

I recently attended Dulcinea’s debut album launch at the Rhino Terrace in Johor Bahru. The remarkable exhibition, left me feeling an excited curiosity, about the potential this band is yet to unleash. The new album is distinctly dissimilar from Asian bands I’ve heard, because of an integration of a vivid artistic stimulus with musical topics revolving fear. Eager to discover more about the marvelous art music fusion, I set out to interview the mastermind behind the birth of Dulcinea’s entity.

Founding member Shine Matthew Thomas (aka Matt), is the lead singer songwriter and guitarist. He has been playing in rock bands right from his high school days. He was a member of grunge band Neve, which made an album in 1997, hard rock band Awkward Orange and various other bands performing multiple gigs. Jason Ng is the keyboardist, sound engineer and programmer for Dulcinea. Current drummer Mohammed Rashid has been playing with Matt for more than 5 years in numerous projects. Guitarist Paul Yong was recruited from an advertisement from an online music forum.

The name Dulcinea, was chosen after reading a book called Don Quixote by Miguel De Cervantes. The protagonist embarks on a series of adventures in his pursuit of his idea of the most beautiful girl in the world. Although just a figment of his imagination, the hunt turns into an expression of hopeless love and devotion to find this metaphorical character. “Music is our search for something beautiful and our way of understanding this life,” exclaims Matt.

The fruits of Dulcinea’s labor are an 8 track theme album, The Politics of Fear. The album was self-produced, self-financed and took 10 months to make. It is structured such that it starts off with an individual going through a difficult personal struggle. At the end of the journey, the person has a cleansing moment of clarity that the blood, sweat and tears related to his endeavors, were not in vain. He realizes that every trial and tribulation is an opportunity to become a better human being and that he won’t fall, even if the world tries to drag him down. “The album is not about conquering fear, but facing up to it and emotions like regret that come along with it,” explains Matt.

Songwriting contains various thought provoking notions that encourage intellectual stimulation. The album title is derived from a song named Mercury Rising, which is about the detrimental implications of conforming to a government’s expectations. “When you have governments that exert control, on how you live and what you say, it deprives you of thinking for yourself.” Authorities that adopt a divide and conquer policy seem to crave power at the expense of keeping people dumb and afraid. They tend to implement concrete guidelines for their citizens. “When you have well defined instructions that you have to think along, you can’t evolve or grow.” The various concepts discussed throughout the album are supported by industrial rock music.

Darkness Falls is the opening track of the album which is an excellent masterpiece. It addresses the conflicting complexity that arises out of departing from a relationship that one is intimately attached to. This song draws from an eclectic range of musical influences like Skinny Puppy, Porcupine Tree, Meshuggah, Kyuss and Mastodon. The result is a monumental progressive track containing addictive riffs, odd timing signatures, electro tribal beats, head bang groovy heavy metal and a beautiful acoustic section with a poignant psychedelic solo. The song is a breath of fresh air from conventional compositions containing a verse, chorus and verse format. On the first listen, parts of it might seem haphazard and unusual. But upon my second listening, a wave of realization hit me on how the arrangement, lyrics and music are actually quite brilliant.

Artwork that accompanies this album is another enticing element about this band. The band works with 2 artists, Sushi K?n and Nicon Beh from Singapore and Penang respectively. They design and photograph pictures relating to the songs. Matt, who is also the art director, has a background in multimedia art. The incorporation of art into music appears to be a natural choice of his intimate bond with both mediums. “I combine a visual stimulus with a musical one because it’s a package for me. I don’t know whether it’s art in the shadow of music or music in the shadow of art.”

Ratexia is a song that has its own gothic image mixing textures of blood red with streaks of light and patches of darkness. It was conceived while listening to the song. “When I make music, I see colors, words and things that don’t necessarily make sense, but fit the mood of the song in a way that I am able to relate to. That’s how the images and words of Ratexia were constructed,” describes Matt. The charismatic colors and tone of the dark Dulcinea image is a representation of the overall encapsulation of the feel of the album. There is also some fantastic photography work that injects vibrant personality to the music. The impressive assortment of art coincides aptly with the divine album plan.

Live shows are expected to be an engaging spectacle. A 3D cartoon video was created for the song Among the Living, an ambiguous Malaysian toy story of sorts. Projectors are going to be used to screen the video and a collection of images for each of the other songs. “While making the album, I envisioned illustrations that would be used to add value to the experience of the live show. I wanted to portray a unique universe of art and sound,” exclaims Matt. Such techniques have been used famously to overwhelming effect by bands like Pink Floyd. Rashid also informed me of how “the band is not going to focus on the electronic side of the album but concentrate more towards the progressive rock side of the music.” Along with showcasing tracks from the album, the band intends to play at least 2 unreleased songs for their live gigs, indicating what’s to come in the second album.

One way that musicians sustain their musical ambitions, is finding an inimitable voice developed by experimenting widely. The blend of art and music is in itself a rare valuable ingredient of Dulcinea. They evolved from a side project to a gifted organism capable of communicating through crying guitars and ominous portraits. Such selections were perfectly suitable for an album surrounding the chaotic sentiment of fear. The diverse extraction of ingenious components makes me certain that their next project will be drastically different, as the quest for beauty continuously redefines itself.

At the moment, promotional methods are word of mouth and playing live. Dulcinea works with groups such as the Singapore Dark Alternative Movement and I-Band Malaysia. If you want a taste of what Dulcinea’s all about, you can check out their music at www.myspace.com/dulcineatheband. At the site, you can download some of their music for free or book them for a live gig.

Why does God create, the essence of love and a tribute to Mexican Jazz

So an interesting question was raised in my philosophy of religion class last week. If whatever God does is hopelessly flawed, why create at all? Imagine hypothetically if the universe wasn't around. Does that diminish God's goodness or attributes in anyway? Well i doubt it because God is just as good with the universe there with or without the universe. God doesn't need this world to be good. There is no necessity to add to God's perfection by creating our world. If there's any benefit endowed its not on the creator but on the created, being us. Here's what i deem to be a plausible explanation. Now i'm currently struggling to make positive concrete assertions about my knowledge of God that can be made on logical reasons rather than reasoning from a sacred text. I intend to do an elaborate post on this eventually but for now, i'll just draw out one idea which i find to be fascinating. Creators of products tend to have some imitation of themselves in the product created. So think of anything that you've ever generated and whether the above statement is true. Is there an attribute or a quality of yourself that lies in the essence of a product you've created. A simple example would be, whenever you write essays, emails, articles etc, giving your own opinion is in some sense giving the reader some insight as to what your essence or attributes are like. So lets say for argument sake God created me by using my parents as tools for creation. This means that there are some attributes within me that are present in the creator. So for instance if i possessed goodness (which I think has a complicated definition that i wont go into because i havent made up my mind on it), this attribute that i possess would probably be the highest form of excellence in God. God would possess the epitome of goodness. Truthfully i don't know or think i will find the answer in this life for why God has created at all but a plausible explanation to me of why anything in this universe exists at all, is because God has created us out of love. Our world is God's choosing to create it. The only way to know why God chose this world has to be from God through divine revelation. If you do something entirely for the benefit of another, it is an act of love. So how does one defines love? There is plenty of literature on love but since this is my blog, my definition of true love; when you love somebody your ego disintegrates, you become insignificant and the happiness of the person that your in love with is of substantial importance to you. For those of us who are fortunate enough to have loving parents, think of the relationship that your parents have towards you and i think it illustrates my definition better. Or imagine if you have your own child and how you would love them (I'm not defining happiness because that is too subjective).
So maybe God made us out of love and so that we could love God back. You might say this indicates that love means God is needy then. If love entails some amount of neediness, then theres imperfection in the lover. However love doesn't always express incompleteness if your without it. So God could feel loved even if we didn't love God. So to reiterate my point, creation could exist because God loves us and God wants us to love God back.

One last thing i want to make a mention of with regards to freewill. I think its fair to say that we have freewill and we can choose to believe in God or to not believe in God. Imagine if God showed Himself/Herself to us in the sky. The search for truth would be over as to whether God exists or not. Then imagine if someone was to tell you that you must love God and do good things in the world or else you'll go to hell. Think about the purity of your actions from that moment onwards. Everytime you were to do something good or out of love, you would do it because you would be thinking that this action has a means to my end. If i do this good deed i will go to the kingdom of God but if i don't i might go to hell. All your actions in life from then on would be dictated by the knowledge that God exists and wants you to do certain things. However lets say you don't know that God exists and you then do good things. Which case of doing goodness is more noble now? Quick example to make my point a little clearer. Imagine that theres a hungry man at the side of the road and he asks people passing by for food. 2 strangers walk by the hungry man at different times. One is named Tom who is a theist and is conscientious that God is watching all the good and bad things Tom is doing. The second stranger is Andy who is an atheist who does not believe in God at all. Tom gives food to the hungry man because he knows God would have wanted him to have done that. Andy gives food to the hungry man because he feels sorry for him and feeds him out of sympathy. I think Andy's deed is more noble and is of a purer good than that of Tom. I think freewill is closely related to the purity of our intentions. God having given us freewill and not revealing Himself/Herself to us allows us to make a conscience decision as to whether or not we purely want to love the Creator back.


A tribute to Mexican Jazz



I recently went to watch a Mexican jazz band from DF (the capital) named Sacbe at Harry's Bar. The performance was fantastic and i had an interesting conversation about how God and music were connected with the Bass player Enrique Toussaint. I'll post some links as to what the music was like at the bottom of this post along with some random facts i stumbled upon of Sacbe.

I asked enrique if there was anything he could teach me about music that i could take away with me from the short 5 minute conversation we had. Now i've asked this question once before to another Mexican musician i met in a jungle in Palenque (Mexico) and i managed to have a one hour class with that guy. When asking this question i thought to myself, what a stupid question to ask. This guy is never going to have the time to entertain such a poorly defined question. To my delight, his eyes kind of lit up and he said sure. He went on to explain to me that music was not that complicated, told me something about pentatonic scales, the 5 different forms and how mastering the 5 forms was sufficient for being able to improvise with music. Now theres one major problem i have when it comes to improvising that i'm sure a lot of musicians struggle with. Its improvising freely without having to think where the notes are and what scale your in. As easy as it sounds, i find it difficult to play by being dependent solely on your ears and how you feel then and there in the moment. My definition of a skilled musician is one who can hear whatever sound he has in his head and translate that sound straight away on to an instrument. Enrique told me you can't be thinking of the names of notes when your creating something because when you improvise, you just have to let yourself go. Its not as complex as people make it out to be. Music is a gift and its a gift that constantly comes from above. All you are is an interpreter, a vehicle for the gift and ultimately you can make people happy, make people cry and thats what its all about. Its a big responsibility. But if your thinking too much its stopping that thing from happening, that connection with God or however you want to call it. My definition of a virtuoso is someone who can translate the sound instantly, add feeling to the notes and create a connection with the audience. I'm at a point in my life where i am questioning what are the attributes i can positively predicate/ascribe about God. The only thing i do know and believe for sure is that God can communicate with me and i to God through music. I don't have a rational justification for it but i just know that it is true and its great to hear a good musician confirm my theory. We tend to find ourselves affiliated and connected with those who share similar views with us. I believe that the best evidence for any theories that make up your own truth is personal experience.

Sacbe is a jazz trio of the Toussaint virtuosos. Enrique, the bassist, is a self taught musician (he never had a formal education for music). His brother Fernando. the drummer, told me that they started playing when they were 16 in pubs. Strangely enough i felt connected to the band when they played this music because it reminded me of the high quality of jazz music that i came across while i was in Mexico. The pianist, Eugenio, has played with a famous bass player and drummer i happened to watch perform in Mexico named Augustin Bernal and Gabriel Puentes. Its such a delightful coincidence that i should meet someone who has played with someone i've seen perform, at the other end of the world, in Harry's bar. What are the odds of things like that happening?

Anyway im posting 2 links below. One is to hear the brilliant Confluencia track from Augustin Bernal's group Jazz en tres and a recording of Sacbe's performance of sunset at sunset at Harry's bar. If they get inactive and you want to hear them please drop me a comment and i'll make sure it gets activated. Photographs for this post are courtesy of Ms Mamy Goya Oshiro.

Confluencia by Jazz en tres

Sunset at sunset by Sacbe

John Campbell and the Problem of evil part 3

I want to make a tribute to a great musician that the world never got to know because of the early death of blues ace John Campbell. John died at the age of 41 from a heartattack in his sleep which seemed a cruel way to go especially since he was just peaking. His life story has been very interesting for me read up about. When he was 16 he got into a tragic accident and then decided to drop out of college and spent the next couple of years of his life on the road. He slept in dirty places and only had his guitar as his real prime companion. But it was during his travels around the US that he got exposed to different styles of playing the blues such as piano style in Louisiana, banjo style in Texas and slide guitar in Mississippi. He was proficient in mixing the 3 up, with a beat. If i never make it to music school, i'm going to do what John did and travel around india probably to learn different styles of music with a guitar.

Check him out, i hope you'll be hungry for more...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpcE15tM2Eo&feature=related

Problem of evil goes like this. Conventional attributes that are given to God of monotheistic faiths include terms such as God is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. So God is all powerful in the sense that there are no limits to what God can or cannot do and is wholly good in the sense that a good thing is always opposed to an evil thing and would seek to eliminate evil. So the argument works with the following three propositions

God is omnipotent
God is wholly good
Evil exists

If you accept that any of the above propositions is false the problem of evil is not applicable for you anymore. The existence of evil and an omnipotent wholly good being is incompatible. Well i've been reading a lengthy argument about the problem of evil from a guy named Mackie and it’s got me questioning my understanding of God intensely over the last couple of days. Well the argument is refuted in a number of ways but they all lead back to showing that God is actually either not omnipotent or wholly good. For example, one rebuttal from the theists is good and evil are necessary counterparts. So imagine a world without evil, where everything was good. Well then you would never be able to tell if something was evil or not and then you would be unable to make this distinction between a good and a bad deed. The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that well then it shows that God’s power is limited because God has to create evil in the face of good. God can’t create good without creating evil and hence this limits God’s power. Another argument is that God is not responsible for evil and its only humans that are responsible because God gave us freewill. This again limits God’s power if God has indeed given us freewill because God is no longer able to control our will. So God might have had the power to give us freewill but not necessarily command power to control our freewill. If God has made men such that in their free choices they sometimes prefer what is good and sometimes what is evil, why could he not have made men such that they always freely choose the good?

Paradox of omnipotence: Can an omnipotent being make things which he cannot subsequently control? Or can an omnipotent being make rules which then bind himself?

Well my reply to the problem of evil is as follows. The problem of evil is not really a problem at all because who are we to judge the attributes of God? If you wouldn’t judge a stranger in a country you’ve never heard of, how can you pass judgment on what kind of attributes are characteristic of God, a being who could be considered as a stranger residing in a location that you can’t even conceive. So I claim that our understanding of God’s goodness, omnipotence and reasons for the existence of evil are poorly understood. However this reply led to more severe problems. It started to make me question what do I really know or believe about God and God’s characteristics. Because the presuppositions that you make can lead to a very different outcome of conclusions you make. So here are my presuppositions. The universe was caused by something that transcends the universe itself, called the transcendent cause or the creator. Typically only a being who posses all pure perfections can have the power to create, to this being we name God. I think an excellent argument for the existence of this being is the Kalam Cosmological Argument for God which was defended by professor Nowacki from SMU. It goes like this

Premise 1: Whatever comes to be has a cause of its coming to be
Premise 2: the universe came to be
Conclusion: The universe has a cause of its coming to be

I’m not going to explain the arguments that defend the premises (as it’s pretty long but its based on math and science), but the important inferences are, the argument shows that the universe did not exists eternally in the past. The universe has a finite past and came to be out of nothing. It’s not like there was some preexisting matter and then it formed after the preexisting matter. Big bang theory is empirical evidence that confirms this argument since it predicts that the universe’s past is finite. It’s not through this argument that I have started believing in God. I think truthful knowledge about God’s existence comes in the form of divine revelation is impossible to predict of when it happens. So my belief in God’s existence prior to this course was based on an “irrational” belief. Now my beliefs are based on irrational and logical reasoning. I was born into a Christian family and have up till a short while ago only ever believed in the principles of Christianity. Today I don’t subscribe to organized religion anymore. It doesn’t mean that I reject Christianity, it just means I don’t believe that by going to church or through living your life as a “good Christian” is the only means of knowing God. I propose that you can believe in God without subscribing to a religion. Someone asked me the other day then isn’t this subscribing to the belief that you have created your own God? I said not necessarily because for all you know all the monotheistic faiths pray to the same God but have different ways of naming God. Although I know I need to do a lot more reading before I make such radical claims, there are things I find hard to reconcile that make me feel as though organized religion is detrimental. For one it gives you guidelines as to how to live your life justifying the guidelines in the name of God. I think choosing guidelines for living your life comes about as you grow up and they form based on your experiences with the world. I feel as though subscribing to organized religion can limit the experiences you choose to engage in with your life. On the contrary, I think it’s important to try everything at least once and make up your mind for yourself on what works for you and what doesn’t.

Here are the major mind boggles that have plagued me over the past few days though. So I don’t subscribe to a religious faith. I believe God exists. What is the purpose now or what is the necessity for me to know of God’s existence? Christianity suggests that there is an afterlife and that the target would be to make it to heaven and not hell. I think Hinduism and Buddhism suggest reincarnation based on what kind of a person you are in the current life. But not subscribing to religion entails that I don’t neither accept nor reject the above propositions of the afterlife.

Do I live the rest of my days in adoration of God? Do I carry on knowing God exists and live my life as though there is no consequence of my actions in the eyes of God or as though there are consequences for my actions in the eyes of God? My questions seem to be a borderline between finding the meaning of life and finding meaning in life. The more questions I ask the more confused I become. My presuppositions also confuse me. For instance I believe that everything happens for a reason. Which I think is the same as saying all effects/events have a cause. God can/is responsible for all events/effects and causes. That means on some level I believe everything that happens in my life is caused by God. There is one presupposition that I strongly believe in. God can help people achieve a high level of mastery in whatever proficiency they choose to concentrate on in life. I’ve seen it twice recently. One was in Goa where I saw a singer/sitar player of a band called Kundalini Airport perform as though he was communicating on behalf of God to his audience. It was the way he performed and his connection to the music that made me think this person is spiritually enlightened and that’s why he is so damn good. The same with another musician I met who was a part time missionary and part time guitar player. He played with such unique technique and flair that I felt such knowledge must have been imparted on him from a higher being. It doesn’t just have to be music. It can be in any field. Thomas Aquinas for instance, a great theist philosopher was blessed with amazing knowledge. He had 5 secretaries to whom he would dictate 5 different topics. He would dictate a few things for the first secretary to write down say about astrology, then go to the second one about theism, the third about math….and so on in a circle and come back to the first secretary and continue from where he left off. He could do this while reading! And he had a photographic memory so all the references you see in his books are not like references where he had to go find which book which chapter said what. He just knew it and he was damn smart. This is someone whom I convinced was blessed with superior knowledge from God.