random theme generator...

[ObiJohnKenobi]

after all the data has been entered we receive the following, spit out on printed paper, rolling like one giant egg noodle from the great whiring machine:


Jambi (the relevance of the iamb, as noted in other posts comes into play here. Galileo wrote a 301-line poem, Against the Donning of the Gown, that was translated into iambic pentameter tercets by Giovanni Bignami in 2000. It was a poem meant to mock the academic traditions found in Pisa)

Lines 1-2

Here from the king's mountain view
Here from the wild dream come true


Amongst historical figures, Galileo Galillei could reign as king

The “wild dream” likely alludes to the true nature of our solar system and the relationships of the planets that Galileo helped determine


Lines 3-4

Feast like a sultan, I do
On treasures and flesh never few

Gailileo certainly obtained quite a bit of wealth in his positions as the Chief Mathematician at the U of Pisa and as ‘Mathematician and Philosopher’ to the Grand Duke of Tuscany (along with other appointments).

His questionable sexual habits have been recorded, and, by today’s standards, are somewhat preverse

Lines 5-6

But I... I would, wish it, all away
If I thought I'd lose you just one day

As with any noted scientific figure, their greatest loyalty always rested with reason and scientific thought – without it, they would be lost

Lines 7-10

The devil and his have me down
In love with the dark side I've found
Dabblin' all the way down
Up to my neck soon to drown.


These lines certainly touch on the ‘heresy’ that Galileo was accused of committing and his repeated infractions of the orders set out to him by the Inquisition in 1616. The watery reference invariably links to his times and troubles in Venice.

Lines 11-12

But you changed that all for me
Lifted me up, turned me round


His discoveries, via observation and scientific investigation, have enlightened him and changed him

Lines 13-15

So I, I, I, I,
I would,
I would, I would,
wish this all away


As above (see 5-6)

Lines 16-19

Pray like a martyr/father (?) dusk to dawn
Beg like a hooker all night long
Sent to the devil with my song
And got what I wanted all along


He died a heretic, but in 1992 Pope John Paul II admitted the Church had erred in the case of Galileo – as a true martyr, Galileo died espousing the Truth.

The “beg like a hooker” reference is a little vague but likely refers to how Gailileo had to offer up bits of his discoveries to his superiors or sponsors in order to advance up the academic ladder (e.g. naming the moons of Jupiter the ‘Medicean Stars’ to gain favour with the Grand Duke of Tuscany for a placement at the University of Pisa)

The last two lines, again, refer to his heresy against the Church and his scientific successes. The movement of the planets in the Heavens was, at one point, thought to produce a cosmic music/song.

Lines 20-27

But I
And I would
If I could
And I would
Wish it away
Wish it away
Wish it all away
Wanna wish it all away


As above (see lines 5-6)

Lines 28-30

No price that could hold sway
Or justify my giving it away,
My center

'Center', here, refers to the fact that Galileo’s observations were quite fundamental in proving that the Sun, not the Earth, was the celestial body around which the planets revolved.

Lines 31-35

So if I could I'd wish it all away
If I thought tomorrow, they'd take you away
You're my piece of mind,
my om
my center
I'm just trying to hold on
One more day

His 'piece of mind' is scientific method and rational thought.

His 'center'= scientific thought… also alludes to his discoveries pointing to the Sun being the center of our solar system.


Lines 36-37

Damn my eyes!
Damn my eyes!

It was Galileo’s observations, not his mathematical theorems, that caused him most of his problems with the Church – his eyes, therefore, have not only given him his discoveries, but they have also made him a danger to the Church’s doctrine. Thus, his eyes provided him the means to his observatios which were both a blessing and a curse.

Lines 38-41

Damn my eyes, if they should compromise
A fulcrum
Want to need to,
if I leave then,
I might as well be gone...


Compromising the 'fulcrum' could take on a few meanings

- the usual balance between Science and Religion that Galileo would find important

- the fulcrum that balances the scales of justice: the Church was quite arbitrary in its condemnation of Galileo and, in all essence, tipped the scales of justice in its favour, thus compromising its integrity

-the burden of proof: the Church sought to have Galileo prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that his theories were correct; on the other hand, Galileo argued that the Church should have to prove why they were right.

-Is this also a reference to the want/need balance mentioned in the lines below?

Perhaps Galileo is questioning his own motives, here, does he want to be correct? Does he need to be correct?

Lines 42-45

Shine on forever
Shine on benevolent sun
Shine down upon the broken
Shine on 'til the two become one


Sun, of course, refers to the heavenly body itself. The ‘broken’ alludes to the schism between Church and scientific thought. Galileo was a devout man, but his lust for scientific discovery made him the focus of the Church’s disapproval. He would want the two (Church and Science) to become one.

Also, Galileo can be seen as the Father of Modern Astronomy and he would want his “son”, current scientific investigation, to continue to shine and produce newer and greater discoveries.

Lines 46-51

Shine on forever
Shine on benevolent sun
Shine down upon the severed
Shine on 'til the two become one
Divided & wither away
Divided & wither away


As above (Lines 42-45). The withering away suggests that, as two divided schools of thought neither Church nor Science can survive in isolation.

Lines 52-56

Shine down upon the many, light our way,
Benevolent sun.
Breathe in union {repeat}
So, as one, survive
Another day and season


As above. (Lines 42-45)

Lines 57-58

Silent legions save your poison
Silent legions stay out of my way


'Legions' refers to the ranks of the Inquisition – the body of the Church that Galileo is most at odds with.

For further related (?) tidbits, see the "Cult of Galileo"...

[Skull Island]

And he certainly was one to 'lift an eye heaven'. Some interesting galileo facts, but also some very strained connections in relation to the song...

[ObiJohnKenobi]

... some very strained connections in relation to the song...


which, specifically, seem to be most strained? I will recalibrate the RTG with some further Boolean operations to remedy this, if needs be.

[fraterps]

which, specifically, seem to be most strained? I will recalibrate the RTG with some further Boolean operations to remedy this, if needs be.


I don't think there's any boolean calculations that can establish the plausibility of this reading. I hope it was given tongue in cheek. From what I've seen, you seem to think the length of my post was supposed to carry the weight of its accuracy, but as I've mentioned already, you miss the point if that's your view.

The plausibility of what I've put together under 'Jambi: what it all means' is established primarily by three connected factors. In the first place the lyrical exegesis I've offered closely fits with what I think for the most part we agree he is saying. Second, this song bears remarkable resemblance to not only the general ritual structure of the western esoteric tradition as it comes to us through the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, but also to the specific endeavors of the Great Work--the invocation for the indwelling presence of the divine within us, reconciling and equilibrating the various forces at work in our lives. Finally, Jambi's message itself (if this be it) is part and parcel of the bulk of Tool's themework, the notions they are constantly working with and expressing through their art. Your post does not meet the last two of these criteria, the ones which must do the work to establish competency. But it's an interesting endeavor to show the possibility for forcing an interpretation according to an unrelated theme. You know what they say about monkeys and typewriters....


Cheers,

PS

[ObiJohnKenobi]

I don't think there's any boolean calculations that can establish the plausibility of this reading. I hope it was given tongue in cheek.

This was, of course, the beta-test run for the RTG v1.0. Boolean operators (a well placed nor, xnor, if/then set of statements) form the core of the scripting. Simply plug some variables in one end, some limiting facotrs, if required, and Voila! an interpretation is disgorged from the bowels of the RTG.

From what I've seen, you seem to think the length of my post was supposed to carry the weight of its accuracy, but as I've mentioned already, you miss the point if that's your view.

... this was mostly asserted by you, with your half-crafted McDonald's retort, and i just responded.. sometimes its easy to forget what one has said when balancing so precariously on high....


this song bears remarkable resemblance to not only the general ritual structure .... [and is] part and parcel of the bulk of Tool's themework, the notions they are constantly working with and expressing through their art.

this song bears a remarkable resemblance to anything we are familiar with and can craft ideas around.... much like that strange face on the surface of Mars, it is human nature to see that which is familiar.

the notion does, as you've said, work with the themes tool has put forward over the years - i've never questioned that (or much of your interpretations, per se). but this, then, would be raltively obvious wouldn't it?


Your post does not meet the last two of these criteria, the ones which must do the work to establish competency. But it's an interesting endeavor to show the possibility for forcing an interpretation according to an unrelated theme. You know what they say about monkeys and typewriters....


Cheers,

PS

As i've already mentioned, RTG v1.0 will need some fine tuning, but I do think i can, almost randomly, apply various themes to Jambi, or any other song for that matter, once it is up and running at full throttle. Furthermore, it is working on a set of criteria of its own...your criteria, although interesting, are not appropriate here.

I do know what they say about monkeys and typewriters. You must know what they say about the risks of waxen wings.

[parables in the world]

Now i want to see your interpretation.

[FatherMuck]

Hey, whose gonna win the superbowel? Ask the RGT v.1.0 that please.

lol

[ObiJohnKenobi]

Hey, whose gonna win the superbowel? Ask the RGT v.1.0 that please.


right now it'll only predict stanley cup winners. apparently, the canucks are a lock. if i have some spare time and figured out how to make it prepare and serve a perfect dish of KD, then i'll write some superbowl code.

p.s. RTG, not RGT

[ObiJohnKenobi]

Now i want to see your interpretation.

perhaps.... but whatever it is it will, simply, be my interpretation and not an attempt to stitch together a patchwork of possibilities.

[fraterps]

... this was mostly asserted by you, with your half-crafted McDonald's retort, and i just responded.. sometimes its easy to forget what one has said when balancing so precariously on high....

Get a grip ObiJohn. My response in the post you are referring to was directed at an individual who offered only that my post was waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy longer than it needed to be, and that I need help being concise. Hence, my defence of reading as a delicacy, not fast food. And did you forget, you came back with some sideways comment about reading being a pleasure only when you're not being served crappy spaghetti. Do you need a diagram? Sorry, but lots of things will look like hubris if you get lost in simple transitions like this one. Maybe you should try a little harder to understand what other people are saying before you spin out some of your own spaghetti crap.


this song bears a remarkable resemblance to anything we are familiar with and can craft ideas around.... much like that strange face on the surface of Mars, it is human nature to see that which is familiar.

Uh oh, fallacy alert. Hasty Generalization. There is quite a bit different between my reading of Jambi as a Toolian invocation of the godhead and seeing a face on Mars. We have differences in cause, the sources of intentionality, and basic plausibility. I understand what you're saying, but this argument put forth here fails to make its point. I know your Gallilean story was supposed to prove your cliam that 'this song bears a remarkable resemblance to anything we are familiar with', but as I've said, the similarity is obviously forced and thus the attempt to connect your story to my reading ultimately fails. Hasty generalization. I've seen a few ad hominems crop up in your posts as well--one comes shortly to follow.

the notion does, as you've said, work with the themes tool has put forward over the years - i've never questioned that (or much of your interpretations, per se). but this, then, would be raltively obvious wouldn't it?

If so, what's your point?

I do know what they say about monkeys and typewriters. You must know what they say about the risks of waxen wings.

Sorry, I fail to share your view that I'm either a victim of hubris or Icarian troubles. Maybe you should try not to feel so intimidated, if you think you see in me something like pride. I am who I am, I say what I think, I check what I believe against all sorts of justificatory factors, and I speak with confidence. I don't care if that comes across to some as prideful or intimidating. Nut up and be a man; this is a big-boy (or girl) conversation. Deal with it.

PS

[fraterps]

perhaps.... but whatever it is it will, simply, be my interpretation and not an attempt to stitch together a patchwork of possibilities.

I have a greater measure of assurance in the successful use of the mind than you do, if you think we are limited to either 'subjective' interpretation or piecemeal assortments of what is merely possible. Another fallacy--this one's a false dichotomy. For there is a third option: we can perceive what is occurring and talk about it.

PS

[ObiJohnKenobi]

Get a grip ObiJohn. ... etc....

sure... thanks for the advice...

i can see this has whole sordid affair has scarred you deeply.... for your sake, mine and that of the rest of the community, i will let this all slide silently into the ocean of forgotten online forum tussles.





If so, what's your point?

you can figure that one out on your own..



Nut up and be a man; this is a big-boy (or girl) conversation. Deal with it.


thanks again for the advice, big-boy. recess is now over... time to go back to class.

[ObiJohnKenobi]

I have a greater measure of ....etc....
PS


i think this sums up a lot.... (your reply to a post that wasn't even directed at you, that is)


nighty, night.

[fraterps]

ObiJohn,

So let's think of this like a classroom setting if that suits you. We are all talking in turns, and the conversation involves everyone. If you want to have a private conversation, pm someone. Otherwise, if you offer something questionable and I feel like raising an objection, I will. And I'm not the sort of fellow to let empty insults, surface-level textual criticisms which fail to address the issue at hand, or misstated reconstructions go unchecked. You're welcome for the recess lesson. Now, if you'd like to engage in genuine conversation about the salient issues when we step back into the classroom, I'm all for it.

[Carbonatedgravy]

I hate to say it, (and it's sad that I even have to) but the original post by Obi is one of the most valuable ones I've seen at this entire forum. Everyone has gotten way too caught up with weird specifics that don't particularly match up. And yet everyone wants to be that guy who finally got the full meaning of the song. (This isn't a commentary on your opinion in the other thread fraterps, and I'm not taking sides in this little tussle.)

But as a whole, with all the crazy half-assed ideas being floated around about this song and others, this kind of goes to prove that if you want something to fit bad enough, it will. Many Tool songs are vague enough to allow the listener to structure the song around their ideas. Good satire at any rate. If I had anything resembling motivation or drive, I would have tried something similar.

[fraterps]

I hate to say it, (and it's sad that I even have to) but the original post by Obi is one of the most valuable ones I've seen at this entire forum. Everyone has gotten way too caught up with weird specifics that don't particularly match up. And yet everyone wants to be that guy who finally got the full meaning of the song. (This isn't a commentary on your opinion in the other thread fraterps, and I'm not taking sides in this little tussle.)

But as a whole, with all the crazy half-assed ideas being floated around about this song and others, this kind of goes to prove that if you want something to fit bad enough, it will. Many Tool songs are vague enough to allow the listener to structure the song around their ideas. Good satire at any rate. If I had anything resembling motivation or drive, I would have tried something similar.


Hi Carbon,

I can understand how this looks from the outside, and I appreciate the value in pointing out the silliness that some interpretations offer (there's another board devoted to decoding Jambi as an acronym). If this was strictly an issue of poking fun at forced interpretations, I wouldn't mind. But ObiJohn has thought to pepper his respones to me with insults and a careless disregard for the issue at hand. It's a personal quirk, but I despise superficial comments directed at meaningful remarks. And so I have to disagree. I think ObiJohn's post here has been one of the most worthless I've seen. And I've done more than offer that assessment as an opinion--I've defended its plausibility. These are some of the criteria for rational discourse, and its disingenuous to alternate between specific (reasoned) criticisms and a general 'well it's all just opinion' stance.

Best,

PS

[Carbonatedgravy]

fraterps, I read your entire post in the thread you started, (which I previously had not) and I think it's a good post. Your interpretation is sincere, and for the most part it's not filled with a bunch of silly attempts to fit an idea that doesn't make sense. For the most part. I still don't hear "middle way" anywhere in that song, and I tried.

I think you're just taking a lot of what goes on here a little too personally. I guess if I'd put as much effort as you into an idea I'd be the same way. Maybe this thread is personally directed at you but to me it doesn't seem that way. I don't know, but considering all the dumb crap that has been said about this song, I found it fitting as a general statement more than a specific attack.

[fraterps]

fraterps, I read your entire post in the thread you started, (which I previously had not) and I think it's a good post. Your interpretation is sincere, and for the most part it's not filled with a bunch of silly attempts to fit an idea that doesn't make sense. For the most part. I still don't hear "middle way" anywhere in that song, and I tried.

I think you're just taking a lot of what goes on here a little too personally. I guess if I'd put as much effort as you into an idea I'd be the same way. Maybe this thread is personally directed at you but to me it doesn't seem that way. I don't know, but considering all the dumb crap that has been said about this song, I found it fitting as a general statement more than a specific attack.


Yeah, I don't necessarily think this post is directed at me either, though ObiJohn has said some things specifically to me that I've addressed. Despite how it may look, I'm not so wrapped up in what goes on here. I'm just a voice for sincerity and knowledge here, and I've done what I can to see that what could otherwise be a very productive forum for discussion doesn't degrade at crucial junctures into meaningless subjectivity.

[implandnoises]

I've done what I can to see that what could otherwise be a very productive forum for discussion doesn't degrade at crucial junctures into meaningless subjectivity.
Huh?

[ObiJohnKenobi]

Yeah, I don't necessarily think this post is directed at me either...

yep.

I'm just a voice for sincerity and knowledge here, and I've done what I can to see that what could otherwise be a very productive forum for discussion doesn't degrade at crucial junctures into meaningless subjectivity.

this a most dangerous statement. i wonder how much subjectivity goes into your determination of what "degrades" this forum and what doesn't and how easy it is to pass it off as sincerity and enlightment, instead... a regular Ferdinand II.

[fraterps]

this a most dangerous statement. i wonder how much subjectivity goes into your determination of what "degrades" this forum and what doesn't and how easy it is to pass it off as sincerity and enlightment, instead... a regular Ferdinand II.

Well, we are all entitled to our opinions. The difference between opinion and statement of belief regarding some condition in our intersubjective world-space involves the conditions we use to justify that belief. I think I have made it fairly clear why I think my beliefs in the things I've posted are accurate. The problem is, I've met with little response beyond the OPINIONS of others regarding the way I write. Hence my continued enumeration of the importance of dealing with the issue at hand--in this case, the accuracy of my post. Hope that helps.

All the best,

PS

[ObiJohnKenobi]

The difference between opinion and statement of belief regarding some condition in our intersubjective world-space involves the conditions we use to justify that belief.


truly, though, a statement of belief, no matter how convincing the statement is, is made based on supposition and interpretation... even a deep-seated exegetic study is left with holes. it is the fact that these beliefs become widely accepted that makes them more 'believable'. it does, however, not make them more right. beliefs cannot be accurate, nor can they be precise. they can be accepted or discarded, then can touch more broadly on a set of 'knowns' to develop a wider framed construct, but a belief cannot be verified. if, indeed, they are verified, they become fundamental Truths.

the catholic church has made many statements of belief, rooted in labourious exegtic studies and debate, upheld time and again with blood and tears and martyrdom but, the truest irony of it all, is that their Church can never, without a shadow of a doubt, say that what they have proposed is a fundamental Truth. The flipside of this irony is that, without definitive proof, they are also not wrong.

thus, we see that you, my brother post-script, are not wrong either (and I will point out that I never did say your views were in error... just that your one comment, way back when, was quite self-important). your interpretations and 'objective' studies of these songs are all valid, in their own right, and worthy of discussion.

then again, they are also not proven, nor will they be until maynard james keenan, et. al. send down their blessings from on high. almost 256 popes have given up the smoke without a blessing of their own, so it may be a while. until then, do what you must and try to remember that i have not yet claimed you were wrong and not every post i make will be taking a sideways glance at you....

now, on to the noodle of the matter

[fraterps]

truly, though, a statement of belief, no matter how convincing the statement is, is made based on supposition and interpretation... even a deep-seated exegetic study is left with holes. it is the fact that these beliefs become widely accepted that makes them more 'believable'. it does, however, not make them more right. beliefs cannot be accurate, nor can they be precise. they can be accepted or discarded, then can touch more broadly on a set of 'knowns' to develop a wider framed construct, but a belief cannot be verified. if, indeed, they are verified, they become fundamental Truths.

Hi ObiJohn,

Well now, this is a conversation I could really get into. I'm currently doing most of my exoteric work in epistemology (theory of knowledge), so allow me to make some observations that bear on the subject at hand.

In the first place, I think we need to set a few terms in order. Let's talk about intentional supposition, belief, justification, and truth (I really don't think there's anything to be gained here from talking about 'Truth' with a capital T). In the first place, to be self-conscious at all is to distinguish oneself from and relate oneself to the world around us (i.e. what prima facie appears to be 'not-self'). Furthermore, for this sense of self to be anything at all like the coherent, temporally enduring, ongoing selves we all are, the world we relate ourself to must be amenable to our understanding of it. We must be able to form intentional suppositions about certain states or effects in the world, and through reason have our intentional suppositions tested, modified, and accepted to varying degrees. Let us call an intentional supposition a 'belief'. Thus, to be self-conscious in the determinate ways we are, we must be able to form beliefs about the world that are tested and vindicated to varying degrees. In the formation of these beliefs we come to understand not only the world, but ourselves in relation to it. 'Truth' is an appelation we give to belief when it passes some degree of vindication relative to the discipline at hand. Sometimes what counts as 'true' is difficult to determine, and different disciplines have their own criteria with their own corresponding degrees of confirmation. What counts as a true proposition in mathematics is fairly easy to quantify--the same cannot be said for the true propositions of aesthetic taste (if any exist).

Though it is a popular position in the intellectual field today (and not without reason), the idea that ultimately social approval determines what counts as 'truth' is a misguided view of human knowledge. The world in its fundamentals is not a social construction--it is something we all share (Dr. Johnson's reply to Berkeley's idealism comes to mind, though of course the former missed the point). Social constructs play a role in all sorts of ways, but to reduce knowledge to society is absurd (though pathetically in vogue). I thus disagree with your statement that "it is the fact that these beliefs become widely accepted that makes them more 'believable'."

Furthermore, I hope my discussion of the relationship between intentional supposition, application, justification across disciplines, and the appelation of 'truth' allows me to reconstrue what you've said here: "beliefs cannot be accurate, nor can they be precise. they can be accepted or discarded, then can touch more broadly on a set of 'knowns' to develop a wider framed construct, but a belief cannot be verified. if, indeed, they are verified, they become fundamental Truths."

Now, I know you were speaking specifically about my exegesis of Jambi, not questioning the existence of a stone at my feet. But my remarks on epistemology carry to the interpretation of the song as well. For we know enough about this band to make intelligent suppositions about what constitutes the 'true intentions' of a given song. Wings for Marie is known to be a hagiography (biography of a saint) for Maynard's mother. Again, we might be wrong in our appelation of 'knowledge' here, but we would need to have certain conditions fulfilled to have that appelation overturned. In like manner, I offered a justification for my belief that Jambi is directed toward the invocation of the holy guardian angel, set in a basically straightforward patterning off the ritual work of the western esoteric tradition as it comes to us through the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.

This is not, therefore, an issue of conflicting subjective interpretations without any grasp of what consitutes verification. We are instead in the realm of genuine intentionality, and we have the capacity to understand what is occurring and communicate it. I will continue to fend off accusations of subjectivity if they are forthcoming, but I still wait for any real criticism of the view I've offered. You say you haven't objected directly to my view, but you've offered quite a bit of indirect ad hominems and accusations of subjectivity. (don't take 'accusations' too strongly, I'm only trying to accurately characterize your opening statement in your last post--you seem to think the issue turns on 'well it's all just whatever we agree to believe'. As I said, I think that buggers up what human knowledge is really about.)

the catholic church has made many statements of belief, rooted in labourious exegtic studies and debate, upheld time and again with blood and tears and martyrdom but, the truest irony of it all, is that their Church can never, without a shadow of a doubt, say that what they have proposed is a fundamental Truth. The flipside of this irony is that, without definitive proof, they are also not wrong.

Yeah, but I'm not going after anything like a 'divine understanding' of Jambi as the source of my interpretation. I've offered a pretty cogent view of the piece, a view which still lacks genuine criticism......

thus, we see that you, my brother post-script, are not wrong either (and I will point out that I never did say your views were in error... just that your one comment, way back when, was quite self-important). your interpretations and 'objective' studies of these songs are all valid, in their own right, and worthy of discussion.

I'm sorry if my one comment seemed to you to be self important (what comment was that?). I am a man of principle, and right now I am just a vessel for a message. I find it irritating when that message is met with criticisms of the aesthetics of its delivery, or general accusations of subjectivity without engagement with what I've written. Again, I'm rather fond of proper grammer, punctuation, and spelling, but I try not to let that get in the way of what people are trying to communicate to me. I also try to engage directly with what people are communicating about.


then again, they are also not proven, nor will they be until maynard james keenan, et. al. send down their blessings from on high. almost 256 popes have given up the smoke without a blessing of their own, so it may be a while. until then, do what you must and try to remember that i have not yet claimed you were wrong and not every post i make will be taking a sideways glance at you....

Don't sell yourself short; you have managed quite well to disparage my post (indirectly), first through ad hominem based on my writing style, second through your view of my subjectivity. But I understand you haven't addressed me directly, and that's part of the problem. I'd rather prefer you tell me 'you're wrong, because A,B,C'. As for waiting until the boys give us their canonized views, based on some of the disinformation the band plays with, I'd rather trust what they've produced in the music. I seem to remember some april fool's jokes that got around pretty quick and made quite a furor. 'Think for yourself' has become a statement of the band, and I don't expect them to endorse any interpretation, even (or especially) an accurate one.

now, on to the noodle of the matter


Quite right then; and what is that, exactly?

[fraterps]

As a follow up, it's important to note there are a number of live Jambi versions available online. After listening to some of them, it is difficult to sustain my impression that the lines discuss dividing a middle way. Let others listen and find for themselves. As I've already mentioned elsewhere, while that section of the song is of central justification for the reading I offered, I think there is sufficient reason to think its other sources of justification (textual within the song, relational to Tool's general themes) still serve to carry the weight of the view I'm advancing. Knowing that it isn't falling on hollow ears in all quarters, I think it is important to point out this error, if indeed I've misheard what's been said. The album version to me still sounds the same. I think the poll is now at three for and three against. Numbers are still so low as to be concerned only with those interested enough to say something, so the usefullness of the statistic is still relatively slight. The numbers reading these posts, if they contributed, would serve to round out the figure.

All the best,

PS

[ObiJohnKenobi]

Well now, this is a conversation I could really get into. I'm currently doing most of my exoteric work in epistemology (theory of knowledge), so allow me to make some observations that bear on the subject at hand.

with my background being rooted in geology, knowledge was something i arrived at with a 3-pound sledgehammer....

it was quite satisfying.

now as a father, the only knowledge i am ever satisfied with is the knowledge that my son is safe and content.



Don't sell yourself short; you have managed quite well to disparage my post (indirectly), first through ad hominem based on my writing style, second through your view of my subjectivity. But I understand you haven't addressed me directly, and that's part of the problem. I'd rather prefer you tell me 'you're wrong, because A,B,C'.

unfortunately, i will never tell anyone on this board that they are wrong in their interpretation of a song (tool's or otherwise) - i will only ever refute or defend a statement of fact. additionally, i am still trying to build up what i think this album truly means to me - it may borrow from thoughts found in this forum, but it will be something that will likely mean more to me than anyone else. i might, possibly, look at it from a perspective of what the 'writer's intent' was, but those are muddy waters and one can never quite tell if their foot is on the bottom, or resting in a pile of shit.


Quite right then; and what is that, exactly?

my vacation.... it is done, and i'm back to the hollow echoes of work.

i assure you that i will do (and have been doing) more than 'disparage'... these can be quite fun, some of these discussions, and there is always room for building on thoughts and ideas.

time for some Mostaccioli and Mushroom Meatballs...

[fraterps]

with my background being rooted in geology, knowledge was something i arrived at with a 3-pound sledgehammer....

it was quite satisfying.

now as a father, the only knowledge i am ever satisfied with is the knowledge that my son is safe and content.


Congratulations on fatherhood. That's a path I'd like to tread someday, if conditions merit. But I've found in my hands sledgehammers do litte more than bash my fingers. Forgive me if I've assumed a greater level of acuity regarding what I've been writing than has been forthcoming from some of my audience. I will try to make myself more clear, but the issues I address are straightforward, and I think I cover my bases pretty well for the patient and thoughtful.



unfortunately, i will never tell anyone on this board that they are wrong in their interpretation of a song (tool's or otherwise) - i will only ever refute or defend a statement of fact.

I too am interested in facts. That's sort of been my point. I posted not an 'interpretation' as some have tried to argue is the subjectivity of my view. I have offered a statement of fact, which could very well be wrong, but which I have been defending. So far I've received little more than stylistic criticisms and general accusations of 'interpretive subjectivity'. But I'm interested in our discussing fact. Do you not think this is possible in this context?

additionally, i am still trying to build up what i think this album truly means to me - it may borrow from thoughts found in this forum, but it will be something that will likely mean more to me than anyone else. i might, possibly, look at it from a perspective of what the 'writer's intent' was, but those are muddy waters and one can never quite tell if their foot is on the bottom, or resting in a pile of shit.

I disagree. The more we study a subject and put it to the tests of our verification, the more we are able to accurately apprehend the subject. I don't think our predicament is so precarious as to suggest we're never sure we're not resting in a pile of shit. I think most of us can intelligently grasp bullshit when we see it. Furthermore, I am a staunch supporter of communication and the ability to share existence via language. I am a pragmatic realist and a linguistic idealist (by action in the world we discover what the world is, always subject to the revisions of further 'better' action; via language we conceive and share the actual rational structure of the cosmos, and so engage in its processes).

And I think those who follow the same sources Tool alludes to will grasp more than they thought they could.

my vacation.... it is done, and i'm back to the hollow echoes of work.

i assure you that i will do (and have been doing) more than 'disparage'... these can be quite fun, some of these discussions, and there is always room for building on thoughts and ideas.

Well, I've still seen little more than what I've already mentioned.

time for some Mostaccioli and Mushroom Meatballs...

Enjoy!


PS