ok lets look at this rationally for a second. If you or anyone "believes" in anything, you are the person that has to prove your belief, not the person who doesn't believe. So why would the non-believers have the burden of proof. And trust me....I listen "intentively enough" to know what i hear and what makes sense.


And being everyone is throwing their version of the lyrics out there....i might as well add mine.

Listen to the tales and romanticize,
How we follow the path of the hero
Boast about the day when the rivers overrun,
How we'll rise to the height of our halo.

Listen to the tales as we all rationalize
Our way into the arms of the savior
Fading all the trials and the tribulations,
None of us have actually been there,
Not like you...

The ignorant fibbers in the congregation
Gather around spewing sympathy,
Spare me...
None of them could even hold a candle up to you
Blinded by choices,
Hypocrites won't see

But enough about the collective judas
Who could deny you were the one who illuminated
You have a piece of the divine
This little light of mine,
The gift you passed on to me,
I'm going to let it shine,
to guide you safely on your way
Your way home...

Ohh, what are they gonna do when the lights go down
Without you to guide them all to Zion?
What are they gonna do when the rivers overrun
Other than tremble incessantly?
High as a wave
But I'll rise up off the ground.
You are the light and the way
They'll only read about
I only pray heaven knows
When to lift you out
10000 days in the fire is long enough.
You're going home...

You're the only one who can hold your head up high,
Shake your fist at the gates saying,
"I have come home now!"
Fetch me the spirit, the son and the father,
Tell them their pillar of faith has ascended.
"It's time now!
My time now!
Give me my
Give me my wings!"...

Give me my (x2)

Give me my (x5)

"Give me my wings"

You are the light, the way, that they will only read about

Set as I am in my ways and my arrogance
Burden of proof tossed upon the believers.
You were my witness, my eyes, my evidence,
Judith Marie, unconditional one.

Daylight dims leaving cold flourescence.
Difficult to see you in this light.
Please forgive this bold suggestion:
Should you see your maker's face tonight
Look him in the eye
Look him in the eye, tell him
I never lived a lie, never took a life,
But surely saved one
Hallejullah,
It's time for you to bring me home.

Do people seriously still believe this "high as a wave" bullshit? For real?

^^Thanks, now "I'll just add mine" (corrections, that is)

1) "...listen to DETAILS..." second verse, I got this from someone else(ref. pending)

2) "...FEIGNING all the..." N sound or D sound? clearly feigning; to make up, pretend.

3) "...ignorant FLIPPANTS in the..." don't even get us started, sounds like "flippenz" on the disk. Also thre's no "the" at the begining of the line.

4) "...them CAN even hold..." anal, I know, I know...

5) "...the collective JURORS..." o-boy, here we go...bring it on. I used to second guess "collective" (callet of) however, as I scrutinized collective I realized, that in "judas" there was no D, in fact there was no consinant sound at all. I began to search for somethng like callendejuas, and found nothing, but I've reafirmed my belief of "collective" and thought of "jurors" or "jurries"

6) "...illuminated A VITAL/THE FINAL peice of..." I have to say, in concert MJK sang "your little", but I don't hear that on the disk. I hear "vital"

7) "...A gift you passed..." not "The"...exp. not needed

8) "...I'll let it shine..." not, I'm going to, just, "I'll"

9) "High is the wave, but our eyes are upon the ground." I don't think your interpretation of this line fits. Not on my disk anyway.

10) "...UNCONDITIONALly WARNed!!!!!" ok, this one is a shot in the dark, but...
I'm currently psycho-analyzing the entire verse: "set as I am in my ways and my arrogance burden of proof tossed upon the/non believers you were my witness my eyes my evidence Judith Marie unconditional one"

A) eventhough I'm "set in my ways" the "burden" falls to...(????)
B) because I'm "set in my ways" the "burden"...
C) "set as I am", I also think...(???)
D) "set as I am", I still think...(???)

It is "NON" believers, you aren't listening hard enough. If you aren't using any, you need to listen through headphones. The "Non" has his semi-accented singing voice pronouncing it like "Known" a bit, which, if distorted in with music behind it, sounds like "The", you just aren't listenint hard enough.

Yes, it does make more sense. The "Burden of proof", meaning the impact or sight of something is being "tossed upon" the "non-believers", or the ones that didn't believe, but, now carry the burden that they have been proven wrong through his lyrics, do you catch what I'm saying. A burden wouldn't be set upon those that believe, because, well, they already believe, they don't have a reason to be scarred with a "Burden of proof", because, in a sense, what they believe in already is proving to the "non-believers" what Maynard is trying to convey.
__________

As for "ONE", I have always, and will always say "Unconditional one", the lyrics "one" isn't even remotely vague, so, I find no need to debate it.

-Andrew

youre welcome.

i was just wondering, since the structure of both your names is identical.

adjective-adjective-girl... or whatever is grammatically correct there...

cheers.

Agreed, totally.

Here though, I think you are misunderstanding the phrase "burden of proof". You say that this burden would not be on a believer because he already believes, but this is only from the perspective of that believer. A non-believer might still consider the burden to be on that believer. The burden of proof is on whoever has the greater duty or obligation to prove something.
Yet the lyric speaks of where the burden has been "tossed". Tossing the burden of proof is an ACT. It is the act of insisting that one's own position is more reasonable, and that the one upon whom it has been tossed is therefore the one who is obligated to disprove that position. So the lyric is not actually speaking about where the burden actually lies in any objective sense.

Ah, I understand completely, but, this means you are taking two possibilities as well. Jotting down the "NON- believers" option, as well as "THE believers" option, it seems to me at least. You say that because your perspective is on 'the' believers, and have dwelled upon that, which in turn, you've created a back up for what you choose to hear, whereas, I dwell upon the 'non' believers option, so I, in turn, have done the same thing. With the 'non' believers option of lyric, it is more direct, whereas, if you were to use 'the' believers option, you would have to go around completely and cancelling out logic until you find the answer. I don't think Maynard would have his mother prove anything to the people that already believe, which you say isn't even remotely true.

The part I'm angry about is people are saying Maynard is the non believer, showing the believers that he can believe, in a sense, and thus, they doubted him, so that becomes a "burden" on 'THE' believers...

You're saying the burden has been tossed upon 'the believers', to disprove it for those that do not believe, the "non" believers, and, I'm here to tell you:

1.) I've clearly heard Non-Believers, even on my computer, without headphones, it's not that vague.

2.) The lyrics are too direct for that, to have to go around so many things to reach the answer of two words.

This argument about "non-believer" vs. "the/all believer" is absolutely fascinating.

I would like everyone to be honest (i know thats asking a lot, but try) and if you are arguing for the non-believer, are you yourself a non-believer.

Those of you arguing that it is "the/all believer", are you believers in some type of godhead?

My guess is that if you are a non-believer, whenever you argue with someone who believes you feel the burden of proof is on you. Now I'll bet that any of you believers, when arguing with a non-believer feel as if the burden of proof is on you. Interesting huh? Obviously this isnt going to be perfect as Im sure that there are some non-believers who hear lyrics as "the/all believers". I doubt the reverse is true, but please correct me if Im wrong.

Here is my point in all of this. Most tool songs are written with language that can be interepreted in a variety of ways and this is purposeful. I think some of you are getting hung up on what Maynard actually meant and what YOU want him to mean.

The fact of the matter is Maynard writes in a poetic way and is not as forthright in exactly what he means in every song. But there are two things going on here in interpretations of tool's songs.

On the one hand, his poetic lyrics can be interpreted in soo many ways that the list is really endless. For instance my view of a songs like 46 and 2, Reflection, Lateralus, Parabola, and especially Opiate is probably very different from many of your views simply because our experiences in life are different and we look at them from from those memories of our experience so that they will mean something very personal to US. In other words, we dont really think about what Maynard intended the meaning to be but we look at it from our own perspective. The important point is that we are confusing what Maynard actually intended with what we think Maynard intended. They are very different. Dont make fun of me, but I can actually listen to the song opiate and think that the song is actually looks at Christianity in a positive way. Granted I have to ignore his sarcastic tone and a few of the lyrics, but my mind is so manipulative that I can actually suspend what I know he meant and insert what I want him to mean.

Now lets switch over to thinking about a song like 10,000 days which, much like opiate, there really isnt anything left unclear about meaning. That is, unless for some reason, your mind wants to manipulate what he is saying into something you want him to mean than what he actually means. Look at the songs lyrics in its totality. Ill only use a few examples but it will become clear of what my point is.
these are from another site (TS.Net)


First, the title of part 1, wings for marie. This sets up a very positive image of what he thinks of his mother. VERY positive. As for the lyrics it too reiterates the point that he is speaking of her in a very positive way. I think Maynard always thought of his mother in a positive way, he just thought she was a mindless follower. The lyrics in Judith are necessarily negative toward her, but toward her god. He was pissed about his mom suffering and couldnt understand why she kept her faith. I know these are just vague generalities but I think we can all agree that the gist of what I've said so far is correct.

Since the song is 10,000 days (Wings for Marie Pt. 2) my guess is the you in this line is talking about his mother again. Big surprise right? Well againg these lyrics are all very positive and hold her in an incredible almost divine light. Another important point is that he includes himself in the 'us'. He's talking about himself and all of us as not being as good as Judith. This becomes important later.

Uhhh, my guess. He's talking about his mother again and guess what? Its positive.

I must admit the first time I heard these lyrics I nearly fell off the treadmill. Admittedly, Maynard seems to be coming around on the idea of a "godhead" in Lateralus but the christian imagery he decided to use was purposeful. Even if he's not proclaiming he's a christian yet, he is certainly paying homage to his mother's faith which is a pretty big departure from opiate and judith.

ok Im starting to get tired now so no more quotes and me saying its him talking about his mother and her Christian faith in a positive way. He does it time and time again in almost every verse.

The big finale and conclusion: (i lied here is some more quotes)

He starts off talking negatively about himself. He's 'set', read as unchanging, and he's arrogant. Now you people who think its non-believers are asking me to believe that he's going to all of sudden change the point of view and say the something negative about his mother? If she is the one who is tossing (nonchalantly, arrogantly if you will) the burden of proof around, isnt that wrong? Isnt that negative? I just dont see how anyone can seriously hear that and think that is what he INTENDED. It's clear he's positive on his mom and negative on himself and everyone else. Given these facts, its CLEARLY him who is tossing around the burden of proof. Atheists and many agnostics have this way of arguing that criticizes the arguments christians or god believers give them but no offering any positive argument for the non-existence of god. This is the way THEY, Maynard as well as many of you included, has argued against Christianity and god in general. Make no mistake, if you think its burden of proof tossed upon non-believers, you are making it mean that because of your viewpoint. You need maynard to back you up on this. Well, its not going to happen. He's over that silly crap and he realizes even thought he may not be a christian, he definately saw something in his mother that he has never seen anywhere else-- at faith that works through all kinds of suffering. I doubt it matters to him whether he is right or wrong on the whole idea of a god, but that what does matter is what works. And what his mother went through and how she handled it, really impacted him and his views toward a godhead. Sorry atheists, I doubt you can turn to maynard anymore for supporting your arguments and alleviating any concern you have over your belief that there is no god. It doesnt sound like it will be there anymore.

This post explains my position.

I really think the key to this bit is to note that "tossing the burden" is an act or attitude - this is far more obvious than either option of WHO is doing the tossing. A believer OR non-believer can take up the burden of proof by arguing their case, or they can toss it upon the other by assumng they're right and expecting the other one to prove them wrong.

I am keeping open both possibilities, but not just to create a backup, and it doesn't require any difficult logical manipulation to justify it. Here's how my thought process on this worked:

I was initially hearing it as "THE believers". Someone here suggested "NON-believers", so I thought "Wow, if that's true it would completely reverse the meaning, so I'd better listen again and see if "NON-" could be right. Listening to it again, carefully and repeatedly, I found that it did sound kind of like "NON-", but not enough to be sure that it wasn't "THE". I could hear either one depending on what I was listening for.
As I couldn't be sure of the answer based on the sound, I looked for lyrical context to determine which made more sense based on meaning. Based on the obvious (to me) point that "tossing the burden" is an act or position that could be taken in by either party, such that the lyric does not speak of where the burden lies in an objective sense, I saw that it depends on WHOSE position the burden line is referring to.
Maynard's mother, as a believer, would be one to toss the burden on the NON-believers. Whereas Maynard, as a non-believer (with respect to his mother's beliefs at least), would be one to toss the burden back upon THE believers. And noting that the previous line ("Set as I am in my ways and my arrogance") clearly seems to refer to Maynard, it seemed more likely that the burden line also refers to him, saying that he is arrogant BECAUSE he throws the burden on THE believers rather than trying to prove them wrong himself.

Think about this. When would you say, set as I am, ...?
Only preceeding a sort of self-contradiction like, "set as I am... I'm going to try and be more polite to those damn wetbacks, I mean, illegals, (cough) no, guest workers..."

In this context, I feel he is speaking from the prespective of his ma, and all/most other "believers"/suckers.

"Beleivers", arrogantly toss their burden about.
Here's why:
There is no rhyme or reason to thinking there's a single, seperate, all powerfull being that has created all that is you and the all of physical reality. Therefore, arrogantly, all beleivers, toss the burden of proof onto the nonbeleivers.
This is how organized religion works, blind faith. If you realize that you have your own understanding and beleifs of Christ and devinity, first of all you're correct, and second, you had better realize, you're no longer a part of this bulshit "control-ism" called "weekly Mass"!!!
Start your own religion, call it realzijn. The realization that we are all seperate-but-equal on a speritual level, no human can ever know the "word of god" AND, "you're the only one who can hold your head up high, shake your fiist at the gate sayin I've come home now!" ...here's Tom w/ the weather."

delete post

Ummm, when I tell someone that Im arguing with that I can't agree with them because of something soo engrained in me that I just cant get over it. They may have some good arguments and results, but something inside me just wont let me see it, which is exactly what Maynard is saying here.

Then please explain this. According to you he says you (Judith) tossed (as if she didnt care) the burden of proof on the non-believers. How in the world are you able to rectify that type of incenuation (that she doesnt care that others dont believe in a god, which I believe is totally false. If anyone doesntwith the next line of "you were my witness, my eyes, my evidence" which seems to me to be a very complimentary and positive. It just doesnt make sense in this verse nor does it make sense in the context of the whole preceding song.

To use your example. You just get through giving a speech on how great illegal immigrants are eventhough you have argued against them at every opportunity in your past. You also emphasize the point that you cant compare to them, that maybe you were in fact wrong in your original view of them. But somehow you've always argued against them, you just cant help it. TThen you go on to say they are hardworking, good people. Always kind and compassionate. In fact, you add, none of us can compare to Mexican immigrants! Then right before you end your speech discussing your love of immigrants, you close with "Look people now I know I do not like immigrants (set as I am, in my ways and my arrogance), but they are the ones who are tossing off responsibilty and not doing there fare share. Then you follow that with, but they are hardworkers who are to be relied upon and trusted. They will do it unconditionally! I hope you see the contradiction.

One last thing, here is a phoenetic description of what is acutally being said. I put some headphones and listened to it loud. (This is how I always listen to it, but for some reason people who think its non-believer seem to think this is the way to hear it). What I hear is still "burden of proof tossed upon the (it does sound like nah) believers. Sing this to yourself in the same way maynard does. When you sing it this way the "upon the" "sounds like "upon na". There is no noN (emphasized N) in front of the believers. 'the' is pronounced 'thah' with a soft a. and when its after the word 'upoN' its difficult to sing the pronunciations correctly when singing it like Maynard. The important point is that there is no hint of an N sound right before believer, only the "ah" sound.

Yes, exactly. And the contradiction here is pretty straightforward.

Despite Maynard's being set in his non-believing ways of arrogantly tossing the burden of proof upon THE believers, his believing mother was nevertheless an inspiration to him and was his witness, eyes, and evidence of something worthy of respect in Christianity.

This is far and away the most natural interpretation of these lyrics, though of course that's no proof that it's the correct one.

Shit y'all. I don't care winch one he uses, the/all or non...the man is not, IS NOT! ...somehow givin the ol "thumbs up" to christianity...so whichever you feel it might be, if your thoughts are based on thinking MJK is wink & noding at organized religion. You got off on the wrong foot.

Sory for lack of specifics here, but one band member even said.
"I was worried where Maynard might go w/ the lyrics on this one..."

ie: Delivering a real polerizing point of view, something that all his critisism of beleifs have previously avoided.

"...but he nailed it." ie: Was able to express both, critical thinking, and personal exeptance.

'burden of proof' is a legal term and it is opon the prosecution, those trying to prove that something DID happen, that someone IS guilty etc. (legal eagles correct me if i'm wrong)
burden of proof tossed upon THE believers.

besides, all of this will be completely irrelevent pretty soon don't you think?

^ It's not exclusively a legal term. It has a broader application than that, though it's legal use is an excellent example of its meaning for anyone who doesn't already understand it.

Why irrelevant? Are we getting official lyrics on this soon?

Just to follow up on my theory (Ignorant serpents in the congregation ...), please go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8g20usbubM and go to about 1:30 of the song. You can clearly hear an "S" sound.

You can hear another live version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxRge9EJyus Go to about 1:00 into the song. Again, it sounds like an "S" sound, definitely not an "f".

Somebody pointed out the idea that maybe he says something different in the live version than he does in the album. This is a possibility of course. I'm just pointing out what I hear in the live versions since they can be a clue as to what he is saying in the album version.

It's flippants on the album, MJK is quoting his ma...she used flippants, but he says serpents live cause nobody knows what flippants means.

OK now i know maynard changes up the lyrics live but when i was at the east rutherford show he sang
"Ignornant sinners in the congregation" It was crystal clear.

i'm going to assume you completely made that shit up.
you happen to know for a fact that his mother used the term flippants at all, and thats not even considering the fact that flippants isn't a word...

holy fucken shit

i would think we'll have them soonish, we have 2 songs now...
i just think it's worth wating and letting go of all this "he said, he said" stuff.


what other contexts have you heard 'burden of proof' in, aside from this song of course. i've only heard it in court so...
'burden of proof tossed upon the believers' you need proof to believe, otherwise it's not a belief it's an idea.
it's the burden of proof, non believers don't need any proof, they don't need anything cause they don't believe.
THE believers.

uhmm... as a random observer [I barely follow half of the discussions like this that I read], 'flippant' is defined as "not showing a serious or respectful attitude". Or, at least that's what those flippant fools at Oxford say.

EDIT: I'm clueless on the actual matter at hand here - the whole 'his mother using the term 'flippant'' deal - I just wanted to point out that 'flippant' is most definitely a word.

OK SO SERIOUSLY WHAT IN YOUR OPINION DO YOU THINK THIS AMAZING SONG AND ITS LYRICS REPRESENT?? WHATS ITS MEANING?

^Just the lyrics here, yo...

...ok, sorry, I was explaining a/my point of view, and took myself a little too seriously there...I have no credible claim of anything his ma "said"....

....I feel so dirty...


Hey!
In that interview on the opinion link from the home page. Nard says, about "Hooker...most people will hear the song and think it's a fucksomeone song, it's really saying fuck everyone and fuck me also..."

Let's use this as an example, I'm willing to bet that everybody here (who cares enough to post) listened to the song, heard "I'm the fuckin man and you're the fuckin man as well, so you can...." and knew, quite enthusiastically(?) like I did, that he was saying,"fuck us all damn hypocrites!!"

My point is this:
A) You have to look deeper than the surface or your first impression of the song.
B) you have to listen and key in on the subtle "tell-tales" of grammer and perspective (of Maynards lyrics).
C) You have to respect the music for what it is and not what you think it should be. That's not to say, 'there's only one correct answer', on the contrary, you need only hear the song as it is, and not try to figure out what it's exact deffinition is... like we're gonna stick in the dictionary when we're done...

in other words, pity the guy that strives for the deff., no matter how close he comes.
Admire those whose, perspectives change, grow, and adapt w/ their fluctuating moods, seasons, experiences.

But really now, we're posting in "What's he saying?"...you're gonna need to go to the 10K Days thread for further explanation.

Dear _ajm_

The debate is currently as follows. Everyone in the world knows that flippant is an adj. I, on the other hand, seem to be the only one w/ a dic. that states:

"flippant: n. One who is given to flippancy. [Rare]"

And so, the world against me, the arguement is about wheather or not flippant is/can be a noun.

My dic. (chuckle) is a copywrite 73' ...a big two volume...and I'm sure if someone would just go to a library, or their grandmas house, they could colaborate w/ another pre 73' dic....Urgh!

flippant = word. cool, fine.
flippants = word. fuck no, totally uncool.

we know your pain though benjamin. it's ok buddy, your misery will be ended shortly enough with the release of the official lyrics undoubtedly looming.

as for using a dictionary from the 70's, we all know what good came from that decade and it sure as hell wasn't new words!

turning an adjective into a noun (and pluralizing it) might be cool in slang-lang, but this is the really real world.
no such flippants.

and besides, have you listened all that closely? it sure as hell aint flippants, even if that is a word.

amen benj, the first coherant / listenable things you've said here.
you didn't even make up any words this time.

well.... thats all i got.

The point would be, not that they made it up then, but that they finally stopped putting it in then. Duh! ...I am not miserible.?*!

OMFG you guys love each other... im jealous...

surely we love you too

Te burden would be tossed upon the "non believers" because they are the ones being proved wrong. The burden is on them because they didn't believe.

In a sense, the believers are tossing the burden on top of the non believers, proving them wrong that what Maynard was implying could and did actually happen.

I hope you weren't found guilty :) Or maybe you're a lawyer?

The term also gets some use in academic philosophy, although the equivalent term "onus" is often used instead. The term can be applied wherever there is disagreement over some issue, and is used to show who is under the greater obligation to provide evidence in support of their view.

In a court of law there is no disagreement over who is under the greater obligation. The defendant is innocent until proven guilty, so the burden of proof is on the prosecution to make their case. So in this context there is an objective sense of where the burden actually lies.
In the quote below you have taken the "burden of proof" to be upon the believers in this kind of objective sense.

Yet in philosophical matters it is usually used in a more subjective sense, where the tossing of this burden/onus/responsibility represents a position that is being taken by a particular person. This is because there is often disagreement not just over the issue at hand, but also over who is under the greater obligation to prove their case.
Philosopher A might say to philosopher B: "The vast majority of people agree with me in believing that we have Free Will, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that we don't." And Philosopher might respond: "But the vast majority of those who have studied the matter in depth have reached the same conclusion as me, so I am tossing the burden back on you to show how Free Will is possible."

With respect to the lyric in this song, I am quite sure that the lyric is not expressing who has the burden in any objective sense, but is rather expressing the position or attitude being taken by some particular person (either Maynard or Judith). A non-believer (like Maynard) would be one to toss the burden on the believers, demanding that they provide convincing proof of the existence of their God. Yet a believer (like Judith) would be likely to toss the burden on the non-believers, by feeling subjectively satisfied with their own reasons for believing, and requiring the non-believers to actually prove that there is no God before changing their views.

I can't believe how many people here manage to completely misunderstand what is really a pretty straightforward lyric, but hopefully this will help to clarify things.

How the hell anybody could think "Non-beleivers" makes sense is beyond me. How could he bet set in his ways and his arrogance if he had the burden of proving the existance of God?

I agree that it is "THE believers" (or possibly "ALL believers"). But see this post to see how "NON-believers" could make sense. It could be meant as:

"Set as I (Maynard) am in my ways and my arrogance, ...

By having tossed the burden of proof on the NON-believers, you (Judith) were my witness, eyes, and evidence."

I know you dont think that it is non-believers and your description is just an attempt at explanation, but I cant understand something about how it could be non-believers....

On the last sentence, in regards to the burden of proof, who is tossing it off? Is maynard tossing it off or is judith tossing it off? If judith is tossing it off, how could she be the witness, the eyes, the evidence? I guess I just cant get over the negative connotation of tossing something off. I just wouldnt say that a person that is tossing it off is my witness, eyes, evidence, unconditional...blah blah. I apologize, Im just getting hung up on the tossing of the burden and whether that is a good or bad thing. Does that make sense?

if you guys listen to any of the live versions of this song a lot of the lyrics are easier to figure out... he DEFINETLY says

"high is the way when our lies are upon the ground"
not "high as a wave"

Live versions are usually nothing more than collaborative evidence at best.

Way/wave arguement aside, it most def. is "...as a..." and not "...is the..." even more difinitively is "but" instead of 'when' ...imo...

Peace.

I've always heard

"High is the way but our eyes are upon the ground."

I dunno