Dude you're telling us everything we know, but you look at it all with a very closed mind. Music touches people because of the way they percieve it. I feel no good artist writes lyrics expecting the fans to percieve them the same way they were written. Music is ALL about what it means to you. If you are a gay man listening to 4 degrees and it takes you to that place of whatever gay men do than in retrospect that is EXACTLY what the song is about. You need to think outside your paradigm.

"I can't remember what they said to me....Can't remember what they said to make me out to be a hero"

Seems like there would be a lot of weight put on ones shoulders ...... say that someone sang for a rock band.....One day, fans got the impression that this singer held all the answers to thier troubles...... until he told them that he "Didn't know ... Won't know".... he's only a TOOL for you to find your own answers .....yada, yada, yada.
To think, all "because a little bug went ka-choo!":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLvN78z3Vro

*yawn*

1 meaning

you want to think a song is about anal sex or drugs. good for you. if it makes you happy... congratulations. be wrong, be happy. i'm happy for you. that's not the point. try reading the thread in its entriety before clogging the thread. if you did read the thread and still posted that... well, you're just an idiot then.

sounds about right- though I think he says "made me out to be a hero"

but as far as the meaning... that's pretty close to my original post.

.

Listen how the tone changes in his voice after "for all the world to see."

that change in tone signifies how he switches from him talking, to then the "typical idiot fan."

and the sarcasm/condescension is in full force when he says "typical...."

i think it's just the guy being frustrated with his own stupidity. he knows he's just a regular fool placed in the position of being the messenger with the ultimate message. i feel it's purely a first person narrative, because i really don't think maynard would just BLAST the great majority of his fans like that. i'll agree with you that he does think some of his fans are idiots (because they are) but it just doesn't make sense that he'd interrupt an eleven minute long first person narrative with four lines of his own bit of "wisdom" just to say that. he changes accents a LOT (distorted mumbling, screaming, singing) during the song, but it's always the same person talking, at least how i see it.

the song is more about "typical idiots" in general than "typical idiot tool fans" :) if there's any "fans" he's talking shit about, it's greatful dead fans haha.

plus do you really think he'd open up every single show on the tour with this song if it was just a big insult to all his fans?

I feel he does think the "majority" of his fans are idiots. A good representation would be the sample on this website or even on this thread. I'd say maybe 2 or 3 out of every 10 people on here actually have a decent understanding, which means at least 70% are just clueless.

So yeah, I dont think he'd have any problem opening up the show with this song at all. In fact, that's probably WHY he does it. I dont think it's so much to "insult" everyone... because 99% of the people don't get what the song is about anyhow.

But as for how you don't think he'd more or less "insult" people/fans... Stinkist and Vicarious are both slaps in the face of humanity... and for good reason. So how really "insulting" can it be when it's totally legitimate and accurate.

He knows that some people understand what he's/they're conveying. But he also understands the people that do get it are the vast minority.

He goes in and out of past or present tense.. changes narration on the fly in a moments notice. Just like as I said before in Jimmy. Also pops into my head how he does it in Wings for Marie part 1... song starts out past tense, "you believed in me.." then basically flips it to present tense when he asks his mother, "What am I to say to all these ghouls tonight?"

Post is sort of all over the place, but the point is.. I don't think it's any stretch at all that he'd switch gears mid-song at all.


I also dont think he'd make an 11 minute song in the middle of the disk about............. about.....

can't forget about aenima as a direct slap in the face either. and i'm not disagreeing that he would "switch gears" as he does in other songs. i just don't think he does in this particular song. in "wings" he's talking about a whole lifetime with his mother, so it makes sense that he would switch from past to present tense.

but the other songs that are slaps in the face (aenima/LA, vicarious/american society) are more general, and make sense. but from your interpretation of rosetta, he's saying that EVERY SINGLE one of his fans (except you, it would seem) are idiots. if he truly felt that he would have stopped making music a long time ago i think, or would have simply titled the cd "i heart threedeviations."

but seriously, how can he switch gears at the moment you say he does?

"write it down for all the world to see"
switches gears (???)
"but i forgot my pen"

how can maynard be the one to "write it down" but then have the protagonist be the one who "forgot his pen?" makes no sense to me.

yeah, I didn't mention Ænema because that's directed more towards Los Angeles than everyone.

I'm not saying he thinks "every single one of his fans" are idiots... but he also can't write in a fashion that says "okay, for 20% of you who do get this, nevermind this part." He's generally speaking... because generally, most people are idiots.

Maybe just titled it "threedeviations"... leave off the "I heart" part. Sounds good.

How can he switch gears at that particular moment?
I don't know what you're really asking... but, but the song's climax builds and builds... and goes into the "overwhelmed...."

I'm just saying, that's the main message... after "for all the world to see..."

so after he's spoken his mind, he volunteers what he's basically seen from people over the years.. which is people more or less saying, "but I forgot my pen"... Explaining that they would use his wisdom or advice... but they "can't remember what he said"... and they "forgot their pen" to write it down too...

which is "Typical....."

so they, "don't know, won't know"

anyhow, we'll probably just agree to disagree...

what i'm asking is how maynard himself can be the one "to write it down" when the protagonist (not maynard) is the one who "forgot his pen." i just don't see how you think it can be two different people saying these two lines. unless i've misunderstood you. the song is either maynard speaking as himself the whole time, or the ramblings of a hippie who took too much acid, got told the secret of the end of the world, and was too dumb to write it down. it's not both of them alternating though, it's definitely one single person's point of view. WHICH ONE is what i'm currently trying to figure out for myself, and probably never will.

or it could just be a guy who tripped his balls the fuck off and made this all up in his head. THAT'S the great mystery of this song in my opinion. even the protagonist tries to convince himself that it isn't real ("fuck me, it's gotta be, deadhead chemistry, blotter got right on top of me, got me seein e motherfuckin t")

i can see maynard talking shit on LA and on american society as a whole. but blatantly flaming basically his entire audience? no way. and don't say it's not insulting because "99% of them don't get it." that's no less a possibility than YOU not getting it.

I've already explained the "pen" part in the previous post.

The song isn't a mystery.

and, I do get it.

he's not going to write an entire song about some clown tripping his balls off as THEE MESSAGE. that's the bottom line.. especially not when he dedicates 11 minutes + to it.

The great mystery? all the other stuff is secondary... he wants to shed some light on area 51, aliens.. abduction... and obviously talks about the lsd issue as well... I think basically mocking how people abuse it or don't really use it for the "right" reason.. ( if there is a "right" reason at all. I personally don't think so.)

So although he does want to talk about the aliens and lsd... he just uses that as a medium to surround and disguise the real meaning. It's really not so cloaked at all... as the climax of the song says it all... why else does it sound totally different than the rest of the song?

but if Maynard mentions drugs.. or hints at anything sexual... people go into a frenzy. He knew all the addicts would froth over this song and title.

i think you just hate tool fans a lot haha.

the title ties into it perfectly though i think. the rosetta stone (and correct me if i'm wrong history buffs because it's been ages since high school history class) was a completely random discovery that enabled modern people to translate ancient texts or something like that. the guy in the song completely randomly gets shown some serious shit, but whats more like a stoner than forgetting your pen? (speaking of high school history class.....)

and the whole song sounds different than the rest of the song, you know? time signatures change, maynards voice changes a ton, (not just in the part you're referrring to) there's a completely new guitar riff out of nowhere ten minutes into the track etc etc etc. to say that that one particular spot is the ONLY place where things change (i.e. all of a sudden maynard himself interrupts the narrative) isn't right. if things changed EVERY time maynard changed his voice (well actually i think they do but not in the same way you do), then i might be more inclined to follow your opinion.

seriously though you need to give more tool fans a little bit more credit.

yikes i've argued this to death and i only came here to fill in some blanks on the lyrics of the very song we are discussing.

agree to disagree :)

ha, yeah.. we'll agree to disagree.. I can appreciate where you're coming from-

As far as giving Tool fans more credit. Not likely. I've been to too many shows and read too many of their posts.

I said, 20 or 30% have a clue... anything more than that would just be inaccurate.

Are you sure it can't be about a drug trip for the most part but the meaning/intention of the song was to say that drugs are a catalyst for the message and not the longterm way to acheive the message. Drugs can let you see enlightenment, if only for a moment, but they're not the path. You constantly 'forget your pen' becuase you're so wrapped up in the experience.

You've got to walk the path soberly - drugs just prove to you that the possibility exists and perhaps find the path. It's then up to you to find out how to get there without the tool.

And ultimately it may be an illustration of his disdain for people that think that because they found 'god' on acid or whatever drugs that they have the answers.

Like... people think that because they've witnessed the 'truth' that they are now somehow enlightened. Knowing enlightenment is there and possible to attain is very different than maintaining it after the chemical wears off.

He's trying, I believe, to tell those people that use drugs as their main source of spiritual connectedness that in most cases, you might think you're enlightened, but in the end you just forgot what was said and shit the bed. Wow... some kind of enlightenment. Your enlightenemnt ends when the chemical is used up. You don't know... and won't know... the truth. Because you rely on something external to bring you internal truth.

And FYI, this is not a jab at drugs. Drugs are awesome and fuck any close-minded twit that says otherwise. I don't care if your sister OD'd on meth... that's her fault for not being able to use that tool properly. Some people kill each other with cars because they use them irresponsibly (i.e. abuse them); should we criminalize cars?

AND "FYI"? Haha, from the person who says it's "all about how the individual interprets the song..." now you're going to give me a "FOR YOUR INFORMATION!?" That's actually fine you have an actual opinion.... I am glad you do... it's just sort of amusing and hypocritical.

You basically plagiarized Maynard's quote in your previous post too. Nice job.

"I think psychedelics play a major part in what we do, but having said that, I feel that if somebody's going to experiment with those things they really need to educate themselves about them. People just taking the chemicals and diving in without having any kind of preparation about what they're about to experience tend to have no frame of reference, so they're missing everything flying by and all these new perspectives. It's just a waste. They reach a little bit of spiritual enlightenment, but they end up going, 'Well, now I need that drug to get back there again.' The trick is to use the drugs once to get there, and maybe spend the next ten years trying to get back there without the drug." - Maynard


Drugs are baaaad... mmmmkay?

I would like to hear a personal story of yours when YOU used drugs as a "TOOL" and it brought about some gain or "enlightenment."

Something as practical as possible please.

Should we criminalize cars? You admit a car is a real thing now? Sweet.
Umm, no. We shouldn't criminalize cars. Just the people who are high driving the car.

I was 26, just moved in with some friends in a rather unremarkable town. One of them introduced me to Ayahuasca and DMT. Listening to Lateralus while on several trips of that brew as my ego was torn apart I really came to grasp the idea that all the preconceived notions I had about what was definite and right or wrong were simply subjective experiences. In a sea of infinite possibilites, how can one assert that they KNOW anything. All they can do is give the best subjective guess at the moment. DMT/Tool helped me to realize this.

I listened to Tool many times before (for years) but I guess I never really got what they were trying to say... or at any rate, what I think they're trying to say. Once the DMT tore down the walls of my ego, I was more clearly able to see what it meant to truly embrace infinite possibilities. To momentarily step outside of my constricted view of the reality around me and realize, ultimately, that my perception of reality is JUST that. Perception. And perception is subjective. So what is totally real/right to me may not be to another.

The FYI wasn't to assert that I'm pushing it on you, I was saying it so that you'd know, for your information, that I wasn't condemning drugs. Of course I have an opinion, I'm a subjective being, we all are. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. I'm not saying that opinions are bad. Quite frankly, in the subjective cause/effect universe we're in, everything is an opinion. It's not hypocritical. It would be hypocritical if I said my opinion was more valid than yours. Which is what I seem to keep hearing from your camp.

--- And in all actuality, if I was basically quoting Maynard about the use of drugs, it was sheer coincidence. I had never read that quote until you just posted it. But the sentiment is the same. So I think a responsible drug user should have that outlook. The fact that I said something that Maynard said (in so many words) just means we share that particular perception on the topic. Nothing too profound about that.

And yes, cars are as real as anything else. What that means however is totally up for subjective interpretation. Yours included.

WTF man. Who are you to say "most people are idiots"? I think Maynards talkin about judgemental assholes like yourself in alot of his music. *cough* Hooker With a Penis *cough* You really think you have it all figured out when in fact it's all how YOU'VE percieved it. I dunno why your mother never said "NO" to you as a child but it's unfortunately led to a closed minded selfish individual unable to cope with the fact that your ideas aren't the ONLY ideas. I'm pissed at myself now for trying to open doors to someone unwilling to open their eyes and look at things from a different perspective therefore i'm done.

It was stated at a listening party by Mr. Grey himself that this song WAS written about a friends LSD trip and he did in fact shit in his sleeping bag.

read the whole thread, genius.

thanks

I think your change was brought about by Lateralus, the CD, not DMT.
The music and lyrics were the drug.

Yeah, you had heard Undertow, Opiate, Ænima.... those cds are much more cynical than Lateralus. They really don't suggest "tearing down your ego." This cd just struck a chord, and you had an epiphany.

Why didn't you "change" when listening to the previous Tool cds when you were drugged up? You're going to say it was specifically "DMT?!"

Why do you think you wouldn't have changed without some drug altering your "perceived" reality?


The reality is, even if there is such thing as "responsible drug use" for those that somehow need it to understand their life or Tool.. or whateverthefuck....

The majority of Tool junkies aren't that-

I never did drugs (other than pot) until DMT and hence had never listened to the other albums on it. So the shift in perception I had was a direct result of both Lateralus and the DMT.

It's possible that without the drug I might have had the break
through. I certainly like to think I'd eventually start down the path with or without it. But the fact is that I did use it, it did catalyze the thoughts that lead to my shift, and hence, I take away from the experience the knowledge that it helped me.

I mean, I know it's kind of a bad analogy but it's the best I will take the time to come up with as I'm about to go to bed... Imagine you're drowning and someone jumps in and saves you... now you could argue that you might have figured out how to on your own and thereby not needed to be saved by that person, but the point is they were the tool that ended up helping you, regardless of what you *might* have done had they not been around.

And I'd been listening to Lateralus for three years before then, much more casually. If DMT in and of itself wasn't the catalyst for the shift then it was certainly the catalyst that helped me to find a life-changing message in Lateralus. All in all I don't regret doing it and occasionally still do partake of Ayahuasca. It's not a crutch. It's simply a tool.

I was just reading through a thread and came across member "FistFck..."
at the bottom of his/her posts, there's a quote from Maynard....

""Being a rock band that’s arguably offering up some more intelligent processes, we do often get A LOT of kids coming up who may not necessarily be the brightest bulbs in the box, who DON'T REALLY GET IT. But if it is to be about ‘hate songs’ well, good for them. Not what I INTENDED, but that’s cool.” mjk

Merely echos what I've been saying on this thread and site for a long time now...

Perhaps there was some incident that served as the catalyst or creative spark for the song. But that is a little different concept than what the song was "written about." This song has quite a bit of depth and mystery.

agreed.



though I still think you could come down of your holier-than-thou cloud and be slightly more personable



but hey --- progress is progress

I think this is where you say "BOOYAH!"

Well I am going to have to say that you are rather arrogant and presumptuous.

It isn't a mystery to you? You do get it?

YOU DON'T KNOW, AND YOU WON'T KNOW GENIUS; only a FEW people (the members of Tool, maybe a few others) Know the meaning of the song, and who it is about.

So any opinion you (or anyone) can come up with about the song is purely speculation, unless you hear it from the horses mouth.

I do agree with you that there is "one" meaning to the song; however Maynard's lyrics are FULL of figurative language, making it very very difficult to extrapolate the true meaning. If he wanted us to know exactly what he was trying to say, he wouldn't express himself in such a figurative manner.. I do believe also that Tool intends the music/lyrics to be interpreted in any manner; as long as it is positive.

So just like it says at the end of the song, you don't know what it means, and you won't know what it means. You may come up with your own opinion, but there is only one way to validate it. If you are good friends with any of the band members, then please excuse my previous comments about being arrogant or presumptuous.

I excuse you.

and try reading the entire thread before saying silly stuff.

Is this an opinion page?

yup, I'm arrogant and presumptious.

yup, he writes "figuratively," and cleverly, metaphors.. all that. I gave my opinion on what the song is about. I know, it's an outrage. The arrogance. The audacity...

You say "if he wanted us to know he wouldn't express himself in such a figurative manner." Please refrain from making any assumptions about Maynard or how he writes.... afterall, it's not like you're on some opinion page. Thanks

You are correct. I should not assume anything about Maynard. I know I made a jab at you, but I don't want a battle. I kinda felt like you were being a little, ostentatious, and wanted to bring it to your attention.. Sorry. I am kinda getting the vibe that you are the kind of Tool fan that assumes most other Tool fans are not worthy, or oblivious to the fact that the music contains depth. Even the most ignorant, unintelligent fool could come to some dim-witted conclusion of what a Tool song means, and still be as close as any of us. For all I know, any opinion I have is far from the truth. I pride myself in being open minded, thinking outside the box, and being able to admit my own faults. When disecting a Tool song, it seems there are infinite possibilities.....

It just seems that IF someone were to figure out what Maynard REALLY means, we could debate and scrutinize that opinion until the cows come home; still not knowing if we are right. Obviously this forum is here for discussion, but why not keep it on a positive note?

Yes this is an opinion page, and we are all entitled to an opinion; however I felt by you saying "It's not a mystery" and "I do get it" you were assuming you knew the true meaning of the song. My bad if my assumption was incorrect, but that was quite a bold statement you made.

So my OPINION of the song, is that the true meaning will never be revealed [don't know, won't know].

I dont think the "don't know, won't know" is referring to the song's meaning.. if that's what you're saying.

I don't want a battle either.

however

I do feel most Tool fans "don't get it." That's just how I feel. Even Maynard himself acknowledges that. If that makes me arrogant and rude... so be it. Does that mean Maynard is arrogant and rude too? My threads don't start out sarcastic and arrogant. It's having to defend my position.. and then having to reply to hundreds of tools who say I can't have an opinion with conviction or there's no real meaning... blah blah.

you say, "Even the most ignorant, unintelligent fool could come to some dim-witted conclusion of what a Tool song means, and still be as close as any of us."

That's where I disagree with you.

""Being a rock band that’s arguably offering up some more intelligent processes, we do often get A LOT of kids coming up who may not necessarily be the brightest bulbs in the box, who DON'T REALLY GET IT. But if it is to be about ‘hate songs’ well, good for them. Not what I INTENDED, but that’s cool.” mjk

Sometimes opinions are more than just opinions.

Because I think the songs have 1 intended meaning, it doesn't mean I am close-minded.

Because some people think there's not one real meaning.. that doesn't mean they're open-minded.

i think you're taking maynard's quote out of context. in that quote it sounds to me like he's referring to the people who think his music is "angry" or "hateful" just because it has heavy guitars and screaming and shit, therefore overlooking the whole aspect that there is an actual deep meaning of the lyrics. how i see it, the ones who "don't really get it" are the ones who mosh at tool shows (and elbow me in the face when i'm trying to listen) and could care less about the meaning of the song. you make it sound like the people who "don't really get it" are simply the ones that "misinterpret" his lyrics. plus, adding emphasis (ie CAPS) that wasn't originally there further puts the quote out of context.

"but i forgot my pen"

Oh, when Maynard spoke those words, the words didn't come out in caps?

I think he's saying generally, people miss the boat... ESPECIALLY the morons who think their songs are about hate. He says "a lot" of kids coming up to them who "don't get it." I don't think they're all thinking "hate" in regard to these "intelligent processes." They just dont get it in general. Not because they all think their songs are about hate. Hell, even I'll give most "Tool fans" the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But I agree with your moshing thing... very frustrating and pathetic.

In regard to your thinking he's saying the ones that "don't get it" are the ones moshing. He says they get a lot "coming up" who may not be the brightest bulbs ... so I don't think he's referring to the kiddies in the mosh pit.

and these tools who mosh at show... COULDN'T care less. Think about it.

(now I suppose this is going to open a new can of worms about all the toolsheds who think moshing is the right thing to do... or "okay" to do at a show)

Let me guess, "if that's the way they want to express themselves.. then they're allowed."

Yeah, okay. As long as you realize you don't get it.

ThreeDeviations,
I notice your profile lists you as a teacher, and I'm really hoping you're a math teacher, and not an English/Literature teacher. Your whole point seems to be that there is only one correct meaning and that this one meaning is the intent behind Maynard's writing/singing of the lyrics. Yet, even in authorial intentionality (and never mind New criticism, deconstruction, post-, etc. just yet), multiple meanings are valued and respected provided their aim is to deduce intent and the means employed violate no normally assumed interpretive methodology. So, since Maynard offers no direct explanation of his intention in the song, a number of divergent theories are entirely acceptable, especially those that draw from his past work and biography. You've got, from what I see, a valid beginning of an interpretation, and you've locked it into nomonology already, before it's even been fleshed out.

This is not about your being or not being arrogant. I teach, and I'm an arrogant prick. However, I also make sure and research, understand and acknowledge different approaches and interpretations to everything I teach--otherwise, my confidence comes from having the answer key and not from having grasped the field I'm teaching.

Other than that, I'll just ask whether the track that follows Rosetta tells you anything about THE answer. Since it's entitled "Intension"--pointedly not "IntenTion"--no one is really off-track in exploring all possible meanings for the song (even from an approach of intentionality, provided their goal is to deduce what he's saying), and at least one possibility suggested is that Maynard is opening the album up to response-criticism as a valid approach.

Actually, he has a good point.

EDIT: I meant the guy who you are responding to. Not you. You have no good points.

wearethestories,
Great tie-in, and you may be on to something. (By the way, if you go back to the Mahound section and read not just Mahound traveling up to Mount Cone but Gibreel Farishta playing Mahound going up to Mount Cone to talk to the angel Gibreel that Gibreel Farishta is also playing and apply what you get out of that to the whole novel, it really intensifies the whole novel's sense of being broken down in terms of what's believable.) Of course, I can also think of another "prophet" who wandered out into the wilderness and "forgot [his] pen": What's worse is that this prophet apparently never could find his pen, so he just told people his stories; then they wrote them down. Who knows how distorted the message has become since then?

I'm not great with algebra.

Let me ask you, are some students smarter than others? Or are all perspectives and opinions equally valid? Some opinions deserve more respect than others.

I do believe there is 1 intended meaning by Maynard.

There's motivation and reasoning behind the things we do. Would you sit down and write a song about... nothing? What do you do in your life where "nothing" is your ultimate goal? Probably not much. You think Maynard would write a song vaguely and scrabbled enough that it means everything, and yet absolutely nothing to everybody... merely to placate people who think he writes without intention and intension?

The man has arrogance, the man has conviction, the man is brilliant. I promise you he's not going to write a song without a hopeful outcome. Can you miss the meaning, and still reach a positive outcome? Probably. (unless you're one of the people who mosh at the show)

If multiple opinions other than mine don't deduce a damn thing they're not meaningful to me.

Sure, different opinions or "meanings" than mine are fine if they mean something to a particular person. I just think they're misinterpreting the song. But if their take makes them happy... then fine, whatever. No harm no foul. But I believe there is 1 meaning, and one right way to analyze and absorb the song in your mind.

When Maynard sings the songs, he sings it with the same passion that drove him to write it in the first place..
When Maynard sings the songs, he sings it with the same passion that drove him to write it in the first place..

He knows what he's singing about. The song isn't an abstract painting. It's not really as subjective as nearly everyone wants it to be.

You think I have a valid beginning to an interpretation... I don't think there's more to it than what I've said. . or what he says in the song's climax. I think he mentions the drugs and aliens for a couple of reasons. He really does want to shed some light on those couple of things.. and secondly, it's good cover for what he's really saying.


The follow up track only supports what I'm saying. (if it has a connection) Intension is synonomous with intensity. So some guy is arrogant, brilliant, caring, and intense.... but he's going to write songs without a real meaning. k

Maybe he did write it with one meaning. I've got a couple interpretations that seem valid to me... I don't know Maynard personally, so I don't know if my intermretations were the meaning that he had when he wrote it. So maybe I'm right and you're wrong? I dunno, but I don't assert that I am somehow more qualified to define Maynard's thoughts than other Tool-listeners. I agree, a lot (or most) Tool fans don't 'get it' (whatever that means to the individual) but the ones that do and pay attention to meanings and patterns... they're just as likely to be right as you are.

So I think basically that so many people are speaking out against the *way* you stated your opinion - as in that it was a fact. Not once in this entire time have you said something to the effect of "I think this is what Maynard means, but I could be wrong" or even alluded to your own fallibility on the subject. You act as though not only is it your interpretation but that anyone that has a different one is *wrong* - well 'wrong' is an absolute and unless you have a litmus test (i.e. Maynard posting on here as to the original meaning) then who are any of us to dictate which one he meant and who is wrong?

So maybe there's one meaning. You've got no better chance at pegging it than any other 'learned' Tool listener. I think we're just trying to say be a little more openminded in the way you present your opinions. If it's an opinion don't state it in the form of a fact. And don't be surprised when you *do* state your opinions in the form of facts that people give you flak for it. Remember where you are. Theoretically we're here because of our open-mindedness. (or at least the attempt of it)

All that aside, I don't think Intension has anything to do with Rosetta Stoned. I'm thinking it's meant as the setup for Right In Two both musically and in meaning. "Intension" referring to the tension that is innately a part of our race. Just a play on words to say that there is a struggle and a 'tension' between and entwined into our thought processes about our dealings with one another.