Why Democracy and Lyrics?

To say that painting, poetry and music are all forms art is not incorrect, although I think this unification overshadows important and fundamental distinctions within art and ultimatly the human character. There is a natural tendency to fortify psychological manifolds such that a person can be more logical and mathematical, or more artistic and creative. These classifications blur when great logical insight requires immense creativity.

An interesting observation, or postulate is that maybe there is an essential difference between the art of music and poetry. For me the art of poetry is an perspective of the world from the eyes of this ancient Platonic belief that with knowledge and reasoning as our luminous guides manking can not only know existance, but also correct it. It is a pure manifestation of the will and ego, glowing with the conviction that this will and ego are the creators of our world. Poetry attains beauty like a warrior, by shear force no matter how subtle or disguised. And this beauty belongs to mankind, becoming his virtue, his noble frontier. For this warrior, his primary weapon is his passion, a passion elevated beyond any imaginable limits reaching a pinnacle of its endeavor when one is willing to die for it. Hence the image of the dying Socrates is rendered onto the pillar of science and the blissful belief in this will, ego and the impending intellect. Next arrives great suffering. For what greatness can be achieved without suffering?

The art of music, or at least what it should be is all together different. I can imagine a music whose most precious magic would consist in its no longer knowing anything of good and evil, only now and then some nostalgia, some golden shadows and delicate weaknesses would pass over it - a music that from a great distance would behold, fleeing toward it, the colors of a world that has almost become unitelligible. A music that is constantly arriving and constantly receding, but always fading deeper into blissful intoxication. Can you imagine?

But you avoid this pathological estrangement into solitude, and perhaps without knowing, you fear this solitude, you despise it. For you it is an ultimate surrender, a weakness. It signifies letting go of one’s will and therefore one’s single claim to power. But isn’t all existence a will for power? So you would ask.

Herein comes democracy. What a beautiful veil. For surely you of all people, you don’t truly believe that everyone is created equal or ever becomes equal, or has equal potential. Instead, in a breathtaking contrast, you bifurcate this world into masters and slaves. These slaves are those whom life offers nothing but their innocence, this innocence for which they journey all their lives, through suffering and self mutilations. They are the devout Christians, those whose greatest pride becomes self-denial, those who learn to love manking for the sake of their master. They are the beholders of good and evil, of heaven and hell. Their entire mentality emanates from the conviction that their existence is a means for their master. Though, underneath this holy fable and disguiese lies the most painful case of martyrdom. It is the martyrdom of knowledge about love, the innocent, a desirous heart, demanding love, to be loved and nothing else, with insanity.

You off course, are a master, living in a place beyond good and evil. What you behold is perhaps the greatest orchestration of the belief in masters and slaves - democracy. What beautiful, and poetic illusion is this principle of equality of rights, of freedom, of self government. What better lie to offer a slave than the idea that he is at last his own master? And so this illusion becomes the most powerful narcotic that with every facet of its idealogy shouts the final victory of master over the slave.

You are as much a master as your are a Socratic warrior, armed with knowledge and democracy. You seek, together with the conviction that you can and should, to conquer the world. You see the same sublime design in the verses of a poem as you do in the constitution of a government. What can be admired more? Than Napoleon? Than Alexander the Great? Than Einstein? And ultimatly the victory of mankind over nature?

You are a fearless psychologist, an inevitable unriddler of souls. Fearless because you do not suffocate from pity - for the corruption, the ruination of the higher men, of the souls of a stranger type, is the undeniable rule. The discovery of this eternal hopelessness of the higher man - you stare directly in the eye. You see a conquest and you see a victory.

Yet after all, nothing is clear, for if we become the thinkers in whom all stars move in cyclic orbits we cease being the most profound, the most free. We must look into ourselves as into vast space and see the galaxies, and know how uncertain they are, how they lead into the chaos of existence.

Leo G - Supersonic Released on DeepBlue

The track ‘Supersonic’ was released, under my Leo G moniker, on DeepBlue records. The official release date was August 7th, 2006; the track was originally signed in October of 2005, along with 2000 Years of Solitude, which is scheduled for release next. Supersonic was release as both a 12” vinyl and a CD. The B-side of the vinyl features the Martin Roth remix. The CD also has an ambient remix of ‘Supersonic’ that I did just prior to release. 2000 Years of Solitude will also be released under the Leo G moniker. I don’t yet know who will be the remixer. Knowing Rich Mowatt from Solar Stone (DeepBlue founders) I will be doing an ambient remix of 2000 Years of Solitude as well.

The original version of ‘Supersonic’ is definatly progressive trance. It is progressive in the sense that there is no sudden esclation or release. Instead, the atmosphere emerges slowly throughout the entire track, cascading to a climax towards the end and then fading away. The atmosphere hinges upon the use of overdriven pads and strings. I did a lot of experimentation of overdrive, using both structured and unstructured amplification algorithms. The chords and arrangements are partially unstructured and unpredictable, yet still designed to carry the main theme. ‘Supersonic’, like most of my tracks, was written to convey a particular state of mind. It is not so much an emotion, or a concrete idea, but instead it is solely a representation of a trance. It conveys freedom and beauty in purely musical symbols and in a sense exemplifying the notion of music existing as its own concept, without implied relation to ideas that can be easily expressed with words.

The Martin Roth remix of “Supersonic” is a harder, more club/dance oriented version of the original, featuring a new central theme. This version is less progressive and more fit to the style of Armin van Buuren’s “A State of Trance”. Martin Roth overlays the atmosphere of the original over a very well programmed bassline and synths. This version will be more the more popular one.

I also did an ambient/chillout version of “Supersonic” sticking closely to the concept of the original. This mix carries a lot of tension, which does not neccesarily make it the best chillout track. I use the same overdrive pads from the original and add a lot of background strings, pads and effects achieved in various ways. I change the piano sections slighting and leave the main string arrangement. I aslo implement a new string section, backed by cut-out piano chords, which was written to fit with the ambience of the reas of the track. Rich seems to really like this remix.

The next track up for release on DeepBlue is “2000 Years of Solitude” which has a far more epic trance feel. Sweeping pads, dramatic chords, cascading pianos, gated choirs, etc. This track is less subtle than “Supersonic” yet still bears the natural and organic production style. I always try to stay away from producing trance that underlines that fact that it was made using digital equipment.

The Axiom of Choice - Part 1

One of the most surprising and astonishing axioms in mathematics, simply by the means of its assertion is the axiom of choice. Its assertion is extremely elementary, and yet this is precise fact, this nature of it portrays deep profound properties of thought, mathematical thought in particular. It has many formulations. One of them basically states that given a collection, or a set of non-empty sets, it is possible to choose one element from every one of those sets, in this way forming a set which has one element in common with every set in this set of sets. The sets in the set of sets, can be sets of anything, other sets or numbers (which are sets as well), etc. At this point the statement of the axiom seems empty, its truth being soo implicit. After all, if you have a collection of sets, which have say at least one number in them, it seems obvious that you can choose an element from the first set, then the second, and so on. Every set in this collection of sets is non-empty by assumption and so has at least one element, which we can choose. So what wrong? One inconsistency in the former logic was the use of the word ‘first’. This word, albeit invisibly, implies a great deal. Namely, it implies that one has determined an ordering on the set of things from which one chooses a first element. For otherwise, ‘first’ has no meaning. What does ‘first’ mean? That there is nothing before that first element? Then what does ‘before’ mean? To define these terms would be to define an ordering on the set, or essentially a set of rules which define a first element, and the next, etc. So that can be very simply. Lets say for instance we are talking about a set of apples. I can throw these apples on the ground, and then I can specifically define the first element to be the one closest to me in distance, the second element is closes to me in distance if the first were removed and so on. Then in this way I have an ordering and so I can take the first set and choose an element, which must be possible since its non-empty. Here I do not specify the ordinal position of the element I am choosing, simply that I am choosing an element and so the discussion of ordering does not apply here. What is wrong here? The next inconsistency arises when we speak about sets which have an infinite number of elements. More specifically, sets, the elements of which cannot be counted or basically aligned with any number. More in part two…

Walt Whitman

…read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life…and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body…

Walt Whitman

…read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life…and your very flesh shall be a great poem and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body…