Culture?

[dancingbear]

Maybe the people "grasping for dear life" dont lack a personal identity but have the 'scene' as part of their identity. this is not a bad thing. at different points in my life, being a dead/phish head was one of my main defining characteristics, however please take that as a whole (eg. willing to drive 36 hours to show, wants to meet crazy, kind and all types of people, open-minded etc). People grasp often for what they love. the effort alone could be seen as an extension of a foundation, as easily as it can be looked at as a leap from shaky ground.

anyhow i dont even know if i made any sense.

i agree a lot with what stonemountain said. makes me wonder if im getting old too. nahhhh!

as for the dancing. i too dont think torontonians dont dance becasue they see 'bigger' shows. most people here probably have seen big shows and still dance. i think its the pollution.

[bokonon]

What do I identify with? Hmmmmm....let's see. I dress like a mod, listen to heavy metal, eat like a hippie and dance like a rabid chinchilla. I'm just confused and attracted to the pretty colours I think. I don't know, I don't really think about my motivations for doing something that is intrinsically enjoyable. Why do you like the first warm day of spring? Shows are hugs for my ears.

[edger]

Sure some of you have said what you like about the scene, but what do we seem to IDENTIFY with? Anything? Nothing?

Definitely a loaded question. For me it is ever-changing, but I'd like to think that I getter a better sense of the "constants" as time goes on.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I'm stuck at the word "identify" - I don't think a fine point can ever be put on that word.

That's probably a ridiculous comment, but I'm tired, and I stand by it (or lean on it).

[paisley]

I was watching an anthropology show on early humans and it brought up this big beautiful cave in France where they were suprised to find out that people used to congregate at from all over Europe, Africa and Asia annually

the suprise part was that this was in a period when people were supposed to be not really communicating at any advanced level and sticking to their isolated little hunter/gatherer clans

the relative part is besides trading some ideas and goods, it seems they were mainly there to "dance, drum and party" for about a week straight... traces of very old mushrooms, weed and other intoxicants amongst the stone tools and clothing... the host of the show said that maybe the biological explanation was to spread out the gene pool... I think they did it because thats what people like to do

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Agreed - I think it's pretty primordial. I'm looking forward to reading Barbara Ehrenreich's Dancing in the Streets: a History of Collective Joy when I get a chance. She goes apparently into some depth of, among other things, how the ability to have good old-fashioned collective ecstatic fun has been persistently driven out of our culture over through modernity, and how we've all been domesticated and pacified as a result; it's then forced to squeeze through whatever cracks are left in civilised culture (tailgate parties, doing the wave in big stadiums, whatever it takes for people to move their bodies in tandem).

Apparently even Christmas used to be a helluva good party till recently, when we were all forced (however that works) indoors to sit under little trees opening presents with only close family at hand.

[d_rawk]

Shit yeah, Christmas was a helluva debauchirous event. Look at the old Christmas riots when the tradition moved its way onto this continent, for example ... the original justification for an organized police force, it got so out of hand. In fact the violence that sprang from the party is probably why it turned into the quiet, personal alone-with-my-family event that it is now. Just too much for most to handle.

[SteveThe Owl]

I'm looking forward to reading Barbara Ehrenreich's Dancing in the Streets: a History of Collective Joy when I get a chance.

I heard her interviewed on CBC's Sunday Edition last fall... she's apparently riled the religious right for suggesting that Christianity's rituals were at one time a little more, well, fun (to use Dr_Evil_Mouse's word, although I recall something about Christ eating and drinking with sinners, I wonder if we're missing something these days)... thanks for reminding me that this is a book I've been wanting to read.

As for the question at hand, I like living on the peripheries of this community where I can exchange ideas and experiences... the rest I just chalk up to being a fun-hog.

Edited March 20, 2007 by Guest
being a fun-hog...

[FunkyBeats]

You must be a lawyer... .

[SaggyBalls]

I'm ok d-rawk.

Glad to see y'all trying to figure out what the heck I mean or am getting at.

keep it comin'!

[phishin4groove]

leave it to beats to come up with such an anylitical approach to the understanding of "the scene"

dont think about it,,,,just be!

meaning, I dont know why I like the scene (music, like minded souls, drugs) it just feels right.

To seek out other individuals who also feel this connection with this "gypsy like" lifestyle also seems right...

Lest face it, who is sick ouf trying to explain the fasination of this type of music to the "non believers"?

[StoneMtn]

Well, actually, your comment tends to beg the question.

You refer to "like minded souls" and "drugs". If you read my comments, you'll see that those two factors play no part whatsoever in my decisions to see / listen to jammy music (or any music, actually).

[Davey Boy 2.0]

that's why you lawyers never really fit in to the scene, man

(totaly kidding there, pretty much)

[StoneMtn]

I like to think I don't "fit in" to any "scene".

[questcequecest?]

let your freak flag fly!

(just make sure you have permits and it conforms to local policy)

[phishin4groove]

Well, actually, your comment tends to beg the question.

You refer to "like minded souls" and "drugs". If you read my comments, you'll see that those two factors play no part whatsoever in my decisions to see / listen to jammy music (or any music, actually).

fair enough,,,but you are part of a minority in the scene if thats your view...

I was referring to the majority

[AdamH]

I don't fit into a scene period. Except the "go and see live music scene" which is just the combining of alot of other smaller scenes like "We love band xyz and go to every show" scene mixed with "I just broke up with my boyfriend and I want to see a rock show and suck some musician cock" scene and I need a hit...of anything" scene.

[Davey Boy 2.0]

hhmmm there seems to be a lot we don't know about you AdamH

[hamilton]

Well' date=' actually, your comment tends to beg the question.

You refer to "like minded souls" and "drugs". If you read my comments, you'll see that those two factors play no part whatsoever in my decisions to see / listen to jammy music (or any music, actually).[/quote']

fair enough,,,but you are part of a minority in the scene if thats your view...

I was referring to the majority

So... you're speaking for "the majority"?

[SaggyBalls]

Since when did your identity have ANYTHING to do with anybody else?

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

Because nothing can be identical with itself; that would be tautology.

[SaggyBalls]

identity is the fact of being who you are. True, it has roots in the latin word for 'same' - however, although I might have an affinity towards or identify with something you have an affinity towards or identify with that doesn't mean we share the same identity. We just would have something in common.

Mouse...I'm not suggesting that people are their identities. I'm saying that one person's identity should be truly autonomous and if it is not then there had better be some strong symbioses happening

And if you pay attention enough you'll know that I am very tautological - except right here.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I see what you're saying, in terms of shared preferences; I just don't see such a sharp distinction between identity/identification, sense of self, and those shared preferences. Who we are as subjects is shaped by how we perceive objects (including cultural objects), but how we recognise those objects and take them in depends on other people's subjectivity. In other words, we learn to like something because it's possible that other people might like it. If it's inconceivable that anyone could like something, then it's going to be completely off the radar. But even if what is liked is really weird, then you have the basis for a fetish or whatnot, and groups of like-minded people will find ways to find one another to enjoy it together. In a word, it's whatever works for the person to give them at least one good working centre (and we do have many in play at any time and through our lives).

After that, I think what we are is a temporary aggregate of tissues and biochemical and electrical currents that eventually disintegrates.

[phishin4groove]

Well' date=' actually, your comment tends to beg the question.

You refer to "like minded souls" and "drugs". If you read my comments, you'll see that those two factors play no part whatsoever in my decisions to see / listen to jammy music (or any music, actually).[/quote']

NO!!! I said I was "reffering" to the majority..

big difference...

And if you think the scene is not a bunch of like minded individuals, then you need to get off this board and actually experience the "scene"

fair enough,,,but you are part of a minority in the scene if thats your view...

I was referring to the majority

So... you're speaking for "the majority"?

[Tricky]

I see what you're saying, in terms of shared preferences; I just don't see such a sharp distinction between identity/identification, sense of self, and those shared preferences. Who we are as subjects is shaped by how we perceive objects (including cultural objects), but how we recognise those objects and take them in depends on other people's subjectivity. In other words, we learn to like something because it's possible that other people might like it. If it's inconceivable that anyone could like something, then it's going to be completely off the radar. But even if what is liked is really weird, then you have the basis for a fetish or whatnot, and groups of like-minded people will find ways to find one another to enjoy it together. In a word, it's whatever works for the person to give them at least one good working centre (and we do have many in play at any time and through our lives).

After that, I think what we are is a temporary aggregate of tissues and biochemical and electrical currents that eventually disintegrates.

This is a very valid perception of reality that can be perceived by the human mind. Identity is formed by experiences accumulated on top of one another and a perception of those experiences shaped by the feelings of the previous experiences. The way we have utilized this basic function is mostly done with a complete lack of awareness towards it. Hence, we form the ego, and an idea of the self based upon chosen experiences and feelings in situations to which a lot more is or was going on. Seeing ourselves as tissues and biochemical and electrical currents that eventually disintegrate is a perception of an individuals reality of existence that applies to a set of rules formed by your mind and based on your knowledge. It seems fairly accurate to me, but I also have to take into account that most thoughts and perceptions related to the human mind is utterly limited to that scope of reality. We can only perceive 'reality' within a human framework, and there happens to be far more going on in this infinite expanding universe that we could ever, ever have knowledge of. So when we do form an opinion or thought of 'how things are' or 'how things should be' we lose sight of what is actually going on...and that is, we don't have a fucking clue.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Guest