Love this joint.

I LOVE this track! I never get tired of it! I do, however, care what Albert Einstein did. The pyramids are interesting, but Albert Einstein's discoveries are truly mind-blowing. So I don't know who the "we" is in "we don't care what Albert Einstein did," but that "we" doesn't include "me."

---

Prince should start hanging out with Neil Degrasse Tyson - astronomy soul-brother number one!!!

crap track.....

^ what part of 2045 Radical Man" Appreciation Thread don't you get.

^ I just agree with Kingsausage..... awful song...

KingSausage said:

I've always hated this song. It's dull funk. Contrived lyrics. More complaining about the music industry from Prince. The time between Emancipatiok and TRC was a dark time for Prince's music, for the most part.

I did not even bother to convert the file back then, meaning it's lost for me, now..

No harm though.

TheBoneRanger said:

I LOVE this track! I never get tired of it! I do, however, care what Albert Einstein did. The pyramids are interesting, but Albert Einstein's discoveries are truly mind-blowing. So I don't know who the "we" is in "we don't care what Albert Einstein did," but that "we" doesn't include "me."

---

Prince should start hanging out with Neil Degrasse Tyson - astronomy soul-brother number one!!!

*

Like you, I love this track! But, also, I teach two Neil deGrasse Tyson essays in my literature of science class, and that doesn't stop me from understanding that Prince's line is a metaphor asserting that people should pay as much attention to the combination of the physical and metaphysical or the combination of science and spirituality, which is what the pyramids symbolized to the ancient Egyptians, as people pay to "pure" science that is devoid of metaphysical/spiritual inquiry. In fact, as much as I love Tyson, I've even written an article challenging Tyson for his myopic lecture/attack on Newton, when he stated that Newton's belief in a god limited his findings. To which, my response is: Newton created calculous while studying the Bible; when Tyson creates something equal to calculous, I've give his position on Newton more consideration. Additionally, even Einstein, who has been erroneously called an atheist, stated that he believed in "some type" of higher power or designer of the universe. In fact, Einstein's response to the irregular aspects of quantum physics is that "God doesn't play dice with the world." So, again, the "we" in "2045 Radical Man" seems to include those who see metaphysical/spiritual exploration as important as scientific exploration for even Einstein stated that religion should be an umbrella to science, posing the question: Just because man "can" do something "should" he?

KingSausage said:

I think you're too smart for Prince.org. Sorry, everyone else (including me)!

*

I've read a few of your zingers and come-backs. Your mind is just as sharp as any.

fusk said:

phew, ok... i just looked up the lyrics, and the context makes it clear that he's talking about how great the pyramids are.

I still have issues with 'we don't care what Albert Einstein did', though. You should care, that guy really did have a huuuuuuge impact on modern science. When Isaac Newton published his stuff, not only was it a huge advance in mechanics, but there were huge advances in other areas of physics from people who were just trying to copy Newton as closely as possible. It's the same story with Einstein - his theory was insanely progressive, and on top of that, even the people who just copied his style got amazing results.

maybe he's referring to the mathematical principles (Pi, golden ratio, etc.) that were discovered...or used, to build the pyramids, as being the building blocks (no pun intended) upon which the likes of Einstein, Newton, etc. built their knowledge to become who they did, i.e., without the pyramids, there would be no Einstein. Just a thought.

1725topp said:

TheBoneRanger said:

I LOVE this track! I never get tired of it! I do, however, care what Albert Einstein did. The pyramids are interesting, but Albert Einstein's discoveries are truly mind-blowing. So I don't know who the "we" is in "we don't care what Albert Einstein did," but that "we" doesn't include "me."

---

Prince should start hanging out with Neil Degrasse Tyson - astronomy soul-brother number one!!!

*

Like you, I love this track! But, also, I teach two Neil deGrasse Tyson essays in my literature of science class, and that doesn't stop me from understanding that Prince's line is a metaphor asserting that people should pay as much attention to the combination of the physical and metaphysical or the combination of science and spirituality, which is what the pyramids symbolized to the ancient Egyptians, as people pay to "pure" science that is devoid of metaphysical/spiritual inquiry. In fact, as much as I love Tyson, I've even written an article challenging Tyson for his myopic lecture/attack on Newton, when he stated that Newton's belief in a god limited his findings. To which, my response is: Newton created calculous while studying the Bible; when Tyson creates something equal to calculous, I've give his position on Newton more consideration. Additionally, even Einstein, who has been erroneously called an atheist, stated that he believed in "some type" of higher power or designer of the universe. In fact, Einstein's response to the irregular aspects of quantum physics is that "God doesn't play dice with the world." So, again, the "we" in "2045 Radical Man" seems to include those who see metaphysical/spiritual exploration as important as scientific exploration for even Einstein stated that religion should be an umbrella to science, posing the question: Just because man "can" do something "should" he?

I dont think Tyson has to be an intellectual par to Newton to be correct here. I think his point was that his genius would have taken him even farther scientifically if his belief system had not taken a supreme being to be an answer to cosmological questions that were unresolved. Laplace was not an intellectual peer to Newton but solved something that he didn't because he didn't invoke a supreme being as the cause of something but sought to find the answer scientifically. What Einstein does with his "belief" is quite different ate least for the most part. He doesn't invoke a supreme being to answer anything really.. with the exception of his "God doesn't roll dice" statement, which as he later admits was perhaps his biggest theoretical error.

lezama said:

1725topp said:

*

Like you, I love this track! But, also, I teach two Neil deGrasse Tyson essays in my literature of science class, and that doesn't stop me from understanding that Prince's line is a metaphor asserting that people should pay as much attention to the combination of the physical and metaphysical or the combination of science and spirituality, which is what the pyramids symbolized to the ancient Egyptians, as people pay to "pure" science that is devoid of metaphysical/spiritual inquiry. In fact, as much as I love Tyson, I've even written an article challenging Tyson for his myopic lecture/attack on Newton, when he stated that Newton's belief in a god limited his findings. To which, my response is: Newton created calculous while studying the Bible; when Tyson creates something equal to calculous, I've give his position on Newton more consideration. Additionally, even Einstein, who has been erroneously called an atheist, stated that he believed in "some type" of higher power or designer of the universe. In fact, Einstein's response to the irregular aspects of quantum physics is that "God doesn't play dice with the world." So, again, the "we" in "2045 Radical Man" seems to include those who see metaphysical/spiritual exploration as important as scientific exploration for even Einstein stated that religion should be an umbrella to science, posing the question: Just because man "can" do something "should" he?

I dont think Tyson has to be an intellectual par to Newton to be correct here. I think his point was that his genius would have taken him even farther scientifically if his belief system had not taken a supreme being to be an answer to cosmological questions that were unresolved. Laplace was not an intellectual peer to Newton but solved something that he didn't because he didn't invoke a supreme being as the cause of something but sought to find the answer scientifically. What Einstein does with his "belief" is quite different ate least for the most part. He doesn't invoke a supreme being to answer anything really.. with the exception of his "God doesn't roll dice" statement, which as he later admits was perhaps his biggest theoretical error.

*

Yes, but the problem with Tyson's premise is that one person would be automatically concerned with one thing for the entirety of one's life. In fact, as you know, scientific discovery is one person going so far and then someone else taking it from there as in Newton taking Kepler's notions about gravity to the next level. Tyson makes the argument that Newton is stopped or hindered because he believed in a God that would answer all questions. Yet, if that was the case, why would Newton have even bothered to answer any questions? What Tyson finds so difficult to accept is that Newton, when being questioned by LaPlace for additional answers, had gotten to a place where his inquiry and research of the Bible was more important to him. Don't forget that it is because of Newton's research that we have the dating of Jesus' life, and it is from Newton that the notion of the wound-clock theory or a non-interventionist god becomes popular. Newton's belief in a god didn't limit or stop his critical thinking; it just shifted his critical thinking/research to a different focus. As such, essentially, Tyson is blaming Newton for everybody else not using their critical thinking skills. As my grandmother use to say: "One monkey shouldn't stop the show." Does not Newton have a right to focus his critical thinking skills on the things that most interest him? And, since Newton did train/mentor LaPlace, then Newton's critical thinking skills are still responsible for enabling LaPlace to make his discovery. I'm not saying that one should give Newton the credit for LaPlace's discovery, but Newton should certainly be the first person that LaPlace should thank for

is preparation.

*

Secondly, I never stated that Einstein "invoked a supreme being to answer all of life's questions," but that Einstein has been erroneously called an atheist. Yes, Einstein does make some concessions to quantum physics, but he never refuted his notion or statement that one cannot be knowledgeable of the perfectly ordered universe and not consider the probably of a higher being at work. And, when we combine that with the fact that Einstein states in an open letter that he wished that people would stop mis-quoting him to justify their own disbelief in God, it is clear that Einstein did accept the probability of some type of deity. So, to this end, Prince hanging out with Tyson would not really benefit Prince, per se, because Tyson, unlike Newton and Einstein, is not interested in the notion of how the physical and metaphysical/spiritual intersect to create a more holistic existence. And, to be clear, my point is not that Prince is right and Tyson is wrong but that Tyson's non-interest in the metaphysical/spiritual would add very little to Prince's writing because Prince is completely interested in the intersection of the physical and the metaphysical/spiritual.

1725topp said:

lezama said:

I dont think Tyson has to be an intellectual par to Newton to be correct here. I think his point was that his genius would have taken him even farther scientifically if his belief system had not taken a supreme being to be an answer to cosmological questions that were unresolved. Laplace was not an intellectual peer to Newton but solved something that he didn't because he didn't invoke a supreme being as the cause of something but sought to find the answer scientifically. What Einstein does with his "belief" is quite different ate least for the most part. He doesn't invoke a supreme being to answer anything really.. with the exception of his "God doesn't roll dice" statement, which as he later admits was perhaps his biggest theoretical error.

*

Yes, but the problem with Tyson's premise is that one person would be automatically concerned with one thing for the entirety of one's life. In fact, as you know, scientific discovery is one person going so far and then someone else taking it from there as in Newton taking Kepler's notions about gravity to the next level. Tyson makes the argument that Newton is stopped or hindered because he believed in a God that would answer all questions. Yet, if that was the case, why would Newton have even bothered to answer any questions? What Tyson finds so difficult to accept is that Newton, when being questioned by LaPlace for additional answers, had gotten to a place where his inquiry and research of the Bible was more important to him. Don't forget that it is because of Newton's research that we have the dating of Jesus' life, and it is from Newton that the notion of the wound-clock theory or a non-interventionist god becomes popular. Newton's belief in a god didn't limit or stop his critical thinking; it just shifted his critical thinking/research to a different focus. As such, essentially, Tyson is blaming Newton for everybody else not using their critical thinking skills. As my grandmother use to say: "One monkey shouldn't stop the show." Does not Newton have a right to focus his critical thinking skills on the things that most interest him? And, since Newton did train/mentor LaPlace, then Newton's critical thinking skills are still responsible for enabling LaPlace to make his discovery. I'm not saying that one should give Newton the credit for LaPlace's discovery, but Newton should certainly be the first person that LaPlace should thank for

is preparation.

*

Secondly, I never stated that Einstein "invoked a supreme being to answer all of life's questions," but that Einstein has been erroneously called an atheist. Yes, Einstein does make some concessions to quantum physics, but he never refuted his notion or statement that one cannot be knowledgeable of the perfectly ordered universe and not consider the probably of a higher being at work. And, when we combine that with the fact that Einstein states in an open letter that he wished that people would stop mis-quoting him to justify their own disbelief in God, it is clear that Einstein did accept the probability of some type of deity. So, to this end, Prince hanging out with Tyson would not really benefit Prince, per se, because Tyson, unlike Newton and Einstein, is not interested in the notion of how the physical and metaphysical/spiritual intersect to create a more holistic existence. And, to be clear, my point is not that Prince is right and Tyson is wrong but that Tyson's non-interest in the metaphysical/spiritual would add very little to Prince's writing because Prince is completely interested in the intersection of the physical and the metaphysical/spiritual.

I see. Ive not read the article where Tyson mentions this issue, so I can't comment on this issue regarding Newton. My impression is that I don't think any mention of this issue of Newtons beliefs was meant to diminish him in any way, but I would assume a random statement of "wow, what could have been!" which would be taken with a grain of salt. As we know, he's a smart guy, and Im sure he understands the context that Newton was living and working in.

Do people really believe Einstein was an athiest? Ive never heard that. Ive never had the impression he followed any traditional judeo-christian schools of thought though..

You're right about the Tyson/Prince issue. Tyson doesn't give much energy to spiritual things. Its not scientific enough for him. But that's definitely not to say that Prince couldn't benefit from learning about science. Too much of his conspiracy theory beliefs come from not understanding sufficiently the world of science and worlds of discoveries people have made that can actually be backed up by facts and data. Everyone's better off with balance, not extremes of one or the other IMO.

lezama said:

1725topp said:

*

Yes, but the problem with Tyson's premise is that one person would be automatically concerned with one thing for the entirety of one's life. In fact, as you know, scientific discovery is one person going so far and then someone else taking it from there as in Newton taking Kepler's notions about gravity to the next level. Tyson makes the argument that Newton is stopped or hindered because he believed in a God that would answer all questions. Yet, if that was the case, why would Newton have even bothered to answer any questions? What Tyson finds so difficult to accept is that Newton, when being questioned by LaPlace for additional answers, had gotten to a place where his inquiry and research of the Bible was more important to him. Don't forget that it is because of Newton's research that we have the dating of Jesus' life, and it is from Newton that the notion of the wound-clock theory or a non-interventionist god becomes popular. Newton's belief in a god didn't limit or stop his critical thinking; it just shifted his critical thinking/research to a different focus. As such, essentially, Tyson is blaming Newton for everybody else not using their critical thinking skills. As my grandmother use to say: "One monkey shouldn't stop the show." Does not Newton have a right to focus his critical thinking skills on the things that most interest him? And, since Newton did train/mentor LaPlace, then Newton's critical thinking skills are still responsible for enabling LaPlace to make his discovery. I'm not saying that one should give Newton the credit for LaPlace's discovery, but Newton should certainly be the first person that LaPlace should thank for

is preparation.

*

Secondly, I never stated that Einstein "invoked a supreme being to answer all of life's questions," but that Einstein has been erroneously called an atheist. Yes, Einstein does make some concessions to quantum physics, but he never refuted his notion or statement that one cannot be knowledgeable of the perfectly ordered universe and not consider the probably of a higher being at work. And, when we combine that with the fact that Einstein states in an open letter that he wished that people would stop mis-quoting him to justify their own disbelief in God, it is clear that Einstein did accept the probability of some type of deity. So, to this end, Prince hanging out with Tyson would not really benefit Prince, per se, because Tyson, unlike Newton and Einstein, is not interested in the notion of how the physical and metaphysical/spiritual intersect to create a more holistic existence. And, to be clear, my point is not that Prince is right and Tyson is wrong but that Tyson's non-interest in the metaphysical/spiritual would add very little to Prince's writing because Prince is completely interested in the intersection of the physical and the metaphysical/spiritual.

I see. Ive not read the article where Tyson mentions this issue, so I can't comment on this issue regarding Newton. My impression is that I don't think any mention of this issue of Newtons beliefs was meant to diminish him in any way, but I would assume a random statement of "wow, what could have been!" which would be taken with a grain of salt. As we know, he's a smart guy, and Im sure he understands the context that Newton was living and working in.

Do people really believe Einstein was an athiest? Ive never heard that. Ive never had the impression he followed any traditional judeo-christian schools of thought though..

You're right about the Tyson/Prince issue. Tyson doesn't give much energy to spiritual things. Its not scientific enough for him. But that's definitely not to say that Prince couldn't benefit from learning about science. Too much of his conspiracy theory beliefs come from not understanding sufficiently the world of science and worlds of discoveries people have made that can actually be backed up by facts and data. Everyone's better off with balance, not extremes of one or the other IMO.

*

Tyson is a great supporter of Newton, but his comments about Newton and religion came during his famous lecture asserting that religion's greatest legacy other than war is the limiting of science. So, Tyson's discussion of Newton and LaPlace came in that context. Thus, it must be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt because Tyson was using that example as a seminal example of how religion has limited science. But, again, Tyson clearly respects Newton and just views Newton's belief in god just like any other failing a person would have. Yet, Tyson's inferred point is that people who believe in the existence of a God cannot not possibly be as smart as people who don't accept this belief, and my point is to show that the existence of Newton and Einstein disproves Tyson's notion.

*

And, yes, this battle to make Einstein an atheist has raged for years. There are several articles, but one that makes me laugh is by Vasant Natarajan, "What Einstein Meant when He Said 'God does not play dice...,'" in which Natarajan actually takes the position that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God." Really? And, yet, even later in the article he contradicts himself when he states that Einstein's "idea of God was at best someone who formulated the laws of nature and left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws." The fact that this scholar does not see that he's contradicting himself his hilarious to me. Whether it is an interventionist or non-interventionist god, Einstein admitted to being open to some type of deity. So, yes, you are right that Einstein never followed a traditional Judeo-Christian belief, but he did often admit to the probability of a deity.

*

As for Prince's "conspiracy theory" beliefs, I will only say this. Often, when African Americans are discussing race or racism, we are accused of embracing or perpetuating "conspiracy" theories. So, when someone who embraces the notion that we now exist in a so-called post-racial America, I remind them of current empirical data: African Americans commit sixteen percent of the crime yet represent forty percent of the incarceration population. Did you know that only one of ten African Americans stopped by police ever have illegal items or are engaging in illegal activity whereas one of three whites stopped by the police are in possession of illegal items or are engaging in illegal activity? Yet, the vast majority of police departments still state-officially I must add--that racial profiling is effective policing? Yes, it is effective in creating anger, mistrust, and "conspiracy" theories regarding the unfair treatment of African people. So, yes, I'm all for scientific inquiry. The problem is that even in 2014, when scientific inquiry or empirical evidence shows that African people are still treated unfairly, whites continue to state that African people are overreacting, being too sensitive, or engaging in conspiracy theories. So while Prince was wrong about "chem trails," he is not wrong to discuss the ongoing mistreatment of African people. So, if Tyson would be used to apply empirical evidence to show how racism still exists, then, yes, his association could be useful. As I stated before, artists should not be allowed to be sloppy in their presentation or discussion of socio-political issues, but we cannot also discount their sloppy presentation or discussion when we know that empirical evidence exists to support a particular position, such as the fact that African Americans' distrust of the American judicial and corporate systems is based on empirical data of long-standing and current discriminatory practices by institutions as well as individuals.

The intro alone is enough to make me want to puke.

1725topp said:

lezama said:

I see. Ive not read the article where Tyson mentions this issue, so I can't comment on this issue regarding Newton. My impression is that I don't think any mention of this issue of Newtons beliefs was meant to diminish him in any way, but I would assume a random statement of "wow, what could have been!" which would be taken with a grain of salt. As we know, he's a smart guy, and Im sure he understands the context that Newton was living and working in.

Do people really believe Einstein was an athiest? Ive never heard that. Ive never had the impression he followed any traditional judeo-christian schools of thought though..

You're right about the Tyson/Prince issue. Tyson doesn't give much energy to spiritual things. Its not scientific enough for him. But that's definitely not to say that Prince couldn't benefit from learning about science. Too much of his conspiracy theory beliefs come from not understanding sufficiently the world of science and worlds of discoveries people have made that can actually be backed up by facts and data. Everyone's better off with balance, not extremes of one or the other IMO.

*

Tyson is a great supporter of Newton, but his comments about Newton and religion came during his famous lecture asserting that religion's greatest legacy other than war is the limiting of science. So, Tyson's discussion of Newton and LaPlace came in that context. Thus, it must be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt because Tyson was using that example as a seminal example of how religion has limited science. But, again, Tyson clearly respects Newton and just views Newton's belief in god just like any other failing a person would have. Yet, Tyson's inferred point is that people who believe in the existence of a God cannot not possibly be as smart as people who don't accept this belief, and my point is to show that the existence of Newton and Einstein disproves Tyson's notion.

Gotcha.

*

And, yes, this battle to make Einstein an atheist has raged for years. There are several articles, but one that makes me laugh is by Vasant Natarajan, "What Einstein Meant when He Said 'God does not play dice...,'" in which Natarajan actually takes the position that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God." Really? And, yet, even later in the article he contradicts himself when he states that Einstein's "idea of God was at best someone who formulated the laws of nature and left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws." The fact that this scholar does not see that he's contradicting himself his hilarious to me. Whether it is an interventionist or non-interventionist god, Einstein admitted to being open to some type of deity. So, yes, you are right that Einstein never followed a traditional Judeo-Christian belief, but he did often admit to the probability of a deity.

*

As for Prince's "conspiracy theory" beliefs, I will only say this. Often, when African Americans are discussing race or racism, we are accused of embracing or perpetuating "conspiracy" theories. So, when someone who embraces the notion that we now exist in a so-called post-racial America, I remind them of current empirical data: African Americans commit sixteen percent of the crime yet represent forty percent of the incarceration population. Did you know that only one of ten African Americans stopped by police ever have illegal items or are engaging in illegal activity whereas one of three whites stopped by the police are in possession of illegal items or are engaging in illegal activity? Yet, the vast majority of police departments still state-officially I must add--that racial profiling is effective policing? Yes, it is effective in creating anger, mistrust, and "conspiracy" theories regarding the unfair treatment of African people. So, yes, I'm all for scientific inquiry. The problem is that even in 2014, when scientific inquiry or empirical evidence shows that African people are still treated unfairly, whites continue to state that African people are overreacting, being too sensitive, or engaging in conspiracy theories. So while Prince was wrong about "chem trails," he is not wrong to discuss the ongoing mistreatment of African people. So, if Tyson would be used to apply empirical evidence to show how racism still exists, then, yes, his association could be useful. As I stated before, artists should not be allowed to be sloppy in their presentation or discussion of socio-political issues, but we cannot also discount their sloppy presentation or discussion when we know that empirical evidence exists to support a particular position, such as the fact that African Americans' distrust of the American judicial and corporate systems is based on empirical data of long-standing and current discriminatory practices by institutions as well as individuals.

I hear you. The whole area of social science is extremely complicated, as probably half or more of data available to most is not disinterested (or conducted with an end to support particular communities or interests) and conducted by scholarly researchers truly interested in honest fact. So I think at a broad scale distrust and disenchantment are entirely to be expected. Something would be wrong if that wasn't the reaction amongst minority communities. But that leaves the question of how to navigate in such a space or reality.. its not easy unless you've sufficient preparation in it. At any rate I don't expect the artists I listen to to have the intellects of scientists, so I tend not to pay too much attention to or listen to much music that have lyrics that make me raise my eyebrows. I listen for how the music makes me feel. Im highly analytical 98% of my waking day because of my profession (law), but I actual prefer lyrics that are pure right-brained creativity, for me, if something's left-brained it should be sufficiently metaphorical or poetic, otherwise I'll hyper-analyze it for facticity... which completely ruins my enjoyment of the music.. which probably explains why Ive always been such a Cocteau Twins, Lisa Gerrard fan.. the majority of their catalog has no lyrics, and those that do aren't really intelligible.

[Edited 11/25/14 10:37am]

1725topp said:

And, yes, this battle to make Einstein an atheist has raged for years. There are several articles, but one that makes me laugh is by Vasant Natarajan, "What Einstein Meant when He Said 'God does not play dice...,'" in which Natarajan actually takes the position that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God." Really? And, yet, even later in the article he contradicts himself when he states that Einstein's "idea of God was at best someone who formulated the laws of nature and left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws." The fact that this scholar does not see that he's contradicting himself his hilarious to me. Whether it is an interventionist or non-interventionist god, Einstein admitted to being open to some type of deity. So, yes, you are right that Einstein never followed a traditional Judeo-Christian belief, but he did often admit to the probability of a deity.

Maybe this page would interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...in#Beliefs

[Edited 11/25/14 10:51am]

lezama said:

1725topp said:

*

Tyson is a great supporter of Newton, but his comments about Newton and religion came during his famous lecture asserting that religion's greatest legacy other than war is the limiting of science. So, Tyson's discussion of Newton and LaPlace came in that context. Thus, it must be taken with a bit more than a grain of salt because Tyson was using that example as a seminal example of how religion has limited science. But, again, Tyson clearly respects Newton and just views Newton's belief in god just like any other failing a person would have. Yet, Tyson's inferred point is that people who believe in the existence of a God cannot not possibly be as smart as people who don't accept this belief, and my point is to show that the existence of Newton and Einstein disproves Tyson's notion.

Gotcha.

*

And, yes, this battle to make Einstein an atheist has raged for years. There are several articles, but one that makes me laugh is by Vasant Natarajan, "What Einstein Meant when He Said 'God does not play dice...,'" in which Natarajan actually takes the position that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God." Really? And, yet, even later in the article he contradicts himself when he states that Einstein's "idea of God was at best someone who formulated the laws of nature and left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws." The fact that this scholar does not see that he's contradicting himself his hilarious to me. Whether it is an interventionist or non-interventionist god, Einstein admitted to being open to some type of deity. So, yes, you are right that Einstein never followed a traditional Judeo-Christian belief, but he did often admit to the probability of a deity.

*

As for Prince's "conspiracy theory" beliefs, I will only say this. Often, when African Americans are discussing race or racism, we are accused of embracing or perpetuating "conspiracy" theories. So, when someone who embraces the notion that we now exist in a so-called post-racial America, I remind them of current empirical data: African Americans commit sixteen percent of the crime yet represent forty percent of the incarceration population. Did you know that only one of ten African Americans stopped by police ever have illegal items or are engaging in illegal activity whereas one of three whites stopped by the police are in possession of illegal items or are engaging in illegal activity? Yet, the vast majority of police departments still state-officially I must add--that racial profiling is effective policing? Yes, it is effective in creating anger, mistrust, and "conspiracy" theories regarding the unfair treatment of African people. So, yes, I'm all for scientific inquiry. The problem is that even in 2014, when scientific inquiry or empirical evidence shows that African people are still treated unfairly, whites continue to state that African people are overreacting, being too sensitive, or engaging in conspiracy theories. So while Prince was wrong about "chem trails," he is not wrong to discuss the ongoing mistreatment of African people. So, if Tyson would be used to apply empirical evidence to show how racism still exists, then, yes, his association could be useful. As I stated before, artists should not be allowed to be sloppy in their presentation or discussion of socio-political issues, but we cannot also discount their sloppy presentation or discussion when we know that empirical evidence exists to support a particular position, such as the fact that African Americans' distrust of the American judicial and corporate systems is based on empirical data of long-standing and current discriminatory practices by institutions as well as individuals.

I hear you. The whole area of social science is extremely complicated, as probably half or more of data available to most is not disinterested (or conducted with an end to support particular communities or interests) and conducted by scholarly researchers truly interested in honest fact. So I think at a broad scale distrust and disenchantment are entirely to be expected. Something would be wrong if that wasn't the reaction amongst minority communities. But that leaves the question of how to navigate in such a space or reality.. its not easy unless you've sufficient preparation in it. At any rate I don't expect the artists I listen to to have the intellects of scientists, so I tend not to pay too much attention to or listen to much music that have lyrics that make me raise my eyebrows. I listen for how the music makes me feel. Im highly analytical 98% of my waking day because of my profession (law), but I actual prefer lyrics that are pure right-brained creativity, for me, if something's left-brained it should be sufficiently metaphorical or poetic, otherwise I'll hyper-analyze it for facticity... which completely ruins my enjoyment of the music.. which probably explains why Ive always been such a Cocteau Twins, Lisa Gerrard fan.. the majority of their catalog has no lyrics, and those that do aren't really intelligible.

[Edited 11/25/14 10:37am]

*

In the bold part, I get what you are saying and respect it, but I'm completely the opposite. As a writer who is interested in the "how/literary device" and the "what/subject" of art, I am drawn to artists who engage socio-political issues and tend not to be interested in those that don't. Yet, I think a lot of people also miss or don't realize that lyrics about personal issues or even sexual issues can be highly socio-political, so I'm also interested in artists who create the double meaning (literal and metaphoric), especially as it relate to the socio-politics of the body or human interpersonal space, being, or relationships. I embrace W. E. B. DuBois' notion that "in the final analysis art is propaganda" so, again, I tend to be drawn to those artists who embrace this notion while being able to critique those whose use of literary/artistic device is sloppy or not well-crafted. Even if I agree with an artist's socio-political position, the art must be well-crafted for me to enjoy it. Or, as I often say, a writing with the world "revolution" in it thirty-five times with no discernable use of literary device is not a poem; that's just somebody writing "revolution" thirty-five times.

getfunked said:

1725topp said:

And, yes, this battle to make Einstein an atheist has raged for years. There are several articles, but one that makes me laugh is by Vasant Natarajan, "What Einstein Meant when He Said 'God does not play dice...,'" in which Natarajan actually takes the position that when Einstein said "God" he did not mean "God." Really? And, yet, even later in the article he contradicts himself when he states that Einstein's "idea of God was at best someone who formulated the laws of nature and left the universe alone to evolve according to these laws." The fact that this scholar does not see that he's contradicting himself his hilarious to me. Whether it is an interventionist or non-interventionist god, Einstein admitted to being open to some type of deity. So, yes, you are right that Einstein never followed a traditional Judeo-Christian belief, but he did often admit to the probability of a deity.

Maybe this page would interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...in#Beliefs

[Edited 11/25/14 10:51am]

*

This page is a good starting point, but one can get a better, more holistic, understanding of Einstein's notions of science and religion in Ideas and Opinions, which is a collection of Einstein letters and essays.

1725topp said:

getfunked said:

Maybe this page would interest you: http://en.wikipedia.org/w...in#Beliefs

[Edited 11/25/14 10:51am]

*

This page is a good starting point, but one can get a better, more holistic, understanding of Einstein's notions of science and religion in Ideas and Opinions, which is a collection of Einstein letters and essays.

Even from this starting point you can already tell that Einstein did not 'often admit to the probability of a deity' as you say. There's a lot of linguistic ambiguity here regarding his use of the word 'religious' (I think spiritual/transcendant might have been a clearer choice). Given his belief in Spinoza's god, it would seem he was at most agnostic, leaning towards atheism. Based on this, your criticism of Natarajan's point seems kind of uncharitable and misplaced.

1725topp said:

lezama said:

I hear you. The whole area of social science is extremely complicated, as probably half or more of data available to most is not disinterested (or conducted with an end to support particular communities or interests) and conducted by scholarly researchers truly interested in honest fact. So I think at a broad scale distrust and disenchantment are entirely to be expected. Something would be wrong if that wasn't the reaction amongst minority communities. But that leaves the question of how to navigate in such a space or reality.. its not easy unless you've sufficient preparation in it. At any rate I don't expect the artists I listen to to have the intellects of scientists, so I tend not to pay too much attention to or listen to much music that have lyrics that make me raise my eyebrows. I listen for how the music makes me feel. Im highly analytical 98% of my waking day because of my profession (law), but I actual prefer lyrics that are pure right-brained creativity, for me, if something's left-brained it should be sufficiently metaphorical or poetic, otherwise I'll hyper-analyze it for facticity... which completely ruins my enjoyment of the music.. which probably explains why Ive always been such a Cocteau Twins, Lisa Gerrard fan.. the majority of their catalog has no lyrics, and those that do aren't really intelligible.

[Edited 11/25/14 10:37am]

*

In the bold part, I get what you are saying and respect it, but I'm completely the opposite. As a writer who is interested in the "how/literary device" and the "what/subject" of art, I am drawn to artists who engage socio-political issues and tend not to be interested in those that don't. Yet, I think a lot of people also miss or don't realize that lyrics about personal issues or even sexual issues can be highly socio-political, so I'm also interested in artists who create the double meaning (literal and metaphoric), especially as it relate to the socio-politics of the body or human interpersonal space, being, or relationships. I embrace W. E. B. DuBois' notion that "in the final analysis art is propaganda" so, again, I tend to be drawn to those artists who embrace this notion while being able to critique those whose use of literary/artistic device is sloppy or not well-crafted. Even if I agree with an artist's socio-political position, the art must be well-crafted for me to enjoy it. Or, as I often say, a writing with the world "revolution" in it thirty-five times with no discernable use of literary device is not a poem; that's just somebody writing "revolution" thirty-five times.

I agree with the bolded completely. The problem I have with much "politically tinged" music is that its too constrained within the normal cliches of either mainstream political apparatuses or their counter-culture counterparts. I feel its easier to break through the trappings of political cliche by not focusing on dominant themes (which makes it immediately social and thus more prone to repeating that's on the internet or CNN a gazillion times) but by making it immediately personal and intimate.. The artist and their immediate expression unconfined by political cliche but rather expressing a person truth that by virtue of the type of or nature of expression it is is innately political... I LOVE that, but generally when people talk about art that is political they gravitate to cliche.

I think this was before I became a fan. Yah, I was heavy into my Common and Erykah Badu neo-soul phase and got Bamboozled mainly for their tracks (her Hollywood is still a jam, "he's on his way..." ). I remember thinking that this didn't sound like any other "Prince" song i had heard , but liking it, a lot. A classic in its own right . "Get an education, good job, who say. The fool with the gold fronts drinkin' alize..."

getfunked said:

1725topp said:

*

This page is a good starting point, but one can get a better, more holistic, understanding of Einstein's notions of science and religion in Ideas and Opinions, which is a collection of Einstein letters and essays.

Even from this starting point you can already tell that Einstein did not 'often admit to the probability of a deity' as you say. There's a lot of linguistic ambiguity here regarding his use of the word 'religious' (I think spiritual/transcendant might have been a clearer choice). Given his belief in Spinoza's god, it would seem he was at most agnostic, leaning towards atheism. Based on this, your criticism of Natarajan's point seems kind of uncharitable and misplaced.

*

I'm amazed at how many so called smart people can't read. Are you just going to ignore the direct quote of Einstein on the same page?: "I am not an Atheist." These are Einstein's words. So, I ask, again, can you not read? Additionally, even though Einstein states that he is "fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism," he also states that he does not know if he can "define [himself] as a Pantheist." Again, these are Einstein's words. Based on these two quotes, which are, again, Einstein's own words that you so conveniently ignore/omit, there is nothing about my criticism of Natarajan's point that is "uncharitable" or "misplaced." Secondly, I never used the word "religion" or "religious;" I used the word "god," which is the word used by Einstein, himself. Now, I don't know why you so desperately desire Einstein to be an atheist, but, if you do, your problem is with his words and not my "restating" of his words. So, yes, based on this page and the full collection of Ideas and Opinions, Einstein did often admit to the probability of there being a deity. And just a final point/quote from this same page that you have erroneously misquoted or shall I say omitted information in an act of card stacking that no real scholar or objective critical thinker would do, Einstein states: "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." While one could argue that this quote shows Einstein leaning toward Pantheism, the problem with that argument is that Einstein clearly makes his "god concept" a singular being that is something separate from the universe who seemingly created the laws by which the universe is governed. Furthermore, the pronoun "his" is replacing the noun/antecedent "God," not universe, not religion, not spirit, not spirituality, but "God," showing that Einstein is open to the probability of a "God," just not a "God" of orthodox religion. So, this clearly shows that Einstein is not a Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc., but it shows that, again, Einstein is open to the probability of a deity. So, do me a favor; next time, act like a real scientist/scholar and research all the information before trying to disprove anyone.

lezama said:

1725topp said:

*

In the bold part, I get what you are saying and respect it, but I'm completely the opposite. As a writer who is interested in the "how/literary device" and the "what/subject" of art, I am drawn to artists who engage socio-political issues and tend not to be interested in those that don't. Yet, I think a lot of people also miss or don't realize that lyrics about personal issues or even sexual issues can be highly socio-political, so I'm also interested in artists who create the double meaning (literal and metaphoric), especially as it relate to the socio-politics of the body or human interpersonal space, being, or relationships. I embrace W. E. B. DuBois' notion that "in the final analysis art is propaganda" so, again, I tend to be drawn to those artists who embrace this notion while being able to critique those whose use of literary/artistic device is sloppy or not well-crafted. Even if I agree with an artist's socio-political position, the art must be well-crafted for me to enjoy it. Or, as I often say, a writing with the world "revolution" in it thirty-five times with no discernable use of literary device is not a poem; that's just somebody writing "revolution" thirty-five times.

I agree with the bolded completely. The problem I have with much "politically tinged" music is that its too constrained within the normal cliches of either mainstream political apparatuses or their counter-culture counterparts. I feel its easier to break through the trappings of political cliche by not focusing on dominant themes (which makes it immediately social and thus more prone to repeating that's on the internet or CNN a gazillion times) but by making it immediately personal and intimate.. The artist and their immediate expression unconfined by political cliche but rather expressing a person truth that by virtue of the type of or nature of expression it is is innately political... I LOVE that, but generally when people talk about art that is political they gravitate to cliche.

*

I hear what you are saying, but, again, I would argue that it depends on the type of art one engages. As I stated, I am moved not just by an artist's socio-political position, but by how creatively one presents or articulates that position. As the poet Wordsworth asserted, the goal of the poet is to make the familiar unfamiliar so that the reader can re-recognize it or recognize it anew, allowing a catharsis to occur. So, for me, I'm moved by art that is crafted well enough to force me to rethink or reexamine my socio-political position or art that is crafted well enough to inspire or reinvigorate me to continue to work towards my socio-political goals. So, I can't speak for others, but, as both a creative writer and a lover of art, I abhor the cliche. Of course, I will admit that in some cases it is the tone/texture or phonetic quality of the vocal or the music that moves me, but even then I tend to be less moved by the entirety of the song if the lyrics do not match the intensity/creativity of the vocal delivery or musical quality. So a group like Sweet Honey in the Rock can be powerfully moving with their vocal delivery; yet, their lyrics--while not elaborate--have a powerful simplicity, like the Greek poet Sappho, because they have a diction/word choice that is usually able to force listeners to examine the gap between the righteous rhetoric of some white Americans and their evil actions or the ability to explain why the oppressed must risk life to be free.

TheBoneRanger said:

hey, its not a boot, so i'ma ask. can someone PM me this track! thanks

I've never been a big fan of this song but I do like this thread. Puts my faith back in the org, that there can be inteligent conversation. Kudos to all involved.

I have one in my collection! I love it!

Hate it. Pseudo-political quasi-spiritual ramblings to jazz up yet another screed against the record industry.

This isn't a song. It's an essay. And it's ponderous as fuck.

Askani said:

Hate it. Pseudo-political quasi-spiritual ramblings to jazz up yet another screed against the record industry.

This isn't a song. It's an essay. And it's ponderous as fuck.

*

Is it that you don't like songs with socio-political themes, or is it that you think that "2045 Radical Man" is poorly done? And, if you do like songs with socio-political themes, and just think that "2045 Radical Man" is poorly done, can you provide three to five songs with socio-political themes that are well-crafted? I'm not trying to be adversarial, but your comment that "This isn't a song. It's an essay." sounds similar to the critique by the art for art's sake literary crowd when addressing poetry or fiction that has a socio-political theme, especially if the work presents a position that differs from or challenges their position. So, could you provide a few socio-political themed songs that you do not consider essays and are not ponderous?

1725topp said:

I'm amazed at how many so called smart people can't read. Are you just going to ignore the direct quote of Einstein on the same page?: "I am not an Atheist." These are Einstein's words. So, I ask, again, can you not read? Additionally, even though Einstein states that he is "fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism," he also states that he does not know if he can "define [himself] as a Pantheist." Again, these are Einstein's words. Based on these two quotes, which are, again, Einstein's own words that you so conveniently ignore/omit, there is nothing about my criticism of Natarajan's point that is "uncharitable" or "misplaced." Secondly, I never used the word "religion" or "religious;" I used the word "god," which is the word used by Einstein, himself. Now, I don't know why you so desperately desire Einstein to be an atheist, but, if you do, your problem is with his words and not my "restating" of his words. So, yes, based on this page and the full collection of Ideas and Opinions, Einstein did often admit to the probability of there being a deity. And just a final point/quote from this same page that you have erroneously misquoted or shall I say omitted information in an act of card stacking that no real scholar or objective critical thinker would do, Einstein states: "I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. His universe is not ruled by wishful thinking, but by immutable laws." While one could argue that this quote shows Einstein leaning toward Pantheism, the problem with that argument is that Einstein clearly makes his "god concept" a singular being that is something separate from the universe who seemingly created the laws by which the universe is governed. Furthermore, the pronoun "his" is replacing the noun/antecedent "God," not universe, not religion, not spirit, not spirituality, but "God," showing that Einstein is open to the probability of a "God," just not a "God" of orthodox religion. So, this clearly shows that Einstein is not a Jew, Christian, Muslim, etc., but it shows that, again, Einstein is open to the probability of a deity. So, do me a favor; next time, act like a real scientist/scholar and research all the information before trying to disprove anyone.

Irony much? I didn't say he was atheist, nor do I desire him to be so... and neither it seems did Natarajan, he was speculating about how a god with agency could maximally fit into einstein's view (just in theory).
Quote: I said '... at most agnostic leaning towards atheism'

When I was talking about the use of the word religious I was referring to Einstein's own usage (EDIT: Which I also made clear in the post: to quote, 'his use'-lol irony) when describing his awe about experiencing reality (". If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it", "Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza)". And while at that, it seems too much deistic weight is placed on his use of the word 'God'. He isn't necessarily talking about some intelligent agent having designed the world, he's talking about 'god' in a more ambiguous sense. And I'm not sure what you mean by saying I omitted that quote on purpose, you are pretty much just reiterating what I'm saying. Namely, all I mean to say is that a tendency towards spinoza's god vs a personal god doesn't necessarily mean he believed in a deity. He's talking about nature itself here, he says he's referring to nature and 'god' as one thing. In any case this is far from saying that he believes in the probability of deities, quite the opposite. He was at most unsure about deities, but revered the workings of nature in a 'god'ly manner.

[Edited 11/25/14 22:01pm]