A: I think that the idea of moral universality after God is a bit of a joke.

B: Do you think that God is a bit of a joke?

A: God’s pretty serious. *makes serious face*

B: What about a moral universality…period?

A: Do I think it’s serious? No, of course not. I already said that.

B: I was just taking God completely out of the equation…I don’t really know what is meant by “after God”.

A: I mean after things are no longer for the sake of God. It’s usually associated with the rise of scientific thinking, so the last 3 or 4 hundred years I guess. Pretty over.

B: Do you you agree consciousness can’t precede existence?….that if there is consciousness there has to be something possessing that consciousness?

A: Precede in what sense? In time, then it would depend what time was. In formula, then it would depend on what consciousness is, and possibly on time as well.

B: I don’t really mean in a chronological sense. I mean that “there has to be something possessing that consciousness”…and by consciousness I mean awareness in an axiomatic sense. My point is that God is usually thought of as a universal consciousness without a metaphysical form…Descartes said, “I think therefore I am” and is that different than saying, ” I am therefore I think”? Some people ask, “What is the meaning of life”…maybe it is better to ask, “What is the meaning of MY life.?”

A: What’s the meaning of “life”? What’s the meaning of “my”? What’s the meaning of “is”? What’s the meaning of “meaning”? And, maybe more importantly, what’s the meaning of “ask”?

B: Part of the Wikipedia definition of life is “a process that distinguishes organisms from non-living objects, such as non-life, and dead organisms. Living organisms are capable of growth and reproduction, some can communicate and many can adapt to their environment through changes originating internally.” It also says that “there is no universal definition of life. To define life in unequivocal terms is still a challenge for scientists.” …but maybe we can define it enough to discuss it.

A: Maybe, but this kind of account of life is biological life, life as a determinately present scientific object, fixed in its structure. It’s unclear what relation that sense of life has to the sense of life I use when I say “My life”. Certainly I don’t mean something about biology, I’m probably talking about my experiences, my attitudes, my actions, in the past present and future. Right?

B: …aren’t your experiences, attitudes, actions…(consciousness?) dependent upon you existing biologically and also on the nature of your metaphysical being?…2 arms….no antlers…brain…thumbs…if you are paralyzed or not…etc.

A: Maybe, but I don’t see why we can assume that. We only know about biology because we were already conscious.

A value is something that is important to someone. It might be a cold beer on a hot day, the trust of a friend, or a state of mind: anger, peace, freedom. It might be crack-cocaine or a new bass guitar. A value can be defined as “that which one acts to gain or keep” and therefore it is the object of an action. ‘Something’ is of value to ’someone’ and that ’someone’ has to act in a certain way in order to acquire, achieve, or maintain that ’something’.

In order to create a particular type of work a composer must make those choices during the selection process that best allow him to realize that type of creation. If goals and values are related then goals should properly be based on values. The process of musical selection, of choosing which elements are important enough to include in the music, and which are not, is based on those values a musician holds in both music and daily life. What type of mood does he wish to manifest? What types of notes and sounds will he need to use in order to support this mood? What kind of groove is required for this expression? Will the nature of the expression be dramatic, or subtle? By answering these types of questions insight is gained into a musician’s values.

In some music, particularly pop music, there are different layers to these expressions. Pop music is an art form where collaboration is the norm rather than the exception. In other words, there is often more than one person involved in the music creation process. A composer might write only music while a lyricist writes words. A group of musicians may then perform selected songs with the guidance of a producer who provides direction based on an overall concept derived from the individual songs, the performances, and the expectations of the marketplace. At each stage specialists in their field are making value judgments. This brings us to the concepts of synergy and compromise.

The concepts of synergy and compromise are opposites when considering collaborations. If collaborators on a project have similar music values and each participating party has similar end goals then the resulting work is often a product of synergy. In such cases the parties choose to create a relationship whereby decisions are made according to an end concept mutually agreed upon by the collaborators. The resulting work created by this type of synergy may be more fully realized than it would be otherwise. Contrarily, if music values are not similar between collaborators and an end concept is not agreed upon at some point during the creative process the resulting work often deteriorates into a product of compromise and inferiority.

Understanding how the process of music creation and values are related can give those musicians who dare to be different the confidence to stand alone in the face of great opposition. By being aware of values and how they are being expressed in music an artist can be psychologically armed to protect himself from those who do not share his ideals and in fact, may resent them. He will be able to see how other’s criticisms arise directly from a comparison to a set of values which may have been compromised, or sold out, in favor of other values. It takes epic effort to create something truly unique and original. At every turn there are those who argue that it is impossible to create something new and that it is a waste of time to even try. They ask questions like, “How dare you try to be original?” and “What makes you so special?” Because of this, extreme confidence is a key ingredient for those musicians who crave to be original. This special breed of musician must have a deep-rooted belief that his work is strong and valid even in the absence of something obvious to compare it to. Non-conformity is not recommended for most but for some, it is the highest power. There is no right or wrong way to create music; the art simply reveals the artist.

His songs were like nursery rhymes. They were so simple that even a kid strumming an electric guitar for the first time could play them. It is this simplicity that is one of Cobain’s most notable achievements in music. Classical composer Frederic Chopin once said, “It is simplicity that emerges with all its charm as the final seal upon art.”

In the 1980’s virtuoso guitar players led by the likes of Edward Van Halen, Steve Vai and Joe Satriani dominated rock music. These guitarists became innovators in the fields of melody and harmony (the study of chords and chord movement) and were also technical masters of their instruments. Like all innovators though their ideas were soon gobbled up by those who continued to recycle them without ever contributing to them. It followed that pop music began to lack imagination as musicians started valuing technical ability more than musical content.

In the late 1980’s songs such as Nirvana’s ‘About a Girl’ and ‘Sliver’ went against the trend of popular music and would foreshadow the tremendous transformation pop music would make during the next 3 years. These songs consisted of three or four chords and simple, repetitious melodies that displayed Cobain’s talent of stripping down a song to its very essence. He inserted major chords into contexts traditionally reserved for minor chords. He created song structures that repeated segments three or six times rather than the traditional four or eight times. His guitar solos, when present, were usually tortured variations of a song’s melody.

When it came to writing music, Cobain was a perfectionist, relentlessly tweaking song structures and melodies until they became fully integrated with each other. Lyrically however, Cobain expressed a value system somewhat inconsistent with those values he presented in his music. By his own admission he attached a higher value to the music than to the words which, although fascinating, were often dim reflections of an unfocussed mind. While he worked diligently in crafting musical structures, his vague lyrics, amalgamations of disjointed images and unfinished thoughts, were frequently thrown together from journal entries in the moments prior to being recorded. He wrote lyrics using themes of drug use, co-dependency, and self-loathing. Not only did Cobain reject values expressed in many lyrics of the 1970’s and 80’s, but also more significantly he expressed apathy and indifference towards the whole idea of having goals and values in the first place.

Kurt Cobain was an outsider to both his peers and his family. While choosing values that supported his desire to be different from those around him he seems also to have rejected many values that are essentially human. It is clear that Cobain did not place a high value on human life and ultimately he expressed this by committing suicide in 1994. If it is true that a man realizes happiness by achieving and maintaining his highest values then by choosing to attach such high value to drug use and self-loathing Cobain was probably most happy when he was destroying himself. He consistently expressed values in his work that were not conducive to his survival but only to his destruction.

That being said I think there are ways to get personal in a song without making it uncomfortable for a listener in a social setting. You might tell a story using third person or you might use vague language, or humor. The process of writing is often cathartic for the writer but I don’t believe you have to expose all your fears and weaknesses in order for this process to be cathartic. I often go back to a song I have written and see parts of my personality that I don’t particularly like. At that point I usually justify it by saying it was cool to write the song in that manner at that time. Then I move on.

Unfortunately, I find my shadow. It is comprised of the things I dislike about myself. It is always lurking in the background and is largely responsible for motivating me to write. I believe that shaking hands with this shadow is important but I don’t feel obligated to introduce it to others. I like to consider how I wish to present myself while also maintaining the integrity of the emotion. The best songs are honest, but still cool. While I agree it is important for a writer to hold on to whatever is the source of his inspiration, I find it can be very self-destructive to let the beast run too wild without a few beat-downs from his cooler self.

On the other hand there is a law for writing fiction that says the more uncomfortably personal you get the more universal the work. I don’t really have an opinion on that yet.