Dubbing for home languages is really not a good idea. The vocal is half of the performance - take that away and splice in another person’s voice literally mutes and disconnects the actor.
Watching performers, I appreciate quality but I don’t get particularly excited by even exquisite technical excellence. Looks attract, certainly, but interest is quickly lost if there is nothing real going on beyond the performance. I detach emotionally when there is anything conceited or contrived. What holds me is real lived human experience, with all its perfect imperfections; something genuine that has emerged in the moment and surprised even the performer.
I really don’t like listening to or watching any recent performance of mine, even if I am generally pleased with how it turned out. This is weird because I don’t mind after a while, when there is some distance and I have forgotten about the process involved. I suppose the time delay helps me listen/watch as an audience member rather than identifying so firmly as the performer.
Listened on YouTube to various attempts at turning Shakespeare’s sonnets into songs. I don’t think these straight translations work very well. However Shakespeare is so clever that if you read the lines of his sonnets out of sequence as rhyming couplets (e.g. line 1 then 3 then 2 then 4 etc.) the sonnet usually still works well without losing the meaning. So I picked up a guitar, strummed some rhythms and improvised some vocal melodies to the rejigged lines and it all works great!
It is so important with the poetic flow of Shakespeare that every word means something real to the actor, otherwise the viewer will get lost in the density of content coming at them. Watching performances of Shakespeare, it is so obvious when an actor is merely ploughing through the rhythms in a conventional Shakespearean style, rather than really living the powerful words given to them. Thankfully there are lots of good actors and performances out there – this one I just watched of Sonnet 129 is a good example: https://youtu.be/EEvW5lyWgKQ
Humans came along for the ride at the halfway point between life beginning on earth about 4 billion years ago and life ending in another 4 billion years, with the melting of the planet’s surface under an intensifying sun. Science fiction and other human projections are typically set in the myopic near future of at most a few thousand years; well how about an amount that is actually noticeable in the life of earth, say in one billion years?
Given what is currently known about humanity and the universe, what are some possible outcomes from the current trajectory?“In One Billion Years”
The dictionary definition of “atheist” as a non-believer in God or Gods isn’t accurate because anecdotally there seems to be many people who think the doctrinal teachings from religious institutions are cultural based anachronisms - and so would be labelled “atheist” for not adhering to definitive religious beliefs about deities - yet believe in some higher power they cannot define. This type of thought would be different from believing the universe’s purpose and function is completely explicable in terms contained within itself by matter and its interactions.
There are a lot of belief jumps in this sentence: the universe is a purposeless collection of matter that mindlessly configured itself by chance out of nothing, existing in time with causes and effects and had no beginning. A reasonable-minded adherent might be aware of the glaring uncertainties in this position but state it is more parsimonious to adopt a materialistic concept of reality than implant a God belief system as an additional layer in the theory. Yet the certainty with which many proponents preach this position as absolute truth, suggests a type of commitment witnessed in religious belief.
An agnostic would state that the ultimate “why” questions are unanswerable, so from a practical perspective we should just be concerned with the “how” questions. The materialist’s objections to agnosticism based on the burden of proof for God being on the proponent, misses the point to an agnostic who has already ruled-out religious explanations of God but not higher meaning and purpose to reality. A particularly zealous materialist might overplay the remit of verifiable facts by stating opinions about ultimate meaning are irrelevant if they are not scientifically falsifiable - ignoring the fact that their own conceptual model for reality contains unfalsifiable conjecture.
My own instinctive opinion is that I believe religions share the same spiritual root, although the core message was often corrupted by the doctrines and institutions that arose. This is my personal version of “spiritual but not particularly religious”. As I am most familiar with Christianity I can be labelled Christian, however I do adopt a filter and select only what resonates with me, mindful that the scriptures were written and edited by early practitioners of the religion and that the Biblical canon was decided upon by the politics of powerful men in ecumenical councils, rather than being the unadulterated teachings of Christ. Looking back in history, the cruelties that have been perpetrated by professed followers of the religion represent the antithesis of the message of Christ; for real spirituality - the root of Christianity - is always inspired by love, joy, harmony, peace and reconciliation.
Random thought, slipping into British mode...Despite its reputation, England can be a nice place for the weather. We have about six months when it can be very pleasant to be here, say from about mid-April to mid-October. The dark, cold and damp months of December to February take some extra effort to appreciate. I prefer long sunny days in the low 20Cs (70Fs). (yawn)
I appreciate the story-telling of real human experience, truthfully expressing core feelings that are shared by people across cultures and time. Very generally, I tend to turn to Shakespeare for plays and poetry; and Dostoevsky for deep psychological novels. Some other great writers I like to read are Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Thomas Hardy, Anton Chekhov, Leo Tolstoy and Victor Hugo.
It’s been done millions of times, but my instinctive interpretation of Hamlet’s “To Be or Not To Be” soliloquy is a bit different from the many performances I have seen. In fact it may be unhelpful seeing other people’s performances because the blueprints distract from my own relationship with the words.
Every single person has both uniqueness and a shared oneness with everybody else. What is interesting is finding the individuality and playing with it, rather than blandly mimicking other people or current socialised expectations.
Given how technology is moving, all the functions of your phone will be migrated directly into your brain. The “screen” will be projected into your vision and options chosen by thoughts.
All vision, sound, thoughts and feelings could be recorded. You could download and replay any recording from yourself or anybody else. Communication by mindscapes could replace the spoken and written word.
Your mind could operate any physical body.
Your perception of reality could be changed. Undesired emotions or detrimental thought patterns could be switched-off.
You could instantly download data and skills and have greatly augmented cognitive processing speeds.
Your thoughts could interact with artificial intelligence that could calculate the most efficient algorithm for any process you wish to undertake.
This isn’t fanciful thinking, it’s the implied intention for the not too distant future. The unasked question is to what extent this is really desirable.
Of course any totalitarian regime could easily control their population by these means. An empowered sadist could run amok in all the enslaved minds.
Philosophically it makes me wonder, what is it to be a human being? Practically it makes me certain, humans have to become worthy of the knowledge we are gaining.
Together we can break the chains29-February-2020:
Before we go up in flames
I’m here to let you know
For you I’m standing tall
Faces, faces everywhere30-October-2019:
But not you
Not you anywhere
No touch of you
No beautiful you
Only me and the dark
Haunted by echoes
Of a once beating heart
Condemned to yearn
But dead to you
An image in the corners
In faint outlines
Floating out of reach