Lemur Controller

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by flukewurm why would i want to read a bunch of internet bickering?

 

 

There was no bickering. If you actually read the posts with the slightest bit of care (which I begin to doubt you're capable of) you'd have realized that. Admission accepted.

[keanu reeves]

youre doing it again.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by flukewurm youre doing it again.

 

 

Ah, I see. Ok. It is an attention deficit disorder. Sorry.

[keanu reeves]

[keanu reeves]

GODDY

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by flukewurm GODDY

I defer to your great insight and depth of thought. Sorry.

[Guest Anonymous]

christ, you lot are {censored}ing tiresome. i want to vomit blood every time i come here.

bye.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by niall christ, you lot are {censored}ing tiresome. i want to vomit blood every time i come here. bye.

 

 

Well, damn - don't let me stop you.

[Absurdum Mundi]

Originally posted by droolmaster0
"With advancing age, comes loss of naivete, yet reimbursed with an abiding wisdom. This is my present observation:

empathy x knowledge=wisdom

I don't say "sum" because both elements amplify each other to surpass the sum, to my way of thinking...of feeling."

This would only be true, wouldn't it, if we allowed these values to exceed 1. If we view 1 as the limit, then their product would be less than their sum. This is meant to be either a comment that startles by its depth of insight, or a joke if its pomposity is obvious. If it fails on both fronts, then a desperate evocation of child pornography is in order to have the entire paragraph banned for eternity.

Bwa-ha-ha. Superb observation, with an even better punchline! Magnificent!

You have homed in on the inherent conundrum, bravo. Now, I'm going to have to honor that by going further than I planned to.

If we look at life as a closed system, or in absolute terms, that is undeniably so. I can't give a 150% effort, even if I say so. If, however, we allow our rational, worldview to include the possibility of transcendance, specifically the inclusion of something more beyond our initial perseptional limitations, then the absolutist notion of 1 or 100% no longer applies. It is transcended.

Let me explain it thus, but bear in mind that this is not a rational polemic any more, seeking to persuade, for this is simply not possible. I offer it as an opinion, insight, anecdote, hypothesis, axiom, postulate...you get the picture. Think of this as comparing a static, isolated computer compared to a computer connected to a network and the internet. It is the interconnectedness to All-That-Is which gives the connected computer the ability to transcend itself and become as valuable as the entire network which it embodies.

Mankind is much the same. We live in the illusion that we are all separate, and individual. From higher, non-physical perspective, this is false.

Since space constrains, let me cut to the quick. The hypothesis (and I don't offer it as anything more) is simple:

1) We are spiritual beings in physical
2) We have free will
3) Our higher-self, or non-physical self, communicates to us continually by way of emotion.

Now the method:

1) One must meditate for one's true vibration to manifest. This simply means NOT THINKING for select times.
2) If we accept as our premise, that our Higher Self is giving us feedback, in the form of emotion, first we must be really familiar with feeling good, to calibrate our guidance system. For a host of reasons I can't explain in brevity, this is not as easy as it should be for many people. But consistent meditation will sort this out.
3) When we are more aware of our feeling, then we can check how in harmony our actions are with our thoughts. Further, with practice, it becomes clear that our thoughts influence our emotions, not our emotions our thoughts.

Testing, testing, testing...

Words do not teach. Only experience teaches. So I decided to test this hypothesis for validity myself, and I strongly urge everyone who finds this interesting to do likewise. For my initial test, I used driving as a means.

Every time I sat behind the wheel of my care, I dictated that I wanted "Safety, freedom and joy" for that segment of time.

One day not long after, I was driving on the highway to a neighboring town for an appointment thru a thunderstorm and thick rain. The road was empty, and since I was going between 65-85 mph depending on conditions, I used the left passing lane because it had the best drainage and least chance of acquaplaning. On a long straight, going about 85 mph, I got a bad feeling and backed off the gas, going down to 50 mph. I asked, "is it an accident?" No (bad feeling). "Cops?" No. Hmm. But something is up ahead, right? Yes (good feeling).

I drove for about 3/4 of a mile, really paying attention now, and lo and behold, not until a hundred feet from him did I see a car parked on the left shoulder, no flashing hazard, and a guy using half my lane to change his tire. Had I not been anticipating him and going at 85 mph, the outcome could well have been tragic. As it was, I immediately changed to the right-most lane and continued on, returning to my original pace as the coast was now clear.

Another time, I was going 60 mph in a 40 mph road, with a guy in front shielding me (or rationally that's what I thought at the time) from radar. Up a hill, my foot lifted off the gas by itself and I slowed to 35 mph. Hello! What's this? Is there a cop up ahead? Yes. Crested over the hill and there were four cops in Jeeps along the shoulder, tailgates down and radar guns inside on tripods. The guy who had moments before been just ahead of me was now being served. I drove by, asked if the coast was clear, yes, and continued as before.

Now these are very banal examples, which is why I chose them as my test. As one finds his own proofs, confidence builds to apply this inner resource to more important things.

For more on this, I recommend:

www.abraham-hicks.com

Special Subjects, Vol. 1

AB-1 Introduction (it may still be given out free)

If you find this in harmony, then continue with:

AB-2 Law of Attraction
AB-3 Law of Deliberate Creation
AB-4 Law of Allowing
AB-5 Segment Intending

That is the Core of the Teaching. One need not proceed further.

These are channeled readings. As in all things in life, proceed only if you are ready to, don't take anything as truth or gospel, test the validity of everything for yourself in your own experience. That is the scientific way. Question everything.

Of course, as musicians, a lot of you will be quite familiar with channeling, which can be called creativity, inspiration etc.

"If I did not assist you in your wonderful defense, it is solely for this reason: that which we would call "evil" arises not from wont of reason--hence rational argument cannot sway it. "

This is iinteresting, but I wonder if the following is also true: 'that which we would call 'evil' arises from wont of reason--hence rational argument cannot sway it'. Or more generally - that which arises from reason can potentially be swayed...

"Quite the opposite, in fact. Evil is but the manifestation of surfeit of reason, which rationalizes its own depredations, at the subornation of empathy. Ergo, one cannot "reason" away such a deficit, which is in itself a surfeit, with that which is in itself in excess."

hmmm - must empathy be unreasoned? Or, if empathy is taken as one of the basic principles upon which subsequent reasoning is based, I'm not sure how there could be a 'surfeit' of reason. But, I think I know what you mean...that one someone does not start with empathy, and reasons dispassionately, will not be susceptible to arguments that use it as a premise. I don't think that I expressed this very well at all.

Actually, rereading what you say above, I"m not sure I understand it.

As given above, your thoughts control your emotion. There is no better time to test this hypothesis that during the death of a loved one. Fill your mind with gratitude for the shared experience with that person, and you feel joy. Think that life is unfair, that now that person is well and truly dead, that you are alone, and you feel like {censored}e. That is the disconnect between your conscious mind and your soul. Hence evil as a concept is but absence of light, feeling or empathy. Hence, excess of reason.

Continued below...

[Absurdum Mundi]

...Continued:


"I do hope I have laid a comprehensible groundwork in this argument, and you are ready and willing to read between the lines."

Certainly. But, (and I don't mean this question antagonistically) - why would you write something here whose meaning would be clear only 'between the lines'? Maybe I ask merely because my vision seems to have deteriorated...

Very simply, I am wanting to tread a fine line of offering insight without wanting to persuade with stridency. Think of it as opening a door, but not wanting to push anyone thru the doorway.

"I won't delve any further. Since you are a philosopher (philos sophos: trans: loving of knowledge), I hope you recall your Ludwig von Wittgenstein, and his singular contribution."

Very much so, although my recollection of specifics is alarmingly fragile. In honor of his work, my next post here will repudiate this one entirely.

Excellent. You know only all too well the futility of trying to teach with mere words. Experience is the teacher. That is why we are all here in physical.


"The way I see it, it all boils down to what kind of music you are making: if you are into the ambient/pattern genre, maybe the Lemur is de rigueur. OTOH, if you are a synthesist who dreams of complex, acoustic articulation of virtual instruments, the Continuum makes its case plain."

I like the idea of both, and they are not contradictory. Practical concerns therefore assume enormous importance...

Whichever advances your singular voice. Amen.

"Ideally, one would have both, and the Wacom Intuos too. Of course, since you have Kyma already, you're in a fantastic position: you have the ONE digital synth which proves the lie of digital sound being inherently worse than analog. "

Digital is only inherently worse than analog when it attempts to emulate analog. I think that this is pretty much generally true - if what is emulated is taken to be the ideal, any emulation will fall short. The best one can hope for is if the difference is too small to be perceived.

Emulation never interested me as a concept. Either the sound is unique and/or fresh, and embodies its own soul, or it doesn't. One shouldn't try to define things into pidgon holes just to make it easy for the mind. That's not knowledge (not that that's what you were doing--I'm speaking here in a more universal vein).

"Fact is, I expect, that Kyma has spoilt your ears to lesser examples. Just listent to the Kyma demos against the V-Synth. The V-synth sound is quite "there," but the Kyma sound is "here." That's the nature of sound and audiophile "presence.""

I actually had a v-synth and sold it. I didn't like the sound.

Veritum.

"Still, if the price of the Lemur IS 2-2.5k, then it's quite askew. Let's face it, a touch-panel LCD, basic CC firmware, say $400-700 retail. $2.5k must be financing an insurrection in Central America. :D"

Well, I don't know that much about the cost of putting these things together. I suspect that you're right in one respect - that in a few years, technology like the Lemur will be much less expensive, whereas something like the continuum will continue to be quite expensive. However, that is not a compelling argument always to make a choice based primarily on those concerns.

Well, what the future holds is physical mortality. I'm really interested in the NOW. Right now, the price makes a continuum damn appealing to me.

"In the case of the Continuum, you may well be able to order it from Haken with a two-week grace period for try-out, tho I seriously wonder if one can master a new musical interface in such a short time. Ultimately, I suppose those of us who can imagine sounds that heretofore have not been made manifest synthetically will find motivation to take the plunge, even if running the Continuum with a standard keyboard in a dual manual rig. Progress is never easy, but stagnation is the only alternative."

Perhaps becoming content with one's stagnation is true progress?

I'll have to disagree this once. Desire is the essence of life. It is what differentiates the young from the old.


"P.S. As an existing Kyma owner, there's one thing that you could do for me: if you could ask Carla or Kurt when the next hardware upgrade will come, they might even give you a reply. I'd really appreciate it. :)"

I know that they will not give me a reply. Last year, when i upgraded my old Capybara 66 to the newer 320, I begged them for some kind of answer on this subject. They steadfastly refused to provide any guidance whatsoever. I read somewhere in an interview, that they don't like to release incremental hardware upgrades, and that they like to wait until performance of the new hardware would be at least 5x the previous. but you'd think it should be getting pretty close - it's been about 7 years...

I presume that they will release it at just the precise point of time when I have already spent my money on something else.

Thanks. I had to ask. Same story. But to be honest, I don't really care that much. There is no guarantee that the replacement will sound as good as this version.

A nice long reply for you, Drool. I'm not sure this appropriate for Ritalin Central.

[droolmaster0]

"If we look at life as a closed system, or in absolute terms, that is undeniably so. I can't give a 150% effort, even if I say so. If, however, we allow our rational, worldview to include the possibility of transcendance, specifically the inclusion of something more beyond our initial perseptional limitations, then the absolutist notion of 1 or 100% no longer applies. It is transcended."

Well, I would say, that this sounds nice, but isn't true. a and (not a) are both true only if we view a differently in both cases, and this would apply both in a 'closed system' and with the possibility of transcendence. It hurts to try to evoke these memories, but wouldn't Wittgenstein say that this is an issue of grammar?

"Let me explain it thus, but bear in mind that this is not a rational polemic any more, seeking to persuade, for this is simply not possible. I offer it as an opinion, insight, anecdote, hypothesis, axiom, postulate...you get the picture. Think of this as comparing a static, isolated computer compared to a computer connected to a network and the internet. It is the interconnectedness to All-That-Is which gives the connected computer the ability to transcend itself and become as valuable as the entire network which it embodies."

the problem, as I see it, is that when you map non quanitifiable, subjective, topics about life and transcendence, to mathematical or scientific models, you by definition lose something - often the very thing that you're trying to clarify. Sure, we can speak poetically about a and not a coexisting, or efforts exceeding 100%, or a continuum fitting in one's head, but then we are no longer within the scientific, mathematical world where the quantification makes sense. So there really are no rules then, and you can pretty much make sense of it every which way. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of transcendence, but not in certain circles, geometrically speaking.

"Mankind is much the same. We live in the illusion that we are all separate, and individual. From higher, non-physical perspective, this is false."

But surely, on any level, the individuality isn't an illusion - I can imagine it as an illusion only if constructed by a rather malevolent manipulator....an illusion could not be so self consistent. But that does not contradict that also we are interconnected, and that (if this interconnection truly exists - this must be the object of faith, I think) it exists on a more fundamental level than the individuality. Kind of a matter of semantics - but, dude, no way this is an illusion, IN THE SAME SENSE that, say, a mirage is an illusion. Pain is not an illusion, and I think it becomes dangerous to think in those terms sometimes.

:Since space constrains, let me cut to the quick. The hypothesis (and I don't offer it as anything more) is simple:

1) We are spiritual beings in physical
2) We have free will
3) Our higher-self, or non-physical self, communicates to us continually by way of emotion. "

? You would say that, say, anger is a communication from our higher self? Or only some emotions, say love, or profound indifference, would be so described?

"Now the method:

1) One must meditate for one's true vibration to manifest. This simply means NOT THINKING for select times.
2) If we accept as our premise, that our Higher Self is giving us feedback, in the form of emotion, first we must be really familiar with feeling good, to calibrate our guidance system. For a host of reasons I can't explain in brevity, this is not as easy as it should be for many people. But consistent meditation will sort this out.
3) When we are more aware of our feeling, then we can check how in harmony our actions are with our thoughts. Further, with practice, it becomes clear that our thoughts influence our emotions, not our emotions our thoughts."

? Lost you on the last part...if our emotions are a communication from our higher self, wouldn't the goal be to have these influence our thoughts, so as to bring our actions into harmony with our thoughts?

"Testing, testing, testing...

Words do not teach. Only experience teaches. "

Cannot words bring clarity to our experience, and hence contribute to teaching us? Isn't human experience too bound up with words to be extricated in an explanation so glibly?

"So I decided to test this hypothesis for validity myself, and I strongly urge everyone who finds this interesting to do likewise. For my initial test, I used driving as a means."

hmmmmm

"Every time I sat behind the wheel of my care, I dictated that I wanted "Safety, freedom and joy" for that segment of time.

One day not long after, I was driving on the highway to a neighboring town for an appointment thru a thunderstorm and thick rain. The road was empty, and since I was going between 65-85 mph depending on conditions, I used the left passing lane because it had the best drainage and least chance of acquaplaning. On a long straight, going about 85 mph, I got a bad feeling and backed off the gas, going down to 50 mph. I asked, "is it an accident?" No (bad feeling). "Cops?" No. Hmm. But something is up ahead, right? Yes (good feeling).

I drove for about 3/4 of a mile, really paying attention now, and lo and behold, not until a hundred feet from him did I see a car parked on the left shoulder, no flashing hazard, and a guy using half my lane to change his tire. Had I not been anticipating him and going at 85 mph, the outcome could well have been tragic. As it was, I immediately changed to the right-most lane and continued on, returning to my original pace as the coast was now clear.

Another time, I was going 60 mph in a 40 mph road, with a guy in front shielding me (or rationally that's what I thought at the time) from radar. Up a hill, my foot lifted off the gas by itself and I slowed to 35 mph. Hello! What's this? Is there a cop up ahead? Yes. Crested over the hill and there were four cops in Jeeps along the shoulder, tailgates down and radar guns inside on tripods. The guy who had moments before been just ahead of me was now being served. I drove by, asked if the coast was clear, yes, and continued as before.

Now these are very banal examples, which is why I chose them as my test. As one finds his own proofs, confidence builds to apply this inner resource to more important things."

This may serve as proofs to you, but I would say that you simply lucked out. Sorry. Whatever interconnectedness we share, and in whatever sense our individuality is an illusion, I don't believe in a view of transcendence that includes the supernatural. If it gets you there (literally) then go for it. But if you are objective about it you will encounter counterexamples. Then the trick becomes being objective about it.


"If I did not assist you in your wonderful defense, it is solely for this reason: that which we would call "evil" arises not from wont of reason--hence rational argument cannot sway it. "

This is iinteresting, but I wonder if the following is also true: 'that which we would call 'evil' arises from wont of reason--hence rational argument cannot sway it'. Or more generally - that which arises from reason can potentially be swayed...

"Quite the opposite, in fact. Evil is but the manifestation of surfeit of reason, which rationalizes its own depredations, at the subornation of empathy. Ergo, one cannot "reason" away such a deficit, which is in itself a surfeit, with that which is in itself in excess."

hmmm - must empathy be unreasoned? Or, if empathy is taken as one of the basic principles upon which subsequent reasoning is based, I'm not sure how there could be a 'surfeit' of reason. But, I think I know what you mean...that one someone does not start with empathy, and reasons dispassionately, will not be susceptible to arguments that use it as a premise. I don't think that I expressed this very well at all.

Actually, rereading what you say above, I"m not sure I understand it.

"As given above, your thoughts control your emotion. There is no better time to test this hypothesis that during the death of a loved one. Fill your mind with gratitude for the shared experience with that person, and you feel joy. Think that life is unfair, that now that person is well and truly dead, that you are alone, and you feel like {censored}e. That is the disconnect between your conscious mind and your soul. Hence evil as a concept is but absence of light, feeling or empathy. Hence, excess of reason.

Continued below..."

I don't know. I think that we are starting to have 2 different conversations...

[droolmaster0]

I have to leave and don't have time to give this full attention, but I just wanted to make one comment:

Perhaps becoming content with one's stagnation is true progress?

"I'll have to disagree this once. Desire is the essence of life. It is what differentiates the young from the old."

That was actually a joke....kind of poking fun at myself, I suppose the ultimate in-joke...

[girevik]

I FINALLY got to watch that Lemur video. I did it by downloading the latest version of Quicktime (doh!!!).

I'd love to have both a Continuum and a Lemur, but between the two would go for the Continuum first. Mainly because priority would go to first setting up a synth instrument in Max/MSP and making it playable. The Lemur strikes me as a secondary interface for additional control.

But before the Continuum, I'd get a Terpstra Keyboard :



This is because of my interest in microtonal music and this is the best type of keyboard for exploration of alternatively tuned harmonies (just intonation, 53t-ET, 72t-ET, meantone, etc.).

[chick korea]

Originally posted by droolmaster0 ah - the continuum. but that's really a totally different concept/instrument, isn't it? like, it's not like you can set up the continuum with bouncing balls and a step sequencer. I have a Kyma - I've thought about trying to get a continuum at some point but that's REALLY expensive, and takes up more room than the the Lemur....which I don't think I can spare. Have you actually played on these?

 

 

 

LIKE IT

[Khazul]

Originally posted by setAI I can imagine future hardware synths with Lemur displays as well- no more need for expensive knobs/sliders- complex synthesis controls would all be mapped to the lumur display- expensive analog synths would be alot cheaper and easier to patch-

 

 

Roland V-Synth has a touch screen on it. It does make it very easy and quick to use.

 

The down side - you can sometimes catch the wrong control.

[Absurdum Mundi]

Originally posted by droolmaster0 I don't know. I think that we are starting to have 2 different conversations...

I am in no doubt that this is as it appears to you. I can agree and disagree with you, both at the same time.

Since you are a lover of knowledge (philosopher), it begs the question, what is knowledge, hence, what is truth?

Without insulting you with trying to impose my feeble rationalizations upon you, allow me still to share a humble observation:

The closer you arrive at the truth, the more you will be aware that there is no one truth: it is all true.

When you understand this conundrum, you will be there.

Hint: It is man's willfulness that separates him from the willingness to simply be.

In other words: If ye seek wisdom, look not without thyself, for thou art a divine spark from the eternal flame. Look therefore within, for all that is to be found is there.

Meditate...think not...release your cupid mind for an instant and allow that which thou truly art to come to the fore.

And pay attention to thine feeling. For thoughts come and go, but your feeling is eternal....

"I now realize that there is no one thing that is true. It is all true." -- Thomas Hudson (Islands in the Stream) the movie, NOT the book.

Fare thee well, my friend.

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by Absurdum Mundi I am in no doubt that this is as it appears to you. I can agree and disagree with you, both at the same time. Since you are a lover of knowledge (philosopher), it begs the question, what is knowledge, hence, what is truth? Without insulting you with trying to impose my feeble rationalizations upon you, allow me still to share a humble observation: The closer you arrive at the truth, the more you will be aware that there is no one truth: it is all true. When you understand this conundrum, you will be there. Hint: It is man's willfulness that separates him from the willingness to simply be. In other words: If ye seek wisdom, look not without thyself, for thou art a divine spark from the eternal flame. Look therefore within, for all that is to be found is there. Meditate...think not...release your cupid mind for an instant and allow that which thou truly art to come to the fore. And pay attention to thine feeling. For thoughts come and go, but your feeling is eternal.... "I now realize that there is no one thing that is true. It is all true." -- Thomas Hudson (Islands in the Stream) the movie, NOT the book. Fare thee well, my friend.

Fare thee well. Return when you have developed a little humility.

[jazzed]

All that video did was make me REALLY want a Continuum. But five grand!? No f---ing way!

I must try one at least. Wow...

Not that I really need one anyway...but still...!

[droolmaster0]

Originally posted by jazzed All that video did was make me REALLY want a Continuum. But five grand!? No f---ing way! I must try one at least. Wow... Not that I really need one anyway...but still...!

Actually, the smaller continuum is about $3,250 or thereabouts. Not exactly cheap, but not exactly $5000 either.