virus: Gyoto monks (that's such a cool name!)

Reed Konsler (
Wed, 9 Jul 1997 11:17:08 -0400 (EDT)

But to get back to your observation of Mahler. You actually didn't get
the same experience from Mahler. Mahler's music was written to be played
on instruments. And instruments are made of wood, string, metal and reed
and the sounding chambers of most musical instruments are not the same
size or shape as a human body. When the Monks chant, they are actually
setting up sympathetic vibrations inside your own body. The sound of a
violin, although beautiful will, by its nature vibrate a violin more
effectively than your ear.

Now, hold on. I'm willing to be convinced, but...from whence does this
analysis come? I have some concerns, which I'd like you to address:

1) Sympathetic "vibrations" sound like sympathetic magic. This is a
association-meme which expresses itself in more sensational ways as things
like voodo dolls and tarot readings. While this association has served
humankind well it is commonly acknowledged that it is no longer "proof" of
a causal link between things.

2) Human beings have quite a wide range of morphology. I find it hard to
believe that Michael Jordon and Dr. Ruth are both efficient receptors for
the same "body harmonics". If they are not then you can wave your hands
and say: "well, results may vary! You just don't have the same body
cavities as the monks do." I don't doubt the plausibility of such
statements, but that places "Gyoto monks" outside of intersubjective
discourse until we find a way to translate the harmonics into everyones
"body langauge".

[God, I can see it now: Step right up ladies and gentlemen and get a
personal "body harmonic tuning!". Through a combination of modern science
and ancient practice WE can bring to YOU sonic experiences formerly unknown
save to the world-famous "Memetic monks". These mystics trace their
ancient vibratory lineage back to sands of Egypt and the muddy shores of
the Yangtsee river! Now, for the low low price of $99.99 YOU can experince
the peace, calm, and sonic bliss teased out over the millenia in the
privacy and comfort of your own home!]

On the other hand, if everyone CAN "feel the vibe" how similar is
sympathetic? Imagine a creature that was exactly (in a harmoic sense)
halfway between a violin and a person. What gets them off?

So, Stephen is right:

There are true realms of knowing outside of science.

And, Wade is also right:

Science, at least, contains realms of knowing which seem to work
for most of the people most of the time. "Gyoto Monks" doesn't
have this characteristic.

And, David is right:

Logical analysis as practiced through Pancritical Rationalism
is a pretty efficient method for bringing more of "Stephen's
World" into "Wade's World". It's an algorithim that works.

[party time, excellent!]
To clarify my point, here is a thought experiment:

Imagine everyone in the world is color-blind, except for you. The first
thing you notice is that everything is all disordered and one
is paying any attention to the colors!

"I think we should paint all the stop signs with only
this paint"


"Becuase it 'looks' red. We can make 'red' mean 'stop'."

"What in the FUCK is 'red'?"

"The color of this paint."

"What is 'color'?"

"Can't you see it?"

Now you have a choice. If you are a "mystic" [I only intend to be mildly
perjorative] you get frustrated with all the "deranged" and retreat to the
mountiantop. Or, you collect all the color-sighted people you can find and
form an enclave (Virtual?).

But, can you teach a color-blind person to "see" colors?



A scientist finds out what everyone can understand and builds from there:

"OK, we agree this paint has this certian chemical structure?"


"OK, and, as a result, when I shine a light onto this surface only some is
reflected off, right?


"And when we plot wavelength vs. intensity what do you see?"

"The line is curved. There is one large maxima. Some of the wavelengths
seem to have no intensity."

"Good. Now define the area around that maxima as 'red'."


"I can distinguish 'red' with my unaided eye."

"Bullshit! No human perception can make such a subtle distinction."

"Test me."


"OK, I believe you, you can see 'red'."

"And now you can see 'red', too."

"But I can't."

"Not with the unaided eye, but with the
spectrometer you can. Here's a pair of
glasses with a built in spectrometer.
Whenever you look at any object the
HUD will display a readout of intensity vs.
wavelength. With a little practice, you
can look through this readout and see
your surroundings as colored."

"But, I don't SEE it the same way that you SEE it."

"What color is this apple?"


"What about this banana?"


"How about this orange?"

"It's...well...not red and not
yellow. It's sort of in-between."


"Fuck you! It isn't red or yellow!
It's...I don't know,

"You pass."

The point is, Stephen, it is not enough to say
"hey guys, stop dissin' the mystics. They see
stuff that we can't." You have to translate
it into the common intersubjective language
so that it makes sense. Until you can prove
it to us IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE we have
no reason to suspect it is real.

Now, I do a lot of searching on my own.
There is a lot of knowledge out there. I want
some gaurantees, up front, that the knowledges
you are peddling are tools I can use. I have
the fortune of being connected to science, the
media, the goverment..etc.

If you think these "mystical ways of knowing"
are worth pursuing then talk to my people.

They're all aroud you.

We'll get back to you.
And there isn't any use, David, throwing up
your hands when people go reletivist or speak
foolishly and saying:

"Well, if you aren't going to be REASONABLE
then you can believe whatever you want. I
don't care."


And "being reasonable" is exactly the issue in whine about it betrays your
neurotic circularity. Life is not a debate or
a game of chess. There are no rules.

-John Adams
(from the muscial "1776")



Reed Konsler