Ep. 14 Notes (“Wonderwall,” by Oasis)

Subscribe via iTunes | Listen via Stitcher

Go to previous episodeGo to next episode

The Song

“Wonderwall,” by Oasis

And here are the lyrics.

Supporting Songs

“Flood,” by Jars of Clay

“Little Drummer Boy,” by Jars of Clay

 

“Love Song for a Savior,” by Jars of Clay

 

“The Chair,” by Jars of Clay

(Listen to the fiddle solos in that song!)

References

Websites

The Wikipedia article on the “Wonderwall.”

The Wikipedia article on Wonderwall.

The Wikipedia article on Wonderwall Music.

The Billboard Alternative Songs charts.

The Billboard Hot 100 charts.

Billboard’s Alternative Chart 25th Anniversary Top 100 Songs.

I allude to a scene in Gettysburg at the beginning of the podcast, but can’t find the clip online. Here is the full quotation (it’s the one about “complicatin’ the obvious”).

Philosophical Sources

For Nietzsche’s claim that only modern humans (specifically, 19th century Germans) suffer from a division between their insides and outsides, see his On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life (you may also be able to find it for free under the tile, “On the Use and Abuse of History for Life”; it is also included in his book, Untimely Meditations [or Thoughts out of Season, depending on the translation]).

On the problem of other minds, see here.

On the problem of “what it’s like,” see Nagel’s famous article [PDF]; on the problem of “qualia” in general, see here; on the problem of “philosophical zombies,” see here.

Comments, Corrections, and Feedback

Lemme know!

________

Featured image by jdbenthien. Provided under a CC0 Public Domain license.

Go to previous episodeGo to next episode

3 thoughts on “Ep. 14 Notes (“Wonderwall,” by Oasis)

  • The Nietzschean idea, though I wasn’t aware of it at the time, seems to be where I was thinking a few years ago when I wrote:

    Although we use them all the time
    Names are often forgotten
    Yet we associate them with people
    As though they were body parts, or
    Like they are containers for
    Our whole persons, in and out
    Unless we’ve taken on another name
    In some moment of self-definition –
    Surnames notwithstanding –
    Each one’s name was gifted by another

    Does this gift define who we will be
    As our genes and culture do
    Very likely not, as we tend to forget
    Intimate details about ourselves
    So our names become nominal

    More to come, since it wouldn’t all fit in here :/

  • Hopefully this isn’t too incoherent:

    Coming back to names and shared experiences, though, I’d like to continue my previous proposition about naming things with this proposition:

    We share an experience to the extent that our names for it are coincident.

    Definition of terms:
    “Share” is our attempt to create (or recreate) our names for another in such a way that they become Story. Story is when names come to include other names that are not entirely ours. Think of the word, “remember”. This means to make an experience part of the current singularity, the Now (“Now” is the central aspect of my philosophy – there is an ultimate Now in which we must be coincident, and it is the crux of everything else: it is where all creation occurs).
    Experience is not “when something happens to one”. That is an incident. It is not an Experience until we participate in it, and as I said last time, we experience an object (I will refer to all singular things, people or events as objects, as that which is the singularity (as something in whatever way separate from our selves) with which we are dealing by giving it a name. The song used in this podcast shows that we may not use a name that means anything to anybody else, at least when we use it. This is not a problem, really, since all of our words initially only mean what they mean to ourselves. The name comprises the sum total of our experience with the object.
    Are: As above, all remembrances are present. When we attempt to make an experience coincident with someone else, we engage in a dialectic in which, consciously or unconsciously, our experience is modified to include aspects of another’s name for it. In this way, Story is created, and both names overlap in aspects of the experience – because this experience is now, and we are coming to an agreement with one another about the name. Or, one could assume, a disagreement – but either way, the experience has grown into story including these additional experiences of the initial experience. Again I refer you to my favorite line from Szasz.
    Coincident: Whether we are attempting to convey our names in person or whether we are writing in solitude for an expected audience, we are participating in this dialectic (see Stephen King, On Writing). As nothing takes place except for Now, when we attempt to coordinate our names, we have a new (in the creative idea of building from existing structures) incident to name, which will be linked to our previous names for the incident in a manner that adds elements – meaning – to the names. The next time we make that experience present, it will be larger than before; and if we continue to share it, it will, coincidentally, become larger. If those with whom we participated in naming the incident are present, the extent to which the names have similar elements (meanings) is the extent to which the incident will be coincident.

    • This is all awesome stuff. I don’t have an adequate response to it other than to say that I love the focus on mereology/parts-and-wholes. I think that is the key to just about everything 🙂 And excellent point about remembering!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.