What did other people think about this book on Goodreads?

The one 1-star review doesn’t comment on why the book is not good. The one 2-star review scored the book low because they found it too dense. While the 3-star reviews appreciate the core concepts and the aesthetics of the book, they often found the narrative a bit repetitive, and some commented that God or speculation of other dimensions (other than the DMT hyperspace) could have been addressed as well. The 4-star reviews praised the book as a brilliant piece of “fictionalized science”, applauding its rigorous grounding in neuroscience and the 8-bit aesthetics, though a few noted that the narrative slowed down towards the end – maybe middle for me? The 5-star reviews hailed it as a mind-bending, visually stunning masterpiece. Now, what do I think?

What do I think?

I watched Andrew’s Psychedelic Neuroscience Master Course on his Alien Insect YouTube channel when it came out around the time I was finishing my PhD on neurofeedback meditation. I remember messaging him as well asking whether he thinks meditation could access the same psychedelic states that DMT can access. I think he replied saying something like “it would be difficult to access hyperspace with meditation only”. Honestly, I can’t remember, but let’s hope it’s possible since that is one of my main research goals. I bought the book around that time (2020, but never really dived into it, and since I’d like to get back on track with my work on altered states, I did finish it today. Now, I am not a neuroscientist, but I have experience with EEG, understand how neurons work, and know what neuromarkers of some altered states are. So the narrative of the book wasn’t too difficult to follow, but often I felt that there should have been a clearer introduction at the start to the whole signal processing flow – from how DMT changes the neurons, through the changes in the upwards and downwards information flow, to how the brain moves from alternating between the Default Mode and Task Positive networks to engaging both simultaneously. I enjoyed reading about how what we experience as our reality is based more on intrinsic information (something we already established in our minds) and less on extrinsic information (what we sense e.g. with our eyes or ears). I think it would have been useful to have a clear graph on how critters and gliders become atomic particles, then elements, molecules, organic cells, organs, etc. All in all, I enjoyed the book, but felt that sometimes it was repetitive and the connection between the levels in the micro and macro cosmos could have been better communicated with more diagrams. The book looks great and I look forward to reading more in Andrew’s second book titled Reality Switch Technologies: Psychedelics as Tools for the Discovery and Exploration of New Worlds.

Notes

• p.8: Gallimore seems to be sure that the code, the code that runs everything, was made by the aliens.
• p.16: For me, this physics lesson is a bit too fast.
• p.24: If it is all a computer simulation, do we have free will?
• p.41: So, how is the Game of Life software connected to the Standard Model of Particle Physics? Do the critters in the grid (3d) create the particles, then the particles the biological cells, …. higher organisms e.g. humans? How are the gliders and the rules (the Moore and the von Neumann) connected?
• p.47: Are the Wolfram rules similar to the two above or the Tit for Tat game theory rule (algorithm) I saw somewhere else linked to Game Theory? I think it would be good to have some more examples here for clarity.
• p.51: Life = (autopoietic) self creation? Check the reference to Maturana and Varela, what does this really mean?
• p.53: I am not surprised to see a reference to the author of the book The Tao of Physics. (Haven’t read the book yet.) Will the I Ching be cited as well and how McKenna used it? (After finishing the book I don’t think it was cited.)
• p.54: Maybe this info on biology could have come a bit earlier to aid clarity on how atoms make molecules, then molecules cells, etc. (After finishing the book, I know that this summary will come somewhere towards the end, but I think, here - or even at the very beginning - it doesn’t seem to have a clear overview on how the code, through particles, elements, molecules, etc. becomes a thinking human and then a society, etc.)
• p.64: To understand the sacred, we need to first understand the ordinary. Love this!
• Chapter 4 (Living Information in a Digital World) has a lot of interesting philosophy which perhaps should have come earlier for people who might be confused by all the physics in the previous chapters.
• p.63: When comparing a cell to a brain, both receive and process information that they receive from the environment, but the brain also creates a map/model of this environment (the cell does not).
• p.67: The ‘normal waking phenomenal world’ is one model of the world. Gallimore emphasizes that the worlds we see are always built by our brains, the hyperspace world too.
• p.84: Extrinsic information (e.g. what we see and hear with our normal waking model) only amplifies (validates?) the intrinsic information. This reminds me of Anil Seth’s presentation tilted The Neuroscience of Consciousness at the Royal Institution, where he explained how much our reality is based on our stored information in the brain. As far as I remember, he also said what we believe is happening with us is based more on the intrinsic info than the extrinsic info. I think this is perhaps one of the most interesting parts for me when it comes to how we people (perhaps animals too) ‘create’ our realities. I guess one of my questions would be: what is the intrinsic info built from e.g. from genes as well, how? I really need to check how much research backs this up.
• p.97: The difference between how the brain builds the world when you are awake and when you are dreaming is that when dreaming it doesn’t modulate the intrinsic information with extrinsic sensory information.
• p.110: There are two states: 1. DMN (default mode network) and 2. TPN (task positive network), which usually work separately. When using psychedelics (or maybe just DMT?) they seem to work simultaneously/together. There is a bunch of references in the further reading section for this chapter, that I need to check how well established this is.
• p.111: The author explains why the two networks are useful, and also when/how the psychedelic state can be useful and when not.
• p.116: I wonder, is it possible, that in a biblical sense, our ordinary reality (OR) – as it is called in shamanic literature – is the Paradise and God (or one of them gods) doesn’t want us to experience hyperspace (knowledge) which is then a non-ordinary reality (NOR)? I.e. God didn’t want people to eat the apple (knowledge). And if this is true, why wouldn’t God (or a God) want us to really learn more?
• p.126: We are getting a better understanding now about how the information flows:
  • drug -> neuron receptors -> network of molecules inside neuron -> neurons polarized -> neurons fire more often -> more neurons fire more often -> upwards info flow changes -> altered state of mind
• p.129: The upwards information flow affects the downwards information flow, and vice versa.
• p.135: Could chapter 11 be better explained with a video animation, the relationship between the GRID and the HYPERGRID? Can I make this video?
• p.158: What the hell could the 4-5-6 dimensional object be? I need to check this out.
• p.198: He doesn’t like the use of the term ‘simulated reality’. Instead, he suggests that our reality is an instantiation of a reality.
• p.202: Does the code create a multiverse i.e. similar versions to our reality? Did Andrew write about this?
• p.202: Andrew writes that organisms can’t evolve without interventions. But is this true? Isn’t evolution be emergent?
• p.204: There are high levels of DMT in prenatal (rat) brains, which indicates that before birth we are still more connected to the hyperspace. Could this really mean that something like a soul enters the body at birth? Peter Meyer else in the DMT Dialogues book – which I only started reading now – suggests that DMT entities are born into human existence to play a game here in our reality, where they (we) can earn some points to level up (spiritually) in the DMT hyperspace (where we come from). Interesting, isn’t it? How could this be linked to astrology explaining who we are (what we are like) based on the exact time and location of our birth?

People who gave this book 1-star reviews on Goodreads say it’s boring, overly gross, and bloated. They didn’t like the characters and often compared this long novel to Barker’s previous Books of Blood stories, which are much shorter. The 2-star reviewers often acknowledged Barker’s literary talent but felt the overall execution fell flat. Some wrote that the horror scenes were not scary; they were graphically unsettling and disgusting — in other words, they think Barker went for shock over suspense. They struggled to care about the characters as well. For example, they wrote that the romance between Marty and Carys felt forced. They also noted that the book started promisingly but had a weak ending. Again, people here commented on how much better Barker’s shorter stories are. What about 3-star reviews? Well, they bring up similar issues but aren’t as bothered by them. Some pointed out how multilayered Mammoulian and Breer were compared to the rest of the characters (the heroes). The 4-star reviews praise the writing style for mixing body horror with beautiful prose while providing perspectives on power, greed, and human nature. Some mention the audiobook helped their experience. Ultimately, many of these reviewers admitted that the book could have been shorter and that the romance between the heroes felt rushed. 5-star reviews generally praise everything, but they must be right in at least one thing, which is calling the book a foundational classic of dark fantasy.

What do I think?

Now, I read this book after Weaveworld, Abarat 1–3, Mr. B Gone, Galilee, and the first two Books of Blood. So what can I say more than others have already said? Firstly, it took me a long time to finish this book. I must admit that for the last parts, from where Breer escapes from his bed, I listened to the audiobook rather than read the actual book, while cleaning the house. Altogether, my bookmark was in this book for over half a year, which means that I progressed very slowly. I enjoyed the first half of the book but then didn’t have the energy or motivation to carry on. I agree with critiques about the book being too long and the heroes being flatter than the two villains (Mammoulian and Breer). Personally, I didn’t like the disgusting parts, nor did I feel comfortable with the necrophilia and how Mammoulian allowed Breer to do what he did to very young people. Sometimes I wondered why I was reading these books. I did like Weaveworld and Abarat, – even though I don’t remember the first one much – but I’m not sure I want to think about feeling sorry for these two villains, especially if their victims are children. And I think that’s what Barker sometimes wants us to do: to sympathize with these villains. Even in Mr. B. Gone, I felt uneasy with Mr. B bathing in the blood of children. Can’t we draw a line somewhere on the spectrum of what is still forgivable?

Anyway, I think it’s Sacrament next on my list. Wish me luck!

Some Booknotes

p.74 Going to see Bella feels like the story with the men eating pig in Books of Blood 1.

p.333 Whitehead’s secret memory is disturbing and linked to necrophilia, but not fully perhaps since the hipless woman was not really dead, right?

Again, I am not sure about the value in these books. Why is it a good idea to expose ourselves to these monstrosities? There are enough of these nightmares around us e.g. as highlighted in the news. Do these stories help us understand why people become monsters in the real world? But could they also give ideas to people to become these monsters? Think about a mother sheltering her children behind a religion from philosophy (critical thinking) or the pig farmer girl milking hogs for social media in her very tight clothes.

p.378 To see Mammoulian as anything good is impossible for me since he allowed the Razor eater to be a pedophile. Or was he only eating people but not sexually molesting them?

There are card games here again, games.

Almost at the end. Is it time to stop reading about these fictional non-ordinary realities and instead explore the real hyperspace?

Photos by Steph (DMLab).

Összegzés

Karácsony után, a ferihegyen nagyon megörültem ennek a könyvnek – főleg annak, hogy egy egész fejezet szól rólam is, a külföldön élő magyarról. Nem olvastam ezelőtt az írótól, annyit tudtam róla, hogy régen volt valamilyen tévéműsora. A könyv motivációs funkciója mellett egy tucat érdekességet is találtam; például, hogy a jó baracklekvárhoz 20% zöld barack is kell, mert az ad neki egy kis pikáns, savanyú ízt. Első olvasásra ez a könyv is kicsit olyan volt mint egy lekvár, de inkább savanyú, mint érett. Aztán mivel Dr. Csernus többször ösztönzi a magyar embert, hogy szenvedélyesebb és bátrabb legyen, eleget tettem a kihívásnak, megírtam mit gondolok és igen, még mindig érzem: szóról szóra paprikásabb lett a szám széle.

Nos, elég hamar elkezdtem lassan, de biztosan kiábrándulni a költeményből, legfőképpen a következő okok miatt. Nem éreztem, hogy mély kutatás eredménye lenne. Inkább tűnt valamilyen gyorsan összetákolt narratívának, amivel az író – biztosan jó szándékkal – inspirálni szeretné a boldogtalan magyar embert, hogy igenis boldog lehet. Néha úgy éreztem, mintha egy általános önsegítő (self-help) könyvet olvasnék, például az Édesvíz Kiadótól, amelyekkel természetesen semmi baj nincs (én is olvastam rengeteget), csak itt most egy objektívebb, racionálisabb tanulmányszerű dologra vártam. Hiszen az író orvos (pszichiáter), és a könyv borítóján is szerepelteti a doktori titulusát. Hogy mást vártam valószínüleg nem az ő hibája, hanem az enyém.

A 23 fejezeten keresztül eljutunk valamiféle definícióhoz, hogy ki is az igazi magyar ember, és mit kell tennie annak, aki „nem igazi”, hogy „igazibb” legyen. De miért nem lehetett volna ezt a definíciót kerek perec megírni mindjárt a könyv elején? Amúgy a legtöbb dolog, amiket Dr. Csernus javasol, nemcsak a magyaroknak segíthet, hanem bármelyik nemzet emberének. Körülbelül ennyi a lényeg: nézz szembe a félelmeiddel, és vállalj egy kis kockázatot a fejlődés érdekében. Igen, ezt jó többször elmondani magunknak és másoknak is, mert tényleg fontos, de nem gondolom, hogy ezt az üzenetet a magyaroknak külön be kellene csomagolni egy olyan könyvbe, amiről néha úgy éreztem, hogy lekezelő és ellentmondásokkal teli is. Tehát amiket az író javasol azok univerzális pszichológiai alapigazságok, amelyek nemzetiségtől függetlenek. De aztán lehet igaza van, lehet tényleg kontextualizálni kell a dolgokat, hogy hatásosak legyenek, hmmm … majd gondolkodom még ezen egy kicsit.

Talán ami a legjobban zavart, hogy egy „olcsó prosti” kategóriába helyezi azokat, akik külföldre mentek mosogatni. (Én is mosogattam és takarítottam is.) De aztán, hogy jobban megértsem miért is ilyen az író stílusa, egy kicsit utánajártam az interneten, és ha jól értem Dr. Csernus módszerei tudatosan provokatívak. Ő a konfrontatív terápia híve. Úgy gondolja, hogy az embert csak egy erős érzelmi sokk (pl. a “gyáva” vagy “olcsó prosti” jelzők) készteti változásra? Nem tudom. De ha tényleg így van is, szerintem ezekkel a szavakkal sok embert eltávolít magától (a jó üzeneteitől). Persze azt is írja, hogy ő “magas ívben tojik” mások véleményére (tehát akkor az enyémre is), viszont közösségépítés fontosságáról is írt, aminek az egyik alapja akár lehetne az empátia és a visszacsatolás befogadása, azaz hogy meghallgatom a másikat.

Aztán néhány példája alapján arra is gondoltam, hogy ezt a könyvet azoknak a „még nem igazán magyaroknak” írta, akik megengedhetnék maguknak, hogy tanyát vegyenek, ahol kísérletezhetnek az egészséges, természethez közeli élettel. De nem hiszem, hogy sok ilyen (gazdag) ember van otthon, itthon, vagy akárhol.

Fent úgy kezdtem ezt az “értékelést”, hogy magyarabbnak érzem magam attól, hogy bátran megosztom mit is gondolok a könyvről, de ez hülyeség. Lehet bátor és szenvedélyes akárki, akárhonnan jött, akárhol él, akárhová tart.

Egyéb jegyzetek

p.52 Amit eddig írt, az mintha minden országra igaz lenne; mintha ez elsősorban egy motivációs könyv lenne, és nem kifejezetten a magyarságról szólna.

p.62 „Ha valaki annak idején nem tanult, és a könnyűnek látszó utat választotta, az belelép ebbe a csapdába, de ez az ő döntésének következménye.” Itt arról ír, hogy sokan nem szeretik a munkájukat, mert az nem jó munka. De ez azért egy kicsit bonyolultabb. Van sors, tehetség, segítség… nem mindenki ugyanarról a lépcsőfokról indul. Később (83. o.) is azt érzem, hogy nem tesz különbséget az emberek helyzete között: „Előtted is ott áll a lehetőség, drága!”

p.81 Mintha ütköznének az üzenetek. Egyszer azt írja, hogy amikor boldognak érzi magát: „…hogy irigyeljenek nyugodtan”. Aztán mindjárt utána: „Sajnos Magyarországon jellemzően kizárólag az eredményt nézzük, nem azt, hogy amögött mennyi munka rejlik. Emiatt ébred az emberekben irigység, féltékenység, holott mindkettő rettenetes, romboló érzés.”

p.95 Itt érzem, hogy elkezd belekötni a külföldre költöző magyarokba. Azt írja, hogy a Szózat az elkötelezettségről szól. Arról, hogy „nem fordítok hátat a hazámnak, ha rosszul érzem magam ott, és nem megyek el Angliába, mert ott jobban lehet élni, hanem itt maradok, megküzdök a helyzettel, és teszek azért, hogy jobb legyen. Mert ami nem működik, azon lehet változtatni.”

p.101 Arról ír, hogy legyen szenvedélyes a magyar ember. De miért ne legyen szenvedélyes mindenki? Megint olyan, mintha egy Édesvíz-könyvet olvasnék.

p.107 Példaként hoz egy holland főnököt, aki majdnem beleesik egy gödörbe, amit a munkásai ástak, de nem lesz mérges. Erről az jut az író eszébe, hogy a magyar főnök rögtön kiabálna. Attól, hogy neki ez jut eszébe, még nem kellene általánosítani. Nem hiszem, hogy minden (vagy a legtöbb) magyar főnök ilyen lenne.

p.113 Egyetértek, tényleg nem kell, hogy fontos legyen a Halloween vagy a Black Friday… de akkor ennyi erővel a karácsony meg a húsvét is más már, mint régen volt, nem?

p.115 Azt javasolja: ha egy külföldi nem tudja a különbséget Budapest és Bukarest között, ne racionálisan magyarázzunk neki, hanem legyünk bátran felháborodva, hogy az nyomot hagyjon. Most tényleg azt akarom, hogy a külföldi bunkónak gondoljon? Én is tévedtem már más országokkal kapcsolatban. Később viszont (122. o.), amikor orvossal beszélünk, azt mondja, ne viccelődjünk, legyünk racionálisak.

p.119 Itt megint mintha ránk (külföldön élőkre) neheztelne: „Csak azt nem szabad elfelejteni, hogy az okos ember mindig abból főz, ami van… akkor esetleg elmész Angliába mosogatni. És itt jön a lényeg: hogyha te ebben hiszel, akkor jó munkaerő leszel.” Majd arról ír, hogy a közösség hangulatát a „búvalbélelt, alkoholista” kritikus tömeg határozza meg, az átlagmagyar pedig szótlanul nézi a szemetelést.

p.138–144 Itt kezdődik a definíció. Magyarul kell kimondanunk, hogy magyarok vagyunk. Az identitás elemei: ételek (gulyás, halászlé), tájak, nyelv, irodalom. Később (143. o.) már az is fontos, mit mondok: „Mert hogyha én negatív töltetű állításokat mondok ki, akkor csak látszólag vagyok magyar, de nem vagyok olyan, mint az őseink.” Akkor az igazi magyar csak optimistán beszélhet magyarul? A megújulás is fontos. Ez akkor azt jelenti, hogy ehetünk vegán (itthon termett) új-zélandi spenótot is?

p.158 Az író szerint a külföldön élő magyar a helyiek szemében csak „gyüttment”. Lehet, de szerintem nem erre kellene koncentrálni. Szerinte bizonyos körökbe „soha nem teszed be a lábad”. Magyarországon is vannak ilyen körök. Aztán jön az „olcsó prosti” hasonlat azoknak, akik nem szeretik a munkájukat külföldön. Ez túl kemény. Aki otthon nem szereti a munkáját, az milyen kategória? Értem, hogy szívvel-lélekkel jó dolgozni, de néha el kell vállalni olyan munkát is, amit nem szeretünk, hogy elérjük a céljainkat.

p.164 Azt írja: „A sok Nobel-díjasunk is azt igazolja, hogy a problémás helyzeteket mindig agyból próbáljuk megoldani… vagyis az érzelmi konfliktusokat is racionális szempontból közelítjük meg”, és szerinte ez helytelen. Külföldiként erre a fejezetre vártam a legjobban, de csalódtam.

p.179 „Aki nem pusztította el az ellenségeit, az azt kockáztatta, hogy az ellenségei fogják elpusztítani őt.” A pusztítást a bátorsággal akarja összekapcsolni, de nem értem, nekem is pusztítanom kellene bátorsággal? Biztos nem erre gondol.

p.194–201 Jó, hogy a régi magyar bútorok ápolására serkent az IKEA bútorok helyett. De a multikulturalizmusról írt véleménye nem egészen igaz; a globalizációt és a fogyasztást mossa össze vele. A kézműves pékség példája szép, de ez Angliában is ugyanúgy létező jelenség.

p.216–217 Azt írja, „magas ívben tojik” arra, ki mit mond róla. De egy későbbi fejezetben a közösség építéséről ír – ez ellentmondásos. Szerintem igenis hallgassuk meg mások véleményét. Zavaró, hogy a magyarokat „gyáva népnek, opportunistának, irigynek” nevezi. Néha túlcsordul benne a magabiztosság. Petőfivel élve azt mondja, hallgassunk az érzéseinkre. De mindig? Kellene egy egyensúly az érzelem és a ráció között, nem?

p.276 A lényeg: fogadd el magad, kezdj új dolgokba, ne félj a kudarctól. Ez tök jó, de ez az útbaigazítás bármelyik nemzetnek segíthet. A megoldások univerzálisak.

p.282 Az ügyvéd barátja példája (tanyasi gazdálkodás) idilli, de nem mindenki engedheti meg magának. Néha úgy érzem, ez a könyv a gazdagoknak íródott. De a baracklekváros tipp (80% érett, 20% éretlen gyümölcs) tényleg jó! Ez a könyv milyen lekvár? Baszogatós.

Summary

People who know much more about poetry than I do have reviewed this book on Goodreads as a bit opinionated. The average rating is 3.7, which is something I can agree with for two reasons.

First, I think the title is misleading; the book focuses on English poetry, e.g., there is no mention of Hungarian poetry at all (e.g., Petőfi or József), which might only be important to me since I have been trying to write poetry in Hungarian. I guess the book should really be titled something like A Little History of Poetry in English + Some Others Worth Mentioning. The current title would be okay, of course, if there was some kind of introduction that explains the narrative of the book – that there will be many poets and languages left out, and why.

The second reason is that while it’s written really well and is also quite enjoyable to read, I often felt there were not enough connections between the chapters or between the different schools (movements) of poetry. I would have preferred more signposting. I think what I really would have liked is some kind of diagram or a visual timeline in that missing introduction, on which we could see how the different schools of poetry coexisted with each other in different countries, with different historical events linked to political, religious, and economic changes.

Booknotes

p.1 I referenced Gilgamesh in one of my silly little poems for a poetry marathon. Why? Maybe I wanted people to think I know the history of poetry.

p.7 Skywalker was just studying the Greeks at school, we even watched the two-part The Odyssey (1997) TV film. We tried the TV series starting Kevin Sorbo as well – we started with Hercules and the Amazon Women (1994) – but it felt too sexist e.g. how the old Zeus seduced a young warrior girl in the first episode.

p.11 Homer’s work survived translation “partly because of the simplicity, speed and directness of his narrative technique”. Does this mean I have to write simple Hungarian poems if I want to easily translate them into English?

p.16 ‘Carpe diem’ comes from Horace who became the “poet laureate” of the Augustan age. This was mentioned in the film Dead Poet’s Society (1988).

p.24 Dante has a relationship with a dead woman’s spirit, whom he was in love with when they were children. But he never mentions his wife in his poetry, who gave him seven children. Why?

p.45 The name for mixed language poetry is ‘macaronic’. Maybe I could write something like this? Mix Hungarian and English… is this a niche in a niche?

p.59 The poem that argues with a women so as to have sex with her involves a flea in John Donne’s The Flea. The insect bit both of them, so their blood is mixed already, they can have sex. He is “celebrated as the greatest English love poet” (p.62).

p.65 “The seventeenth century was an age of astonishing diversity in English poetry. Donne dominated at the start, Milton towards the end. As poets they are different from each other in every possible way, and the poets who emerged in the intervening years are wholly and unmistakably individual too. This is a great change from the Elizabethan age, when one sonneteer or song-writer can easily be mistaken for another. Where did the new sense of individuality come from? One suggestion is Protestantism, which frees the individual believer from conformity and encourages self-examination. Another suggestion is London. It was the first metropolitan culture England had known, and city life, which surrounds you with strangers, intensifies your sense of difference.” … “The individual differences encouraged by Protestantism dominated seventeen-century Britain’s religious turmoil (p.75)” Now these are the parts I enjoyed them most in the book. Here we understand how poetry evolved and why.

p.82 John Milton, author of Paradise Lost, the books says is considered the second best English poet after Shakespeare.

p.90 The Augustan Poets often wrote in ‘heroic couplets’, which has ten-syllable lines, rhyming in pairs. How does this make the poem sound more heroic? The book doesn’t explain why these couplets sound heroic so I asked Gemini: “It’s because the structure is very stable, balanced, and “authoritative.” Because it clicks shut at the end of every two lines, it sounds like the poet is stating absolute truths.”

p.101 The first known African-American woman poet, who was also an ‘ex-slave’, was Phillis Wheatley. “No male poet can match Wheatley’s extraordinary story. But one who climbed through the barriers of the 18th century class structure was Stephen Duck.” Started as a farmer. The other ‘peasant poet’ was John Clare, who also wrote about work, nature. I liked when the book mentioned poets who weren’t born into rich families.

p.103 There are poets who became famous even though they only published 13 poems e.g. Thomas Gray.

p.120 John Keats was also coming from a poor background. He became a medical student. He was mocked by contemporary critics partly because of his social class. He was called a ‘cockney’ poet.

p.125 “Shelley advises meeting force with passive resistance (his idea of civil disobedience influenced Tolstoy and Gandhi).” This is probably not in line with with what my (now ex-) friend shared with me about the paradox of tolerance proposed by Karl Popper.

p.130 The romantic poet William Blake “distrusted pure reason, he also distrusted the Enlightenment and science, believing them hostile to the power imagination gives you.”

p.134 Another poet coming from a labouring (farmer) family was Robert Burns. “His great gift is authenticity. Other Romantics sympathised with the working class; he belonged to it.”

p.138 After reading Goethe’s The Sorrows of the Young Werther many people committed suicide and so the book was banned in many countries. I might have read a bit more about Faust since I don’t seem to understand why the angels rescue him from the demons.

p.145 Before Pushkin, “there was virtually no Russian literature”. How is this possible? “Upper-class Russians spoke French and despised their native language.” Is this true? This is probably an over-simplification by Carey, right? Pushkin’s works influenced Dostoevsky.

p.155 The books says that “Many, including it seems Tennyson, found that their Christian faith could not survive such knowledge” e.g. “that the earth was millions of years older than the Bible suggested.” On p.159 we read about Matthew Arnold’s poetry, which e.g. in Dover Beach “contemplates the 19th century’s gradual loss of religious faith”.

p.155 There have been many poets who came from prosperity e.g. Robert Browning. He didn’t need a job.

p.160 Elizabeth Barrett Browning, although coming from a rich family linked to sugar plantations, campaigned against slavery. When slavery was abolished the family’s money was severely affected. Her last poem, A Musical Instrument feels like an apology for her more cruel and violent poetry, in favour of her gentler one. When people are dying do they want to make sure they didn’t upset anyone? Probably not in line with the “Do not go gentle into that good night…” lines I will quote soon.

p.163 The Bronte sisters used male pseudonyms to publish poems. Emily apparently was raging sometimes e.g. hurting her dog.

p.165 Christina Rossetti, in her later years volunteered at a former prostitutes refuge. Her most famous poem Goblin Market is excellent work. It’s a feminist poem that teaches “how love between women can save them from the wicked temptations of men.” The poem is likely inspired by the stories she heard at the refuge.

p.169 You can sometimes read that poets had relationships with younger people e.g. the bisexual Walt Whitman, who “formed intense relationships with men and boys…”. There were other, heterosexual, examples earlier in the book as well and I wonder how people today judge these relationships e.g. do we separate the art from the artist and then celebrate the art but not the artist who (likely) did something unethical? Later (p.181) we read about Lewis Carroll’s “weakness for scantily clad little girls”, which has been an ongoing argument since between scholars and now layman on the internet. Carey’s seems to be a very controversial claim and as far as I know most biographers cite Carroll’s fascination with the “little girls” a motif and not a “weakness.” I looked for feedback online and was suggested to check out “presentism” which is something like the act of judging historical figures by modern moral standards. It’s a huge debate in literary circles.

Regarding Whitman, the book seems to suggest that he didn’t care much about what other people thought of him:

I do not trouble my spirit to vindicate itself or be understood,
I see that the elementary laws never apologize.

Another quote:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

Whitman also wrote the poem O Captain! My Captain! which was featured in the film with Robin Williams, the Dead Poet’s Society (1988). I really liked that film… maybe I should write about it later.

p.177 “In the closing decades of the 19th century European culture began to fragment. There were various reasons. In 1871 that shattering defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War ominously redrew the power-map of Europe. Throughout the century, industry and commerce had transformed life in cities, and it seemed to many that the arts were being side-lined. Europe’s population more than doubled, and people began to complain of crowds and their power. Another development was the spread of education. By 1900, state-sponsored elementary education created mass literacy, which brought with it mass-circulation newspapers and magazines. Writers’ reactions varied. Some welcomed the new market for their work. Others despised it.” Baudelaire didn’t really like other people, or maybe he didn’t like poor people, I am not sure. He liked his luxury, although his parents didn’t give him much money. He rebelled against his parents, drunk, smoked weed, etc. Carey says his work is full of self-pity.

p.179 The Symbolist poets followed – I guess the technical inventions – of Baudelaire. These poets use symbols e.g. the bird in Baudelaire’s poem titled The Albatross is the poet (so it’s a metaphor), but the book says their main goal was to “break away from all previous poetry.” Arthur Rimbaud’s aim with his poetry was “to reach a new kind of truth”. He wrote:

The idea is to reach the unknown by the derangement of all the senses.

I wonder, is this connected to shamanism or how shamans ‘derange the senses’ to access an altered state?

His work then is also linked to synesthesia. “He also abandoned coherent meaning, so that his poems can read like the result of free associations - which Freud was developing in Vienna, around the same time, for psychoanalytic purposes.”

Paul Valéry Ars Poetica suggests to be incoherent – as a poetic principle:

Let your verse be aimless chance.

He said that the musicality of the poem is more important than its meaning. Is this in any way in line with what visual artists were doing at the time? What was the philosophy, the historical change at this time?

p.181 Dylan Thomas wrote:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light…

Yes, I have heard this before and it reminded me of a Petőfi poem:

Egy gondolat bánt engemet:
Ágyban, párnák közt halni meg!

One thought keeps going round my head:
The thought of dying in my bed! (source)

The last part of this chapter (Shaking the Foundations) mentions Théophile Gautier who is famous for “art for art’s sake”. Wikipedia says that it means “that ‘true’ art is utterly independent of all social values and utilitarian functions, be they didactic, moral, or political.” Is this a bit like absolute music? Does this allow Hitler’s works to be celebrated i.e. by separating the art from the artist? Crazy.

p.189 The book also says that A.E. Housman believed that “Meaning is of the intellect, poetry is not”, and that “Poetry is not that thing said but a way of saying it.”, however the way of saying poetry is often inseparable from meaning or is it not? I kind of understand what is meant here, but would be interested in further clarification. The books also says that he didn’t find a publisher which damaged his confidence. I can understand that. I think many can. Keep grinding!

p.193 When the book talks about the Georgian Poets, it says that Edward Thomas and Robert Frost “wanted poetry to be less ‘poetical’, and to follow the cadence of ordinary speech. Frost suggested the best place to hear it was behind a door where you could not distinguish the words but only the stresses and intonations.”

Ezra Pound had an interesting life e.g. he was linked to fascism, apparently comparing Hitler to a saint like Joan of Arc. On p.219 we also learn that his child Mary – I can’t remember how many he had or with how many women – was given to a peasant woman to bring up. And then they had another child, a boy named Omar, who was also given away to his first partner/wife, Dorothy. Why? Is this normal? He had interesting views on capitalism e.g. that it made money out of money, and that this money should be replaced with a currency that cannot be hoarded e.g. vegetables. His Cantos is long but seems to be his most ‘important’ work. Some critics dismissed it, e.g. Robert Graves, with contempt.

p.239 In the Getting Over Modernism chapter, we get to know Marianne Moore. The story of Moore’s poem titled Poetry is very interesting. Its length changed over time, it became shorter. It also seems to be a good argument for writing poetry. Being okay with a poem changing over time I think was also part of modernism. She also wrote about nature and is famous for her poems about animals. I somewhere else read or saw (maybe YouTube) that she never married but perhaps was waiting for T.S. Eliot to ask for her hand. She was respected in her community and was also famous for being the editor of a famous journal called The Dial.

p.269 We get to know the English ‘Movement’ poets who ‘believed poetry should make sense, and should communicate with ordinary people, not just highbrows. They reject modernism. “Movement poetry is capable of argument because it employs reason, whereas for some theorists and practitioners of modernism reason and logic inherently unpoetic.” This reminded my of the musical with Hugh Jackman titled The Greatest Showman (2017).

p.283 In the chapter called Poets in Politics, we learn that in Russia, in the first half of the last century, Anna Akhmatova found it too dangerous to keep written copies of her poetry, so she memorized them and burnt the papers.

In the last chapter of the book (p.289), we get to know the Irish Seamus Heaney, who refused to write political poetry and as a ‘peacemaker’ won a Nobel Prize. We also get to know the American Maya Angelou, “a spokesperson for black women, and civil rights activist alongside Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, … she earned her living as a cook, nightclub dancer, sex worker, singer and actress.” She was also abused as a child and later in a poem says that she cannot write without resentment. We also get to know Mary Oliver, who according the the New York Times was a best-selling poet. She was also abused as a child. Cary wrote that “She believes that humans are alienated by reason and culture from the natural joy of birds and animals, and her delight in nature is not diminished by a realisation that it is a world of predators and prey.” Food for thought.

I will start with the other book in the photo above, John Lennard’s The Poetry Handbook soon.

Oh, a big house full of magic, like the one in Barker’s earlier book The Thief of Always? No, not quite. The house and the story here are bigger, and no, don’t give this book to your children. So where do I begin my review? How do I narrate it? Hmm… I guess this is something writers often struggle with, even Barker. In Galilee, through his metafictional experiment using Maddox, a demigod writer living in the house, Barker shares his writing process, which is the best part of the story.

Barker = Maddox;

Literature review

First, let me share some knowledge so you understand my perspective. I read Weaveworld around 20 years ago in Hungarian and it mesmerized me. I couldn’t put it down. It was a book that I picked up from a shelf without even reading the blurb. (I don’t like trailers; they spoil too much.) After that, I read the Abarat series and loved it too. I even bought the hardcover versions recently, complete with all of Barker’s brilliant paintings. A few years later, I read the first two in the Books of the Art series in English, but since my English wasn’t really good, I couldn’t fully immerse myself in the world. However, I still enjoyed them and should probably reread them once the third book in this series is published. Oh, and this year I watched some of Barker’s films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train, and Nightbreed) but didn’t like them much. I do really enjoy watching his A-Z of Horror series; they are educational! I also watched some interviews with him online, and he is very charming. I remember someone describing the young Barker as beautiful, the middle-aged one as buff, and what we have now… I can’t remember. Unfortunately, his illness took away a few of those previous characteristics. It makes me sad to see him in a wheelchair. Anyway, let’s go back to the books.

Last year, I thought my English was good enough to read more of his works, so I (re)started with The Thief of Always. I loved it but am still puzzled by the drawing where a man looks at another’s backside. I don’t know how that drawing got in there. All the other drawings in this book are linked to the story; this one doesn’t seem to be. Any ideas?

I read somewhere that Galilee isn’t a typical Barker book, so I thought let’s try it because I like when artists experiment and don’t stick to their established methods. I enjoy seeing them try new things to discover more about themselves because this is something I do to in my practice. And I guess this is what I found in Galilee, an experiment. After finishing this hefty book, I also read the relevant page on Barker’s site (clivebarker.info), the corresponding chapter in The Dark Fantastic (Winter 2002), and reviews on the Goodreads website. Let’s start with a quick summary of these reviews.

Goodreads reviews

Many 1- and 2-star reviewers gave up on finishing the book because they found it boring or too long, with unnecessary characters and too much focus on rich snobs. They disliked the narrator (Maddox) and expected more horror/paranormal elements. Some thought the ending didn’t climax enough, while others found parts too weird, for example the two brothers talking about their dad’s massive penis or Rachel worshipping Galilee’s. I wasn’t too keen on some of the sex nor Rachel’s worship either, possibly because I am a heterosexual male, but these parts didn’t bother me much. However, the pedophilic elements did; one where a daughter might be allowed to play with her father’s penis when she gets older and another involving a young girl having sex with a water spirit. I still don’t understand this latter story. Okay, Galilee is the water spirit I guess, but then who is Jerushka? Rachel? I’ll have to read Gabriella Kristjanson’s work on the predatory realms in Barker’s works to understand more about this theme. Looking at her publication list, she seems to be the expert.

The 3-star reviews are more realistic; they point out both the good and the bad. They liked that Barker writes through Maddox and that the book is well-written but often didn’t like Rachel’s relationship with Galilee. They wrote, “it felt forced,” and also that the characters weren’t really interesting either. Someone noted: “There was also an excessive preoccupation with sex and licentiousness, which was needlessly thrown into the narrative as a shock tactic and didn’t connect with the greater story or convey any deeper purpose.” I’m still on the fence about this. As mentioned above, apart from the pedophilic images, the rest didn’t bother me. Well, maybe the necrophilia a bit too. By the way, how Garrison’s character evolves is very interesting: how he gradually allows himself to become someone he really wants to be.

The 4- and 5-star reviewers are those I agree with most. They often wrote that you understand more upon rereading the book and that it’s a challenging novel. Some appreciated Barker’s research into both magical and historical aspects, e.g., the Civil War. Some agreed that Rachel and Galilee were the least interesting characters, resonating with previously mentioned 2-star reviews and my own feelings. Someone wrote that Rachel was irritating. Also, some still say the book is too long, and I somewhat agree but would need to reread it to be sure. There’s so much in this novel; maybe it’s not meant to be read once only?! By the way, I like the family trees at the start of the book. They help, but unfortunately can also spoil some developments because they foreshadow when someone dies.

The most liked review says: “Clive Barker writes fantasy like a person who lives in that world (because I believe he does).” Yes, I felt that too, especially after watching the video interview linked to his paintings for Abarat. He is able to immerse himself in his worlds while creating them. You can find this video on YouTube; it’s called The Artist’s Passion. See embedded below.

Personal reflections and questions

“You must write fearlessly!” (p.20) Maddox tells himself at the start of the book, which is likely something Barker is telling himself when he writes as well, for example when he’s unsure what to do with the characters or the narrative. As mentioned earlier, the metafiction - Barker talking to us through Maddox - is my favorite part of the book: the record of a storyteller’s struggle with his work and how he keeps himself motivated, for instance, by asking the question “Why do we write?” One of his answers in the book is that “We write to educate people, to pass on knowledge.” And it’s not just Maddox that Barker uses to encourage writers to write; it’s through Zelim as well, who is another storyteller in the book. Zelim educates people to make sure they don’t hurt or get hurt like he did.

And let’s talk a bit about the romantic element between Rachel and Galilee, inspired by Barker’s relationship with David Armstrong (Winter, 2001). For me, this is one of the least interesting parts of the story. But this book is worth rereading, and when I do, I might believe in Rachel’s love for Galilee. Currently, their love isn’t convincing to me; it doesn’t feel real… But wait! Now that I am thinking about it, I remember falling in love quickly and deeply a few times in my life and I did feel happily lost and probably a bit crazy too. So maybe Rachel’s love is more understandable for readers who are in love when reading the book. Somewhere Barker said that he was in love while writing. So there you have it. Read it when you are in love, and you might love the book even more!

I look at my notes and see a few other things:

There seems to be a discussion about determinism, particularly the notion of being “enslaved by gods,” which touches on an existential theme I think central to the story. How much free will did the characters truly possess? At times, I even questioned whether all of it is happening simply because Maddox wrote it down. Look, on p. 429, we read:

I suspect, by the way, that in the creation of divinities we see the most revealing work of the human imagination. And of course, in the life of that imagination, the most compelling evidence of the divine in man. Each of these other’s most illuminating labor.

Are we co-creating the story while reading? Okay, let’s not go down this rabbit hole today.

We also learn about Barker’s perspectives on societal norms, marriage, and power dynamics, and I wonder how these relate to this quote from the book:

[In a country] where the rich were kind and the poor had God.

The Gearys weren’t very kind. Neither were the Barbarossas. So, what is this country? Did the rich give God to the poor so they would stay quiet?

Other questions I still have:

• I remember two horses: the resurrected dark one and Holt’s. Was the latter white? If so, would that be a Taoist symbol?
• Why did Maddox lose his wife on the same night Galilee came back with Holt and Nub?
• Not sure why, but after a while, Rachel felt like Anne Hathaway, and Maddox as Tenzin in The Legend of Korra. I saw her face and heard his voice. Why?
• On page 443, when Cesaria says that the painting on the Gearys’ wall is “very male”, that “it’s trying too hard”, and she (a female archetype?) likes this, is she longing for Nicodemus? Very likely.

So yes, I should reread this book.

One thing that annoyed me at the end was the big reveal about why all this is happening - that is, why does Galilee sleep with the Geary women? If you read the book, you know why. But can you believe it? Are all super-rich people so occupied with money and power that they can’t satisfy their wives sexually or romantically? Or did only Nub think this would help because he couldn’t do it himself and then created a backup plan for his offspring in case they don’t fall far from the tree? And what about poor or middle-class people who might not be able to hire gods of lust? Should we hire less expensive prostitutes to make our partners happy if we can’t? Or should we try talking, communicating, and evolving together? I guess that’s what Galilee and Rachel are doing now, right? Talking.

Finally, allow me to finish with one of my favorite parts from Maddox (p. 536):

Nobody knows the whole story, of course, nobody can. Perhaps there is no thing entire; only that rubble that Heraclitus celebrates. At the beginning of this book I boasted that I’d tell everything, and I failed. Now Galilee promises to do the same thing, and he’s fated to fail the same way. But I’ve come to see that as nothing can be made that isn’t flawed, the challenge is twofold: first, not to berate oneself for what is, after all, inevitable; and second, to see in our failed perfection a different thing; a truer thing, perhaps, because it contains both our ambitions and the spoiling of that ambition; the exhaustion of order, and the discovery – in the mids of despair – that the beast doffing the heels of beauty has a beauty all of its own.

Reference

• Winter, Douglas 2002, Clive Barker, The Dark Fantastic. (The Authorized Biography), Harper Collins

Let’s start with a recap of what Enhanced Audio Description (EAD) is. EAD is an alternative to traditional audio description (AD) in which sound design is used to provide access to film and television for visually impaired audiences by working on layering sound elements and remixing others to provide an immersive and accessible soundtrack which can be experienced by both visually impaired and sighted audiences. The development of EAD dates back to Mariana’s 2009 research, in which she developed a new sonic format named ‘audio film’ which used sound, sound processing and spatialisation to tell a story without the need for visuals or a narrator. This then developed further, through her collaboration with Gavin Kearney, and turned into what is now EAD. You can find all our papers on the Publication page.

In the last few years, I have been investigating how EAD could be further developed to convey cinematographic techniques such as shot types, camera angles and movements. This exploration has taken us through an extensive literature review, a set of interviews with audio professionals on their practice (more on this at some other time), my drafting of a theoretical framework and then a set of listening tests.

The listening tests involved 43 participants and were carried out at the University of York, using a 5.1 surround sound setup. The experiment examined how specific cinematographic techniques could be conveyed through different film sound techniques using spatialisation, sound effects and music. Participants experienced different versions of film sound and needed to indicate which of them conveyed a specified visual element (which was explained to them) more successfully. For example, the same forward tracking shot from Notes on Blindness (Peter Middleton and James Spinney, 2016), in which a blind man walks towards an underpass exit with his cane as the camera tracks him from behind, was played with four different soundtracks.

1. One version used an increase in traffic sound volume as a sound effect to convey the tracking shot.
2. Another version used an increase in music volume to convey it.
3. A third combined both an increase in traffic sound and music volumes to convey the tracking shot.
4. Finally, we had one version without any additional sound attempted to convey the forward tracking shot, serving as the baseline condition.

We are really grateful to have been able to use audio-visual material for our work from ITV’s Emmerdale, Dimitar Kutmanov’s Ecce Homo and Notes On Blindness.

The study’s preliminary findings suggest that conveying cinematography with sound is feasible and beneficial for visually impaired audiences, though it may not suit everyone - which is something we commonly find in research in accessibility and provides further justification for the need for work on personalising the film and television accessibility experience.

We are currently preparing a paper with our full findings.

Artistic vs. Scientific Orientation

How do you balance the artistic and scientific elements in your work? Do you feel more comfortable with one than the other?

OK… maybe let’s look at what I think about the relationship between art and science for a bit. For me, they are like the two ends of a spectrum. Like yin and yang. They can’t seem to live without each other. I have certainly been more comfortable with the artistic side because it feels as though I can always say, “I don’t really know why I am doing what I am doing. There is simply this inner calling that I want to answer.” But eventually I realized that I needed the attention of “serious” people — for instance, those who could offer me a scholarship, funding, or a job — and so had to learn to organize thoughts, words, goals, etc. I guess I had to become more scientific, more logical, which can really be exciting and eventually somewhat addictive. For instance, becoming better at a programming language made me feel that I might be able to control everything, even how random I want something to sound or look.

Initial Motivation for Biofeedback Art

When did you start exploring the intersection of biological data and artistic expression? What sparked your interest in this field?

In 2007, I was in my second year of my music tech course and one of our teachers, Richard Hoadley, introduced us to using the Arduino board as an interface between the real and digital worlds. We connected light-dependent resistors, ultrasonic and infrared sensors to the board, sent their readings to SuperCollider and Max/MSP and controlled sounds and visuals with them. It was AWESOME! What I really liked in Richard was that he understood that the best way for us to learn was to link our personal interests to the assignments, to work on something we cared about. I wanted to learn to control my mind… I guess to become enlightened. So I bought my first EEG, the two-channel IBVA (Interactive Brainwave Visual Analyser) from Luciana Hail and started hooking up my brainwaves to sounds and physical installations. I even got into the Cambridge News, which made my grandmother very proud.

But, like many initial neurofeedback art projects – as I later discovered – mine didn’t have a very clear… let’s say scientific signal processing methodology. In other words, I didn’t really understand what was happening under the hood. I think it was being uncomfortable with this lack of understanding why I kept familiarizing myself with computer– and neuro–science and eventually did a PhD titled Developing Brain-Computer Music Interfaces for Meditation.

Impact and Aspirations

Where would you like to see the greatest impact of your work? What specific outcomes or changes are you hoping to achieve through your projects in academia, industry or public?

So, I wanted to use neurofeedback to become better at controlling my mind. This was mainly to learn how to deal with stress but also to induce an altered state of consciousness similar to those accessed with psychedelics. When my friends and I were young in Hungary, we tried cannabis, LSD and magic mushrooms mainly for fun but also to ease uncomfortable family situations in some cases. Drugs were simply part of the subculture I grew up in. You can’t choose where you are born, can you?

The first acid trip really changed something in me and even just writing about it now makes me feel emotional. The trip gave me a mental perspective where I could somehow feel that everything might be much more connected than most people think during their normal, everyday lives. But soon, these substances became uncomfortable and stressful and I got to know about people who can achieve these heightened states without psychedelics. They meditate instead of using drugs!

And so I tried meditation. Sometimes it was powerful but most of the time difficult, which is why I thought neurofeedback, more specifically neuromeditation, could help me streamline the practice. It did, but after around a decade of experiments, I now think that biofeedback is a good tool to get to know ourselves with, but it is not necessary to keep using once we know how to induce and maintain the states we are looking for. (The same has been said about psychedelics.) These biofeedback tools I think should be disposable… or more specifically recyclable. You should give the machine to your friend once you don’t need it anymore.

While my journey has led me toward substance-free methods for altering states, I fully respect the paths of those who find value in psychedelics.

Oh, the impact I am seeking? I would like to share my experience with more people and help them streamline their sensemaking practices through bio-guided meditation. In my next research project – providing I get funding for it – the bio-guided meditation should be informed by the arts as both the input and the output. As input, where we use music, sound, visuals to induce and maintain the desired altered state – which can be anything between a simply more relaxed and a more deeply altered visionary state – and as output, where the arts are used as mediators, interfaces… communication protocols for integrating insights accessed in the altered states into our lives for instance with poetry, painting, music, film or even theatre plays. Whatever participants feel most connected to.

Here’s a snippet from my research funding application draft:

The work aims to empower participants by enhancing their self-awareness through insights gained from altered states of consciousness (ASC), expressed artistically. Through a feedback loop where self-awareness amplifies artistic expression reciprocally, members will collaborate on developing personalized visual and auditory entrainment methods to induce and maintain ASC. We will use brain-computer interfaces to record data on the neural correlates of entrainment and ASC for real-time biofeedback and offline analysis. By recognizing our agency in addressing personal challenges, we can create a ripple effect of positive change, ultimately contributing to societal well-being through individual growth.

In short, the impact I am seeking is to help people (myself included) become more self-aware with biofeedback art. I’d like to publish more papers, get more funding, and establish a research institute for biofeedback meditation where we can impact academia and industry and then make these inventions (hardware, software, and how to use them effectively) more accessible to the public.

Challenges & Growth

What have been some of the main challenges you’ve faced in your work in general or specifically with biofeedback art? How have these challenges shaped your principles, approach and methods? How have your goals changed since beginning your work?

My main challenge was not being able to communicate properly in English after moving to the UK from Hungary in 2005. First, I thought this was fine because I only wanted to stay for a bit. But then I started studying while working, and while in my first year I didn’t really have to write much, there were still presentations every now and then. I was a mature student and embarrassed by how bad my English was. Even after 20 years and a PhD, I am still nervous when I have to give a presentation. But, I guess I would be if I had to do it in Hungarian too… so maybe I just need more meditation and less caffeine! Ha-ha!

In regard to biofeedback art, my main challenges were linked to doing a PhD in a department where no one had experience with brain-computer interfacing. This meant people couldn’t help with constantly emerging technical issues. There were other challenges; for instance, while working on my research, my son was born a year after I started my PhD, and we entered the COVID years before I submitted. After the VIVA, I had to do major revisions. I felt super stressed, disappointed even angry. But as I worked through the revision process, it dawned on me that what I submitted simply wasn’t good enough, and my externals were truly trying to help. We need to learn not to take things too personally. It’s a hard lesson but absolutely necessary.

Looking back, it feels like my PhD journey was a nightmare and am sure I am not the only one who says that! But there is also a positive side to my story: I understood that family and health are priorities (not work) and that developing relationships with the right people is super important. The right people can streamline your progress. Keep networking and don’t have too much coffee. Before submitting my major revisions, I had double double espressos. That’s four shots on an empty stomach in the morning. cRAzy TiMeS!

Tools & Methods

Could you share information about specific hardware or software tools or methods that are integral to your work?

The last EEGs I used were the NeuroSky Mindwave and the OpenBCI Cyton with a Greentek cap. I tried to use only one software for all the signal processing steps from acquiring the EEG signals in the computer up to controlling the parameters, the sounds mapped to the classified brainwaves. If possible, I’d like to continue working this way. I don’t like receiving data in one software, processing it there, and then sending it to another software for mapping, for instance, via Open Sound Control (OSC). But one needs to be flexible, so let’s see what the future brings. Also, I’d like to continue using both research- and consumer-grade EEGs in a way where the signal processing of the latter can be validated by the former.

Collaborations

Overall, how has collaboration influenced your projects? Specifically, what insights did you gain when working with experts from other domains, such as collaborating with scientists if you’re primarily an artist?

My main collaboration regarding biofeedback art was with Fredrik Olofsson, whom I approached to become my PhD advisor after encountering delays in developing the signal acquisition protocols in SuperCollider. Fredrik is not only a skilled hacker and sound artist but also widely regarded within the SuperCollider community as an exceptionally positive and supportive individual. We are still in touch, and I hope to work with him again. But, I worked with many people, and the main thing I learned is this: Be kind and respectful, and do as much research or troubleshooting as possible before asking for help. Also, just because someone is higher up the academic ladder, that doesn’t mean they know everything about a research domain. Often they don’t, and perhaps that’s where you have an opportunity to show your personal skill: don’t be afraid or arrogant. Probably something in-between works best.

Future

Where do you see the field of biofeedback art research in the future?

I hope for more collaborations, more support, and more funding, which would allow more engagement with the public. We need good, reliable, consumer-grade devices that can be taken to public events to show people that practicing meditation can yield more agency in our lives. There is simply too much pain in this world and by having more people making more meaningful, ethical… sustainable choices, we could first ease our own pain and then help others do the same.

Final Thoughts

Do you have any closing thoughts or messages for the BARN community and newcomers? Perhaps a personal story or anecdote related to your work that you’d like to share?

I think I added enough personal touches above. I hope that you enjoyed reading about who I was, am, and want to be. Please see my last biofeedback performance video embedded below and the relevant chapter in my thesis on this subdomain. I look forward to reading about you, and let me know if you have any questions. For instance, is there anything I can help you with?

Bye for now!

k

Múlt héten aggódtam, hogy a fiam kölcsönadta az első filozófiakönyvét a barátjának az iskolában. Azért aggódtam, mert a könyv egy elég meggyőző, a vegánizmus mellett szóló érvvel kezdődik, a végén pedig megkérdőjelezi Isten létezését. Attól féltem, hogy a szülők a gyerekek agymosása miatt a nyilvános kivégzésemet kérik majd az igazgatótól az iskolaudvaron. De szerencsére a barátnak nem tetszett a könyv borítója.

Megkértem egy AI-t, egy mesterséges intelligenciát, hogy foglalja össze az első bejegyzésemet. Alább látható egy képernyőfotó az utasításról és az AI válaszáról.

Általában itthonról dolgozom, és a házban mintha mindig kupi lenne! Tényleg ki kell pakoljak a mosogatóból, mielőtt leülök az „igazi” munka elé? Vagy nem fontos a tökéletes rend a házban mielőtt bemegyek a munkaszobába?

Egy hónappal ezelőtt befejeztem egy hosszú írást, amivel visszaemlékezem arra a 13 évre, amikor kreatív zenetechnológiát tanultam és tanítottam Cambridge-ben. De most, hogy az első bejegyzésem az őszinteségről szólt, nem biztos, hogy egyenesen ebbe az új zenei témába kellene ugranom – mintha nem lenne meg a megfelelő kapcsolat. DE HÉ! Szerintem senki más sincs itt rajtam kívül, szóval kit érdekel?! HALLÓ! Van itt valaki?

Évek óta építgetem a Zettlekastenemet, ami egy nagyon különleges személyes tudásmenedzsment (angolul personal knowledge management, PKM) rendszer. Ez a rendszer, ha egyszer elég adatot kap, csodával határos módon félig kész esszéket kellene, hogy kiköpjön magából. Nem követtem semmilyen modellt (pedig van rengeteg a neten), mert úgy gondoltam, hogy az én rendszeremnek személyre szabottnak kell lennie, igazodnia kell a saját munkafolyamataimhoz és eszközeimhez. Így hát folyamatosan bütyköltem a rendszert, főképp a fájlokban lévő ötletek közötti kapcsolatok létrehozását a Visual Studio Code (VSC) segítségével. A második agyam (second brain) azonban mégsem jelent meg, és túl sok okot tudnék most felsorolni, hogy vajon miért nem.

Soha nem tudok receptkönyveket használni a konyhában. Néha veszek vagy ajándékba kapok egyet, de még ha minden hozzávalóm is megvan egy ételhez, elkezdek módosítani és kísérletezni. Miért? Van abban valami szégyellnivaló, ha valaki más sablonját követem? Azért alakítom át és hekkelem meg folyamatosan a dolgokat, mert valami újat akarok létrehozni, mert azt akarom, hogy elismerjenek valamiért, valamiért amire érdemes odafigyelni, vagy ahogy Seth Godin mondaná, valami 'figyelemre méltót' ('remarkable'-t) akarok csinálni?

Délután 4 óra van, és megittam a mai 4. csésze kávémat. Fekete, egy csipet sóval, pedig már nem is böjtölök. Kimentem a kertbe inni pár kortyot, mert úgy gondoltam, a friss levegő segít elkötelezni magam EGYETLEN ötlet mellett, amivel ezt a bejegyzést elindíthatnánk. Úgy gondoltam, ennek a második bejegyzésnek valami igazán jónak kell lennie. IGAZÁN JÓNAK, mint egy lemezen a második szám ... aztán a zenéről eszembe jutottak a régi szoftverjeim, amikkel hangokat véletlenszerűen generáltam algoritmusokkal. Vágjunk bele?

${ideas[ideasCounter]}

${interjectingSentences[i]}

${conclusion}

Hogyan használhatom a személyes weboldalamat nyilvános platformként az identitásom fejlesztésére úgy, hogy a folyamat mások számára is hasznos legyen?