Lyrics to All Our Hands
At some point we'll out together a proper lyrics page. . . but at this point by request here they are:
Trying to wipe the tears away in the harsh light of the break of day.
And relief is all that you wanted, just some peace away from the hunted.
And you're haunted by the thoughts inside, and you're bounded by the dreams that died.
And you need to find your way back to this, yes we need to find our way back to bliss, but. . .
You can duck and you can hide but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Lift your fists up to the sky, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Capital- and Commun-ize, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Accuse them and villify, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Everything we built so proud and high is cursed to tumble from the sky.
And meaning, is all that we wanted. Permanence, a shield for the hunted.
It's time we found a sacrifice, something to burn to light the night.
And Bury this crime and walk away. And Try to forget all we betrayed, so. . .
You can kneel and testify, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Lecture and prosleytize, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Civilized in your disguise, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Lift your leaders up on High, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands. Our hands. Our hands.
I wish I could find a way to blame you. Ridding myself of all the things you do.
Reflected in your eyes I see myself. Even with you gone I'm still in Hell.
You can duck and you can hide but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Lift your fists up to the sky, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Capital- and Commun-ize, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
Accuse them and villify, but there's blood on all, there's blood on all our hands.
23 Comments:
Wahooo. I finally know what that song is about. Actually Ian already told me cause it was bugging me, but it's still nice to see them.
And?
This post has been removed by the author.
And what?
And?
And existentialism? Where things are what they are "and" there is nothing more? Everything is merely what it is. After all, how can it be otherwise? Existence is what it is. Then there is no connection, nothing essential to seek. And even if there is an essence any sense of it is evanescent and subjective. That is, until one stops merely experiencing and starts thinking.
So I'll try. Hmmm... "and" notions of moral equivalency cannot survive given the type of creatures we are. We have knowledge of good and evil. Both are metaphysical realities that can be traced in the physical. But only evil overcomes when all people are treated as morally equivalent. We know that all are not morally equivalent anymore than all actions are morally equivalent. Even if that is a simple truth, if you want to be attacked from all sides then say it. It is an idea that is anathema to Christians of all sorts in a decadent culture, the Stoic/predestinationist (No, we're all just filthy maggots!) as well as the Epiceuran/existentialist (No, judge not! Who are you to judge?!). The latter of which the journey/experience tends to be taken to be the destination in itself. The former tend to be stoically observing while the latter tends to be always emotionally seeking and each tendency can be wrong. At any rate, to say that all are polluted entails some notion of purity that indicates that all are not polluted. Capitalism/the Judaic values of contract/convenant and Communism/the Christian values of charity, etc.? Interesting to note that occupying intellectual space between capitalism and communism is a notion of proto-fascism and there is a strong link between fascism and existentialism. You would think that when things are what they are then there is nothing to get all excited about as in existentialism and fascism. But this is not the case for numerous reasons. Is language itself which can uphold the essential just false pretension and so is the civilized merely an evanescent mask?
I think you've misinterpreted something. Not sure what meaning you're reading into these lyrics, but your reply indicates to me that it's not an intended meaning.
Dude, I don't think that anybody on here is trying to say that all people and all actions are morally equivelent. Mother Theresa was a good woman, Hitler was a bad man. It's good to help people, it's bad to murder them. This song is not disputing this. It is however, in part, pointing to the fact that people tend to blame all of the worlds problems on other people and never take responsibility for their part in them. All people have made mistakes, and in some way have made problems for the world. Also, Jesus died for all of our sins, so in some way there is his blood on all of our hands. It's an encouragement to lay down your biases and look at the world through different eyes, and see that there are things that you need to deal with also.
Bravo Ian. You figured out the song and explained it quite nicely.
"It's an encouragement to lay down your biases and look at the world through different eyes, and see that there are things that you need to deal with also."
So it may illustrate the same pattern of thinking that someone illustrated in arguing that tearing down the statue of Saddam could be seen as the moral equivalent of tearing down an American statue (Perhaps the Lincoln memorial?) when seen through "different eyes." That is an incorrect judgment seen through whatever eyes it is seen from, of course. I would hope that everyone can see that when not emotional. Note that if you're always questioning yourself then your judgement becomes less and less judicious and more and more just the sentiment of the moment. At some point you have to believe and in so doing judge. Moral equivalency isn't a Christian virtue. Yes there are calls to be careful judging and to be aware of the fact that you will be judged just the same. And that's about it, extending this to an entire religious philosophy of a general "Judge not" moral equivalency is simply not there.
At any rate, to be honest, I don't care what viewpoints the songs I listen to promote, correct or incorrect. Maybe that's wrong but I listen to plenty of songs that express incorrect viewpoints but the form of the music is appealing.
I also read books by philosophers who "see the world from a different view," i.e. a very incorrect one. This is not an issue. In art and literature incorrect and correct views are expressed. So don't feel the need to say it expresses something good. So what if it doesn't? Evil is in the world and can be illustrated in art. Some of the songs that express bad viewpoints still artistically match the mode of the music with the mode of character being expressed in the words, even if it is savagery and anger, i.e. they're good art representing something bad. But David said this song had meaning (and apparently a good one)and so I was curious what it was intended to be. (Intended meaning is not necessarily what the words say. Especially if an author can't write what they mean very well.) The only answer to the question of the intended meaning was "And?" and "And what?" Come on, it's not that difficult to say the subjective intended meaning. So I just described what the meaning and pattern of what the words/lyrics say in accordance with objective meaning as much as possible. The objective meaning may not be the subject/author's subjective intent nor even some other reader's subjective views either. Because when you use a word you are making the subjective objective, transcendent of yourself and other subjects and therefore communicable to other persons/subjects. That is the whole purpose/process of writing. Of course the author's intent is more important than the objective meaning of the words, usually. But if an author cannot say their intent then the objective meaning of a text should be used.
Okay, so if the intent is to lay down your biases and see the world through different eyes then the question is, "Then what do you see?" I mentioned proto-fascism because the fascist answer based on "Civilization is a farce." "Capitalism and Communism are corrupt or failures." "Religions are just papering over harsh realities." "....and there's blood on all our hands." was just to get "down with the sickness" and revel in the immanent fact that there is blood on our hands. So they developed an anti-philosophy philosophy based on the Blood and Soil, etc. So there's blood on everyone's hands. So what are you going to do? Well, be bloodier than the next person for the sake of survival, Nature's rules are survival of the fittest. Etc. That is the fascist answer. But "Lift your fists but..." and "Lift your leaders but..." are anti-fascist sentiments. Obviously the text does not promote a fascist viewpoint but then, not a civilized viewpoint either,"Civilized in your disguise," not a capitalist or communist viewpoint, not a missionary/teacher's viewpoint, "Lecture and prosleytize," not even a Christian viewpoint, "You can kneel and testify." Treating traditional viewpoints as invalid/questionable and leaving no answer is itself an answer and it is one of blindness. It sets itself against knowledge perhaps in favor of humanitarian sentiment, which is false. Notice what is NOT said in this text, "You can try to love or help people but..." Or, "You can help the poor but..." Etc. No, it's philosophy that is to be condemned here, religious philosophy and political philosophy ,etc.. That is to be expected. But I won't go there. ;-)
I think that Christians who already know some of the answers will get the intended meaning. That we're all a bunch of filthy maggots that ought to question ourselves so much so that we seldom if ever make a judgment, even the basic ones of political philosophy and religious philosophy. I suppose it is silly to look at religous philosophy in art when there is a surer foundation than the evanescent "fashion"/form/patterns of art that are here one day and gone the next. But thanks for writing a song that's worth talking about.
Look how much I wrote.... sorry about that David. Ironically, if you hadn't of said something I wouldn't have even checked this forum tonight. And hey, you can just go by the subjective intent if you want to. A song is just art and feelings and the like which tend to be imprecise and subjective.
It's a song about hypocrisy, about propogating that one human created structure is all correct, while the one you are fighting against is all wrong. So whether you are talking (man-made) religion, (man-made) political philosophy, etc all of these Towers of Babel (trying to reach heaven, but without any regard for the creator of heaven) are bound to fall.
People are often so quick to point out that the problem exists in other people. And yet if you don't deal with the problems within you as well, then you will become what you have railed against.
In history, how often have you seen despots overthrown and then the revolutionary governments become as bad or worse? Animal Farm by Orwell demonstrates this beautfifully. If you are a hypocrite -- where the outer appearance isn't matching the inner reality, this will happen.
Note, I'm not saying you shouldn't point out and work against the wrong you see in this world, just that it's essential to point out and work against your own as well. I'm also NOT saying that all things are morally equivalent. Does the statement "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" declare moral equivalence, of course not. Just that all humans are imperfect.
This is one of the reasons I think that the government that the Founding Fathers set up is effective -- it doesn't trust people to be perfect, it has checks and balances in case their intentions aren't pure. (Incidentally, it's also why the Patriot Act worries me -- that power falling into the wrong hands would be disastrous).
As to why this song didn't mention charity and love as antidotes to the blood on all our hands, well you have to look at a persons' full body of work to get the full picture. Listen to Live our Lives, Ian's new song and you'll see that answer displayed. You wouldn't read Song of Solomon and think, "Man, all God cares about is sex. . . " so don't read the lyrics to one of our songs and say we left this part out or that part. This is a song about original sin and hypocrites who see it in others, but not themselves. You kind of have to make choices about which lyrics fit that theme and which don't.
I have to be honest with you, ever since you said that you'd argue different points depending on who you are arguing with, I've seen responses to you as a waste of time. First, because I like to talk to people about things they really believe, and if you are floating an idea that maybe you agree with but maybe you don't, I like that disclosed. When you are propogating an idea as if it's your firmly held belief but really you're saying it just to rock the boat I think that's dishonest. But secondly -- and probably more importantly -- you don't know who I am, so any attempt on your part to argue based on who I am is bound to be an exercise in frustration for both of us. You've made so many assumptions about me. . .. and it's tiring. If you want to discuss things straight up, that's cool. But please don't argue one thing "because you're arguing an artist."
I am an artist -- or at least I strive to be. But I also am extremely analytical (got a perfect score on the analytical section of the GREs), and have a excellent business sense (promoted to Vice President at a Fortune 500 Corp within 4 years). I say these things not to brag, but just to point out that your subjective opinion of who I am is flawed and incomplete when compared to objective reality.
analyze that MyNym
Oh and by the way, "civilized in your disguise" is not an indictment of all civilization (why would you think it is, would the statement "looking like a sheep in your disguise" somehow be an indictment of sheep?), but it is saying that some people who appear very civilized are in fact not -- again, hypocrites. Like Nazi's, Hannibal Lector, and Pharisees. I'm sure there are other examples.
Well, this is long and it's all I'll say for a while, if I decide to say something again. Would you believe this little ending took less than an hour to type? That's because I've done too much typing just like too much reading, probably. In a way discussing politics and philosophy with you guys is "unfair" because I've read too many books and discussed philosophy with hundreds of people through e-mail and forums; journalists, writers, professors, Canadian leftists, Hindus, a gay activist anthropologist, some idiotic jerks, you name it. The sentiments, "This is tiresome." "But I'm tired." "Give it a rest." "...can't we just stop thinking now?" "But I want to go back to mommy Nature..." "What is with this alienation! What is really inmportant is people." are understandable. It's all good. It is not as if everyone likes philosophy and the "Jewish influence." But people are very vulnerable to simply conforming to the patterns of this world if they don't think about what they are.
Jason,
I don't argue different points depending on who I'm arguing with. And I did not do that here. I said once that I try to balance some patterns but also that I don't just play the Devil's advocate as if I don't believe what I'm saying. Is there something I've said that you don't think I believe? Is it that I'm being too wishy/washy/"soft" and should harden things up so that people know I really believe what I am saying? I said I emphasize different patterns of thinking to balance some patterns of feelings and the like. It seems to me that this is "the other side" and the phrase "seeing things from a different side" and so on seems to come up often here. Yet how can it be that the nemesis to this "cult"ural mimesis/fashion of the day is not a side anyone seems to want to see? Hmmm...
"As to why this song didn't mention charity and love as antidotes to the blood on all our hands..."
I didn't say it should mention them as an antidote. For one thing, they aren't. I noted that they aren't torn down too. And it's curious that pretty much all of philosophy is being torn down as idolatrous but humanitarianism is not to be. This is a pattern of "leftism." I suspect that for all the talk of seeing things from all sides there may be a tendency illustrated here to tear down roughly half of humanity as idolatrous but to idolize the other part. Putting the issue of idolatry aside though, what does more good.. the notions of the conservative American Founders that are metaphysical and dealt with metaphysical realities or some leftist humanitarian doctors who just treat the physical? How many millions have benefitted from the spread of the Founder's metaphysical ideas vs. "leftist" humanitarians just treating the physical symptoms over and over again? At any rate, those things are not an antidote and so shouldn't be mentioned as such. It seemed that "blood on all our hands" was only used to act as a solvent to religion/philosophy but not to humanitarianism, although each can be idolatrous. I said I wouldn't go into how humanitarianism can be as wrong as religious philosophy but note that an assumption that charity and love are the antidote (They are not.) is part of it.
Again, I personally don't need any type of message in a song. Art tends to be ethos, imprecise and tending towards subjectivity. Note that even artists when interviewed sometimes don't seem to really have a meaning in mind as to what their own songs mean. They listen to interpretations of it and say things like, "That's interesting, I never thought of that." or "To me it means..." It's more a thing of intuition feelings and unthinking action, not thought. Which is fine, in its way. I would not necessarily criticize this. But when people start to speak of meaning/philosophy to be found in art I'm probably going to say something about it.
What assumptions have I made about you personally? When the patterns of artists and the like are noted it is up to you whether or not you need or want to take it personally. For instance, it could be noted that it is a pattern typical to artists/"leftists" to focus on who is saying something rather than what is being said. For one thing, "leftists" tend not to understand what is said very well. There is a tendency to the subjective rather than the objective. This pattern tends to apply in every way, so there is a tendency to be interested in their own image and the image of others, so who is saying something is discussed instead of what is being said. And so on. Now, you could take this pattern personally or you could not. Maybe you should apply what seems to be an objective truth to yourself or maybe you shouldn't. Only you really know yourself. Like you say, I don't know you. I don't claim to. And how could I really know "Who you are." Even close friends often don't know that.
But at any rate, again, to me getting at objective truths through art is like slogging through a mucky marsh when there's a nice stable stone road nearby, in my opinion. I am aware that may well just be a subjective opinion given my own experience, etc.
I don't know if I answered all you had to say. But to the second one...
"...but it is saying that some people who appear very civilized are in fact not -- again, hypocrites. Like Nazi's, Hannibal Lector, and Pharisees. I'm sure there are other examples."
That's fine with me.
Note that actually the Nazis were purposefully uncivilized and instead "animalized," ruled by feelings, immanence, "Nature's laws," etc. Civilization is alienating us from our animal natures, passions, feelings, etc., by the alienating "Jewish influence." I'm sure that some people here even think that what I'm saying is alien/weird/alienating. Serial killers tend to have a good understanding of civilization but also tend to purposefully pervert it in a Sadean way. It is not as if knowledge or intelligence has all that much to do with being a good person. The Pharisees were so wrapped up in the "Jewish influence" of civilization that they did indeed tend to forget that they had blood on their hands. That is a good example. In general, I really don't think American culture is so wrapped up in the "ethical code worship of the Jews" that this is the reason that culturally we have forgotten we have blood on our hands. In general, Americana goes to the opposite side of this in eliminating the "Jewish influence" of Law altogether, which is just as incorrect. But this is a tangent... what is the subject here? Oh yeah, moral equivalency... which seems to be the way Americana/"fashion" is tending. But at any rate, if an author says a song isn't intended to promote moral equivalency then it isn't intended to. And besides, poetry has to be imprecise so it's not much use trying to get at precise objective meaning. It's all good. I'm glad you explained the intended meaning. I think it's a good one and a pretty good song too. It has some depth to it. Actually there's a general trend in this sort of alternative genre towards more depth than pop-music and the like... (mabye pop-music is popular for the same reason that democracy tends toward mediocrity) and there's a lot of subtle Christianity in it. Some other genres of Christian music seem to me to tend to be prissy and smarmy. But that's just a subjective opinion and I probably shouldn't even say that. Oh well. I'm starting to write too much on here. Maybe others can comment on things... I might check back next week. I wouldn't want anyone not commenting because they think they'll be analyzed. ;-) Analyze that or analyze this... or this and that. Virtually none of what was said with respect to patterns been intended to be taken personally and it is not necessarily an ad homenim to note patterns.
Later all. (At least I learned something about Thailand. I'll file that away. Thanks Collin.)
Good post, MyNym. . . thanks dude.
Jason,
I haven't read all of the comments so I don't know if this is out of context, but i have a question. I wanted to know, why do you curse in your new song. I think that you say something like "let's love eachother as much as two flawed hearts can, which is a HELL of a lot..." Yeah, I admit that that sounds really cool, but why do you have to say it. When singing that at Colllin and Ian's graduation, you sort of edited it. Are you ashamed to swear in the presence of those who know you? I mean, "Hell" is not that offensive of a word, but in my opinion you should take it out. We're suppoosed to be "in the world and not of it." I guess it's your opinion what "in it" or "of it" is. If it were me, I wouldn't have used that word, but, I guess you're the writer, so it's your call. I don't mean to offend you or become the Look Machine's Public Enemy number two or anything, I was just stating my opinion. ~Shane
Jason would be happier to hear your opinions if you didn't post anonymously.
Well, mr. Anonymous, I didn't see your name.
Hey Shane I'm glad to hear you opinion, and I understand it. The reason I edited it at the graduation party was because their were young children running around and I didn't think it was appropriate for them. The reason I use the word there is because it's a song about the intensity of pain and joy that my wife and I have experienced over the 10 years of our marriage, and while I was writing the words, the idea of the amount that we can love each other being a hell of a lot made kind of perfect sense because we love each other that we've been through a certain amount of hell and still we emerge a team, on each others' side. It's not an attempt to be cool or anything, just the only word that I think expressed what I was trying to convey. But I do totally see where you're coming from and I don't want to offend anyone, but there is a good reason for this one.
Hmmm. .. Just wanted to add that I need to correct that, I've not been married for 10 years -- it's 8 and a half years. Don't know what I was thinking there. And I wanted to say we love each other so much that we have been into hell together and emerged still on the same team. . . I mangled the english on that statement.
There is a difference between obscenities and curse words. Perhaps obscenities are never appropriate but I'm not sure even of that. I'm sure that they are seldom appropriate. Curse words can clearly be appropriate more often, e.g. if you say something is "damned" and it really is. God damned sin, etc. Sort of like what is being said by Jason apparently, you could say the "God damned hell" we just came through when referring to evil in the world. I guess some people might argue this sort of thing based on some Bible verses. But you can argue against it based on others. All the prophets used "strong language" that might not be appropriate around children, etc.
Something to keep in mind is that human centered humanitarianism can be an idol too:
"Humanitarianism was the term originally applied to the followers of a group of eighteenth-century theologians who affirmed the humanity but denied the divinity of Christ. It was later used when speaking of the Religion of Humanity, and it carries the subsidiary meaning of worship of the human race. It is only recently that humanitarianism has come to imply almost exclusively the doing of good deeds that help people."
(Idols for Destruction. Herbert Schlossberg :50-51)
"The sheltering arms of humanist sentimentality shower altruism on the poor person and refuse to allow any criticism to fall on his behavior. Blame instead falls on circumstance. The universe is said to have arrayed its forces implacably against the victim, who understandably feels resentiment and self-pity because of hte fate that circumstance has arranged for him. He was born of circumstance, molded by circumstance, determined by circumstance. ....Ressentiment enjoys its double triumph in the public celebration of humanitarianism: It exalts categories of weakness, sickness, helplessness and anguish into virtues while it debases the strong and prosperous. ....strength is an affront. Denying the possibility of strength for the weak keeps them weak."
(Ib. :70)
"'..he is good who does not outrage, who harms nobody, who does not attack....who keeps himself hidden as we do, who avoids evil and desires little from life, like us, the patient, humble and just' -this listened to carefully and without previous bias really amounts to no more than: 'we weak ones are, after all, weak; it would be good if we did nothing for which we are not strong enough'; but this dry matter of fact, this prudence of the lowest order which even the insects posses (posing as dead, when in great danger, so as not to do "too much"), has, thanks to the counterfeit and self-deception of impotence, clad itself in ostentatious garb of the virtue of the quiet...just as if the weakness of the weak were a voluntary achievement, willed, chosen, a deed, a meritorious act." --Nietzsche, who criticized all Christianity per se becaues he thought all that was there is humanitarianism.
Hey Jason,
I'm glad to hear the story behind hell. Yeah, a justafied swear is ok in my opinion. ~Shane
Sorry that I took a really long time to reply to that. I should have responded sooner. Thanks Again, ~Shane
Oh yeah, There's something else. I really like the use of "hell" in "All Our Hands," (...Even With you Gone I'm Still in Hell...") That rocks!
Post a Comment
<< Home