Avatar and War and Non-Violence

I am writing this on the last day of 2010.  One year ago today my wife and I saw the movie, Avatar.  The following day I began writing an essay on that movie and on the subject of non-violence (an unlikely combination of subjects to be sure).  Somehow I never finished that essay, and so now a year later I will attempt to do so.

In the original draft I have an extensive comparison of the Na’vi (the native people in the movie) to American Indians (an obvious comparison) and to east Indians (a more tenuous comparison).

In this revision I will shorten that to the following three observations:

1.  The Na’vi defeated the earthlings through violent warfare.

2.  The American Indians failed at defeating the British (and later American) government through violent warfare.

3.  The east Indians defeated the British through the use of non-violence.

Am I saying that non-violence is superior to traditional military might?  Morally I think it certainly is.  But what about strategically?  In Avatar, military might won.  But Avatar is a work of fiction.  And I believe that if the earthlings in Avatar behaved they way we usually do, they’ll be back in larger numbers and try again.

Am I arguing that superior number win?  Maybe.  There were more Na’vi than earthlings.  There were more British than American Indians.  There were more East Indians than British.  In the realm of military strategy I do think that superior numbers is a very significant (but not always decisive) advantage.

In the use of non-violence, I don’t believe that superior numbers is a necessary factor.  Superior moral position is.  I do, however, believe that sufficient number is necessary.

Are other ingredients also necessary to prevail in a non-violent struggle?

I can think of three examples of successes brought about through non-violence:

1.  The Independence of India from the British Raj.

2.  The American Civil Rights movement in the 1960’s.  (One can argue that this battle has not completely been won, but if the goal is to end bigotry then the goal is unattainable;  if, however, the goal is a legal system that supports rather than denies the legal rights of all people, then the goal is largely won.)

3.  The end of American involvement in Vietnam.

I can think of but one example where civil disobedience did not succeed. That example is the democratic uprising in China generally known as “Tienanmen Square”.

Why did it fail?  Or more importantly, why did the others succeed, since it would be easy to predict the failure of all such attempts when waged against a powerful government.

A strong leader?  Both the Indian independence movement and the U.S. civil rights movement had strong leaders:  Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., both strongly influenced by Thoreau.  (Gandhi called Thoreau “one of the greatest and most moral men America has produced.”)

Could it be the leaders of successful non-violent revolutions are specifically aware of the teachings of Thoreau?  It seems that has been true for all the successful examples.

The beginnings of the ideas of non-violence in many ways can be traced to the writings of Henry David Thoreau, particularly his essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.”  This essay was first published in 1849, almost a century before the first of my examples, the end of the British Raj in India.  I tried to think of an earlier example and came up empty.  Then, to my surprise, in the writings of Gandhi, I came across his assertion that “Civil Disobedience” was (in Gandhi’s view) the primary cause of the abolition of slavery in this country.  I’m not sure I believe that claim, but there certainly was a growing movement against slavery in the north and slavery was specifically called out in “Civil Disobedience” as one of the evils to be fought with civil disobedience.

This essay seemed to raise more questions than answers.  Maybe that’s why it took so long to finish it.  I don’t really consider it finished even now.  But perhaps there is enough here to give myself and others something to ponder.  And if I don’t publish what I have now, I probably never will.

We begin a new year and a new decade.  And every day each of us may come upon an opportunity to advance justice and human rights.

Other Links of Interest

Where I Work(ed)

Currently I work for Roku.

Previous employers:

† No longer in business

For more information see My Computer Memoirs

Mathematics, Music, and Emotion

Copyright © 2010, Glenn Story

I begin with a warning: this is going to be technical, both mathematically and musically. My hope is to explain a complex subject clearly.

I remember once being in a movie theater in Japan and laughing along with the audience even though I hadn’t understood the dialog. Perhaps you’ve experienced something similar. And I’m sure you’ve felt sadness and tears when you see someone else cry. This empathetic stirring of emotions based on the emotional state of others is, I believe, a normal part of human nature.

I’m sure you’ve also experienced having your emotions stirred by a piece of music: felt joy or sorrow from listening to a great piece of music–not from the lyrics, but from the notes themselves.

But how? How is it that a combination of abstract sounds played by man-made instruments can touch our heart and soul in a deep way; can move us to tears or laughter?

A friend loaned me a book about Indian music, which contains the following quote:

“‘Intelligible sound (Naada) is the treasure of happiness for the happy, the distraction of those who suffer, the winner of the hearts of hearers, the first messenger of the God of Love. Easy of access, it is the nimble beloved of passionate women. May it for ever be honoured. It is the fifth approach to the Eternal Wisdom, the Veda.’ ( Sangiita Bhaashya)” quoted in The Raaga-s of Northern Indian Music by Alain Danielou.

Further along in the same book, after a detailed analysis of the harmonic intervals (more on which later) is the following quote:

“The expression conveyed by these different classes of intervals is in no way arbitrary. It is related to psycho-physiological facts upon which all music depends. These intervals are used in all music more or less instinctively, by good singers and players of stringed instruments.”

I was stunned and intrigued by this assertion. It is saying that emotions conveyed by music are directly derived from mathematical relationships in the intervals between the notes.

What does this mean? The key word here is “interval”. An interval is simply the distance between two notes.

Every note has a certain pitch because a vibration is produced at a certain frequency. For example in western music A above middle C has a frequency of 440 cycles per second, or 440 Hertz (abbreviated Hz.) That is to say if a human voice, or violin, or flute or whatever sings or plays that note, it will be vibrating 440 times per second.

If two instruments (or voices) sound the same note we will recognize it as the same pitch because they are both vibrating at the same rate. They may have a different sound quality (or timbre) but their pitch is heard as being the same. The ratio of their frequencies is 440:440 or 1:1. Musicians call this interval a “unison”.

The next most fundamental interval has a ratio of 2:1. It is called the octave. In both western and Indian music (and also Japanese, and probably every other musical tradition as well) two notes that are one (or more) octaves apart have the same name or letter. Thus if we play A above middle C and then A an octave higher the latter note would have a frequency of 880 Hz. The ratio is 880:440 or 2:1. Similarly A an octave lower has a frequency of 220 Hz. 440:220 or 2:1.

The octave gets its name because the notes are eight notes apart in the standard western scale.

The next interval is the fifth with a ration of 3:2. The fifth is five notes away from the starting note in the western scale.

Then we have the fourth which has a ratio of 4:3.

The unison, octave, fifth and fourth are so fundamental that they are part of every musical tradition on earth. (In Indian classical music, it is these intervals that are played on the tampura as a tonal backdrop to the performance.)*

Thus, although there are differences in musical “languages” from one culture to another, there are certain aspects that are universal. And those aspects are based on mathematical relationships–ratios–of the frequencies of the notes.

Next, in western music, comes the major third with a ratio of 5:4 and then the minor third with a ratio of 6:5. Chords and melodies employing the major third sound happy; those employing the minor third sound either sad or angry. Thus we introduce the idea of emotion associated with certain harmonies.

Several years ago Leonard Bernstein, in a series of lectures at Harvard University (the “Norton Lecture Series”) suggested that the emotional quality of certain intervals derives from these ratios: The more complex the ratio the less happy he emotion.

Maybe. However, passion is often expressed in western music by a sixth with a ratio of 5:3. Perhaps too much passion is not a happy thing.

Nevertheless the fundamental idea that Bernstein was expressing is that there is a relationship between the physics of the note intervals and the psychology of the emotions they convey. “It is related to psycho-physiological facts upon which all music depends,” to quote again from the book on Indian music.

Let us now delve deeper into the Indian theory of music. In many aspects, Indian music is more complex than Western European music. The theory of the relationships of pitch intervals to emotions is no exception.

Before I begin this quotation I must explain that Indian notes are known by syllables as follows: Sa, Ri,Ga, Ma, Pa, Dha, Ni, Sa. Note that the first and last note are both “sa”, the latter being one octave higher than the former. There is not a definite pitch associated with each note the way C, D, E, etc. are used in western notation, even though the text I am about to quote implies otherwise.. Rather these syllables represent pitch intervals, similar to the way solfege (Do, Re, Mi, Fa Sol, etc.) does in western music. I’m sure the author realizes this and uses the absolute pitchs e.g. Sa = C for illustrative purposes.

Now the quote:

“Starting from Sa (C) = 1/1 which is neutral, the ascending fifths are all of the form 3″/2″+’, i.e. ratios fromed by 3 and its multiples divided by multiples of 2. Thus: G (Pa) = 3/2, D (Ri) = 9/8 = 32 / 23. A+ [The “+” represents a microtonal interval above the base pitch, in this case A. A+ is a smaller distance above A than is A#.] (Dha+) = 27/16 = 33/42…..

“These intervals represent an “active principle”: they all express sunshine, strength and joy.

“If we now take the descending fifths from Sa (C) these are all of the form 2n+x/3n. Thus F (Ma) = 4/3 = 22/3, B flat (Kakali Ni) = 16/9 = 24 / 32….

“These intervals represent a “passive principle”, they all express moonlight, beauty, peace.

“The expression of these two basic series has an impersonal character. Their ratios never use a prime number higher than three.

“In the next series a new element appears the prime number 5. We shall discover that whenever 5 appears as a constituent of the numerator, the interval whose ratios is so expressed conveys tenderness…. Whenever it appears as a constituent of the denominator, the interval whose ratio is so expressed conveys passion. ”

The author goes on to give ever more numerically complex intervals for various emotional colorations, including such nuances as Mriduh (tender), Karuna (pathetic), and Dipta (fiery).

I am amazed and somewhat overwhelmed by this complexity and detail.

I know of no similarly detailed analysis of emotions mapped to intervals in western music. Bernstein’s comments in the Norton lectures comes closest, but it is far simpler than that from which I have just quoted (which in turn is far simpler still than the text in its entirety.)

It is not clear to me how scientifically accurate all this analysis is. I think it would prove difficult to even measure people’s emotional reactions to music employing these various intervals. It is also not clear how much of this correlation between different types of intervals and specific emotions varies by cultures and how much is universal.

What is clear is that people everywhere emotionally respond to music. I recently heard a talk by Michael Tilson Thomas in which he said something like this (quoting from memory):

“We humans are capable of experiencing a vast range of emotions with many subtle nuances. Words cannot express all those nuances; music can.”

Reference: Danielou, Alain, The Raga-s of Northern Indian Music, 1968, Barrie & Rockliff, London

* A friend of mine disputes this assertion of universality, giving as his counter-example the didgeridoo, an instriument used by Australian aborigines. This instrument has very little pitch range, and relies almost entirely on changes in timbre (sound quality).