Shoshin at work...

もしスイスにうまれたら、にんむがある。そのにんむは、あるけるようになるまえに、スキーのしかたをならわなければならないんです。ぜったいにさけられません、しゅうかんなんです。じつは、スキーをすることができなかったら、スイスのパスポートをもらえないでしょう。
それで五つの時、父は山につれていってくれました。ゆきを見たことがありましたが、なだれおちないでしょう。もちろんそれはまちがいでした。それはわたしがはじめてスキーをした時でした。かんたんだと思いましたが、それもまちがいでした。いくらかんがえても、なんかいもたおれました。あきらめるといつもかんがえていました。おもしろくないんだと思いました。それでもがんばりました。
そして十一年あと、またスキーをしに行きました。でもこんどはちょっととくべつなんです。いかにも、ヘリコプターがわたしをまっています。それにのったら、こうこうどにつけることができます。どうしたらいいですか。その時にわたしあはしばらくかんがえました。ほんとにためらいました。けっきょく、いくときめました。そのけっしんは今でもこうかいしていません。山のさんちょうについたら、せかいがかわりました。それにさわることができました。そこでわたしはしぜんと一人でいて、ゆきが山のすてきなコートでした。そして山がわたしの物でした。せかいをみまもりました。それでも、スキーですべりおりなければなりませんでした。しかし、その時をぜったにわすれません。あのてんかいちのけいけんはほんとにたのしかったです。スキーをならった時間はちょっと長かったですが、ゆういぎでした。それは私のいちばんわすれがたいひとときでした。

Since my passion for it just cost me my holiday, and I just made my Shoshin Player even more awesome so that I can share that passion even more easily with you, I thought I should at least tell a bit about it... (´･ω･｀)
おんがくはすてきな物ですね。。。
いろんなスタイールがあるし、つたえる物はむげんですね。
でもどうやっておんがくがゆうめいになれるか？
日本のこたえはIMVs：アニメやビデオゲームなどです。
じつはアニメをみるとゲームをする人は多いから、いいほうほうですよ。
でもJ-POPだけじゃありません！いろいろタイプがあります。
じつはきょうクラシックについてはなしたい。
ほんとうですよ：クラシックもアニメとゲームのなかにありますよ。
そしてとてもいいですよ！
コンサートもあります！VGM とか Distant Worlds とか：とてもゆうめいです。

たとえは：

Because a certain someone wouldn't forgive me if I didn't put this one up first:

When you thought it was impossible for celtic:

You can have a diva fueled by eletric guitar:

It can be done entirely electronically:

こやなぎさん、お元気ですか。

Expected teachings through podcast project
-------------------------------------------------------

- relate all our non-oral form of human expression to the language that we are currently learning in order to create communication

- reconsider our usage of Japanese to make it both understandable by current students of the language and appealing to fluent speakers

- incorporate cultural concepts and make them our own to nurture the semantic density of our podcast

- think of stage artifices to express ideas that are too hard for us to put into words, yet make the content fluid and interesting

- have a Japanese sense of humor: (￣▽￣)ノ＿彡☆バンバン！!



On the topic of communication
---------------------------------------

Although it might sound trivial or even irrelevant to bring up such basic matters as language, meaning, and communication, these are the most fundamental components of arguments — even more fundamental than propositions, inferences, and conclusions. We cannot make sense of an argument without being able make sense of the language, meaning, and purpose of what is being communicated in the first place.
Language is a subtle and complex instrument used to communicate an incredible number of different things, but for our purposes here we can reduce the universe of communication to four basic categories: information, direction, emotion, and ceremony. The first two are often treated together because they express cognitive meaning while the latter two commonly express emotional meaning.
The communication of information may be the most frequently thought-of use of language, but it probably isn’t as dominant as most believe. The basic means of conveying information is through statements or propositions (a proposition is any declaration that asserts some matter of fact, as opposed to an opinion or value) — the building blocks of arguments. Some of the “information” here might not be true because not all arguments are valid; however, for the purposes of studying logic, information being conveyed in a statement may be either false or true.
The informative content of a statement may be direct or indirect. Most statements in arguments will probably be direct — something basic like “all men are mortal.” Indirect information may also be communicated if you read between the lines. Poetry, for example, conveys information indirectly through techniques such as metaphors.
Communicating direction occurs when we use language to cause or prevent an action. The simplest examples would be when we yell “Stop!” or “Come here!” Unlike the communication of information, commands can’t be true or false. On the other hand, the reasons for giving command may be true or false and hence be amenable to logical critique.
Finally, language may be used to communicate feelings and emotions. Such expressions may or may not be intended to evoke reactions in others, but when emotional language occurs in an argument the purpose is to evoke similar feelings in others in order to sway them to agreeing with the argument’s conclusion(s).
I indicated above that the ceremonial use of language is used to communicate emotional meaning, but that isn’t entirely accurate. The problem with ceremonial language is that it can involve all three other categories at some level and can be very difficult to interpret properly. A priest using ritual phrases may be communicating information about the religious ritual, invoking predicted emotional reactions in religious adherents, and directing them to begin the next stage of the ritual — all at once and with the same half dozen words. Ceremonial language cannot be understood literally, but neither can the literal meanings be ignored.

In ordinary discourse we don’t encounter all three categories of communication in their “pure” form. Normally, people’s communication makes use of all sorts of strategies at once. This is also true of arguments, where propositions that are intended to convey information may be phrased in a manner designed to evoke emotion and the entire thing leads to a directive — some order that is supposed to follow from accepting the argument in question.
Being able to separate emotional and informational language is a key component of understanding and evaluating an argument. It isn’t unusual for the lack of substantive reasons for accepting the truth of a conclusion to be masked by the use of emotional terminology — sometimes deliberately, sometimes not.
Deliberate use of emotional language can be seen in many political speeches and commercial advertisements — these are carefully constructed to get people to share an emotional reaction to something. In casual conversation, emotional language is likely less deliberate because the expression of emotion is a natural aspect of how we communicate with one another. Almost no one constructs normal arguments in a purely logical form. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it complicates the analysis of an argument.
Regardless of the motive, extracting the emotional language to leave just the raw propositions and inferences is important to ensure that you evaluate the right things. Sometimes we have to be careful because even a single word can have a literal meaning which is entirely neutral and fair, but which also carries emotional impact that affects how a person will react.
Consider, for example, the terms “bureaucrat” and “public servant” — both can be used to describe the same position and both have neutral meanings in their most literal sense. The first, however, will often arouse resentment while the latter sounds far more honorable and positive. Only the term “government official” can sound truly neutral and lacking in either positive or negative impact (for the time being, at least).
If you want to argue well and do a good job at evaluating the arguments of others, you need to learn how to use language well. The better you are at structuring your thoughts and ideas, the better you will be able to understand them. That, in turn, will enable you to express them in a variety of ways (helping others understand you) as well as allow you to be able to identify flaws which need to be fixed. This is where skills with logic and critical reasoning come in — but notice that skills with language come first.