music , mind , thought and emotion
Words are meddled lightly on grave subjects. There is too much talking, as if you all had Buddha, Jesus in your pockets. It is a paradox: Words are necessary,how else could we meet, but then they are completely off the mark, because it is in silence, that music happens. Forgive me, because, though I may be right, I am certainly unjust. All the same, your talk reminds me of theologists who philophise lightly about the GODHEAD, but probably would pee their pants en face of the tremendum. I would. |
Indeed, Detlof "words are like leaves, and where they most abound much fruit of sense beneath is rarely found..." But perhaps there *is* an underlying "sense" to words, here, beyond meeting? Not always in the content of the words, I agree, but in the context of *pushing* the meeting *further* or not losing this unexpected contact. As you note, this doesn't justify hubris. Maybe partly explains -- but this, my, comment is still off the mark. Music happens more, as the mind is silenced more and emotion rises more independently. Maybe then, for a moment, thoughts (are allowed to) become dreams. |
I'm not sure, detlof, who you were talking about when you said there was too much talking :0). Yes, there was, but I get tired of every time something gets a little more complicated, digging for a shiny thing with fingernails bare, someone jumps out from the bushes with some Zen garble or "Jesus in their pocket" (...love that one!). I apologize if I offended you (assuming that I did because you have yet to respond to my above inquiries, which I think have "some" merit). Basically, hadn't heard from you, thread went dead for 4 days, only Oz replying, so didn't think you'd mind a "stir of words". Did you want "prettier" words, words like water, words that feel like the music you long for? Ones where you could more easily intuit the Search, or that it is still there? Back to thinking: So, if music is found in silence, then how could we talk about it in words at all? Are words always a "harsh clamor" upon an experience of the Truth/Music/Beauty? Are we left with poetry, or poetics, or poetic-sounding words? Music does not just happen in silence, although deeper meanings can be found there. Music is found both in the silence and the notes which arise from that ground; Truth is found both in the Silence and the thought-notes which arise from that ground; "beauty" is found in them both and in all things and thoughts because all things and thoughts, and notes, arise from that Silence. Yet, by saying "silent" I create not-silence. In doing so, is the world split asunder, me from It? Do not make the Silence "grave" as if it is holy and only holy, somehow apart from the notes and words. It is not the holy Other. That is what St. Augustine told you so he could sell more seats (bless his soul...). Words carry "propulsion" and move minds; notes carry "propulsion" and move minds. The notes are not separate from the Music; the Music is not "grave" and the notes not. That is its own subtle split. Neanderthal saw the sky and made it the Other sky, a "grave" force to be appeased with fire and hearts (and which BTW lead to some engrained archetrypal lens...do you see that lens?) Truth is found in the notes and the Silence. Truth is found where you look for it. The world is oscillating (can you feel it, the notes chaotic as post modern predator mind finds his mirror in medieval predator mind, the meekest minds of animals withering...?) and human minds that are so moved - see the black vault of descending sky - want to hear the poetics of the silence, as their last sauve, so tired from the nihilism, from the words, from what yawns, so I leave them to that, heads down. A break from audiogon "thinking" is on order. Did you hear that? A leaf fell, damp ground, the wind. Adieu, my friends |
Asa, you write beautifully! I've never seen One like you! "The only non-attachment that a Bodhisattva has is one towards saving all beings from suffering, even while not being attached to it ; desire without desire, search without search = non-search/non-desire/non-dual." "Do not make the Silence "grave" as if it is holy and only holy, somehow apart from the notes and words. It is not the holy Other." Asa, look at the two quote of yours. Aren't they the same meaning?! I am willing to break my word for getting back into the "thinking" as you stated. Just to say: "I heard..." Regards |
Asa, music is not so fragile that it can be found only in silence. Words are ways to organize thoughts -- we can debate whether words free or enslave them (I'd argue for both). Why wouldn't words help, not harm, the understanding so long as we don't rely on them alone? "Creating non-silence" disturbs only the silence, not the totality of perception. Of course, maybe I misunderstood. But generally, I have to agree with Detlof that words are necessary (even thoughts are couched in the structures of words though feelings are not). |
Oz, maybe I misunderstood detlof myself, because I agree with everything you just said, which, I thought, was what I just said!! Oh well... I read detlof's comment, "silence, where music happens" to mean that music, impliedly, does not occur where silence is absent, namely, when notes are going on (or words). In conjuction with his negative take on "talking", this seemed to be a reasonable interpretation. Maybe I didn't get it, though (wouldn't be the first time...) Maybe what he was saying was that the "way" we were using words was "enslaving" the Truth (the analogy: discordant notes getting in the way of falling into the beauty of Music). OK, I can get that, but here's something interesting... I'm always rattling on about solid state, saying it has distortive aspects that keep you from falling into the music. Now, if detlof was saying the same thing about how we were talking - our distortive "Jesus in pocket" talk was getting in the way of talking about the Silence - then that means that while I've been decrying SS distorions in components I've actually been creating more here on threads!! Seemingly ironic, until you consider.... This thread was DEAD. Yes, Oz had said some beautiful things about the surf and patterns, but notwithstanding detlof's many questions, the responses went dead for four days - usually terminal on a subject like this. So, unless detlof meant his questions to be answered in the silence he talks of - highly doubtful given the number of probing questions posed - that means that the recent allegedly discordant words have actually been catalyzing dialogue. Because, if I'm not mistaken... detlof is back, Oz is here, 6ch is happy and behaving himself, Gregm has just said some penetrating words, and we are together, again, talking about the music that we love (and love to share the thought-words on)and the thread is going on, like the notes of Music... So, effectively, were the words "discordant"? As we are apt to say, isn't the proof in the pudding (or, listening?) Hmmmm. |
I really must get back to the silence for awhile, but let me seek return back to detlof (now that we are all here...) What is the purpose of music? We've had some interesting discussions above about where it might have originated as far as patterning in our cultural/primordial past, but, here, in our present, why are we drawn to music and not just sound? What is "in" music that causes us to feel that it is a meaningful activity? Is it just because it makes me calm - its own sort of pleasure (absense of thinking pain) - or is there something else that is happening? Just an emotional tonic? If our listening is more than just listening to sound patterns - that we derive meaning from the experience - then what is that meaning? Why does it happen at all? What is the purpose of Music? Detlof asked many questions, but before we can answer some of the others, maybe we need to answer his question: "What is music and what does it do to us?" Be well. |
To me music can be as a catalyst, which opens my mind, which silences thought and all wanting and in the openess it can afford, and in what rushes in, there is a taste sometimes of the essence of our existence. Words here are nothing but a clumsy translation, hypostasising a myriad of emotions of all hues, images and flashes of insight, which come and go. What remains often however, is a deep gratefulness of simply being alive. Music (and rythm )touch me more, than anything else ever could. I've had this since earliest childhood and it has never been otherwise. When someone very close to me died and I was raging in anger and despair, in the night after she died, I dreamt that I myself was dead and in some "other place", where I suddenly met Bach and we both played four handed on an organ. We made the most swinging and beautiful Jazz I had ever heard in my life, before or afterwards, dreaming or not, and when I woke up, I was still sad and bereaved but calm in my loss. The rage was gone and never came back.... Music...my questions still stand. |
Music, to soothe the savage beast. What is the beast? When the beast is gone, the white dove flies skyward in silence, a halo of Light all around. What is the purpose of Music? What did you feel when you just read what detlof wrote, what bach wrote - both in words/notes - now into your mind... Maybe the question is not what music brings "in", but once there, in our minds, what leaves? If so, when that leaves, what remains? |
Detlof, interestingly enough, according to a piece recently out (see it here), Glenn Gould was interviewed very late in his life (according to the interviewer, conducted in his usual summer wear, "two sweaters, a woolen shirt, scarf, gloves, a long black coat, and a slouch hat" - reminds me of how you mentioned you saw him once in Austria) and he had something similar to say: "I believe that the justification of art is the internal combustion it ignites in the hearts of men and not its shallow, externalized, public manifestations. The purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity." As well as being in line with your most recent comment above, I think it works remarkably well as an answer to the second part of your original question of "What is music and what does it do to us?" And if one accepts it as it is, it may become less important to answer the first part of the question. Travis |
Gregm, mesurement is not just unnecessary, it is unwanted, intrusive and destructive. Measurement, in any objective sense, is the antithesis of art. We don't yet know enough to allow art and science to comfortably merge and co-exist. That struggle is near and dear to us as audiophiles, where we constantly balance the known science (e.g., ohm's law) with the unknown art (e.g., pc's affecting the sound). We live in the grey zone and are yet too ignorant to see through the fog. Until then, I want nothing objective to get between me and the music; let it touch my soul directly. |
The ear is nothing more than a bio-mechanical measurement device which feeds data into the brain. Ozfly, if you really believe that measurements are destructive, and I'm not sure I disagree with that statement, then you would have to abandon your hearing apparatus and take the music to the level of thought only. The fluctuations in air pressure only become music after the ear gathers the data and the brain organizes it into patterns. I honestly don't know where your soul enters the equation, but there's never anything between you and the music, it's always in your mind. It's the only place where it can exist. |
Interesting observation Onhwy61. Is perception and measurement the same? Perhaps so, in some ways. I was referring to the objective sense of scientific measurement. Certainly, air pressure can be measured by either the ear or an instrument, but that does not measure the music itself. In other words, art itself cannot be measured objectively though certain perceptions of art can be. Thanks for the clarification. We'll likely need to leave the discussion of soul for another time and place. My personal belief is that the soul extends beyond the mind. The general proposition about the inability to measure art does not rely on that, or I belive any, specific interpretation of soul. |
I second the malt. Another note, to repeat what I have written elsewhere; I astart enjoying music the most when my cognitive part intervenes the least. Then, I listen to the music rather than pondering on HOW am I perceiving/listening to the music (the "HOW" includes the system, the recording...). Strange: As an art, music is particular in that it requires TWO types of musicians in order to be experienced: the composer AND the performer. Cheers! |
The ear is a physical interface between the external and the internal; the internal mind "interprets", not the ear. So, what does it "interpret" and what is the nature of that process? Just because what is interpreted is physical/material (sound wave) doesn't mean that that nature determines the interpretation. Those attached to materialism believe this and default to that, er, interpretation; namely, that the material is first in time in the process and therefore determitive of the result of that process in the mind. So, what is the process/nature of interpretation? I'm not sure Ohn if you meant to say this ("take music to the level of thought only"), but the mind does not percieve only through thinking; that is another Cartesian/materialist bias that keeps us from looking at what might be the nature of our trans-thinking ways of percieving. The place in the mind where we percieve trans-thinking is absent thinking. And, since language is based on thinking, its very hard to talk about it - but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The nature of that space is open-ness and receptivity to that which is external; the process is a movement from thinking about sound to experiencing music; the way we describe it is to talk about its effects in ourselves and to share that experience. You like the initial effects of single malt (a dram or two) because it makes the thinking mind "let go" of its thinking (the calm feeling). Its not a coincidence that we sometimes combine it with music listening. We turn of the lights for the same reason during listening; because it detaches the visual and the thinking mind is very visually orientated (having to do with our evolutionary predator past) The "soul" is open to interpretation, but not by mechanical means because those means (technology) are a product of thinking and the experience of one's sole is beyond thinking's ability to encompass it (since thinking arises from it, this would even make logical sense; like the man who goes out his front door to see if he's at home...). Love to hear you talk about it though, Oz. You too, ohn. If music is "soul satisfying" then what is it satisfying? |
I liked your ear-definition, Onhwy61! speach, screams, thuds, winds or ANY sounds including music represent a data for ear to be transfered to the brain. A musical instrument can be called a transmitter of music if operated by musician into our brains and certainly musician's as well. There are even some exceptions that took place in our history: for example Beethoven is considered to be a composer and musician who later-on became deaf and was only receiving very very little information from ear to the brain or let's say through vibrations occured in the piano cover to his head. Nowdays not only musicians exist with musical instruments or voices as primary sources, but there are secondary as well: recording and reproducing equipment... |
I think of the mind as a pattern recognition/recall device. External sensory stimulation is filtered, manipulated, discarded and/or saved. Music is not the air fluctuation picked up by our senses, but instead is the patterns constructed within our minds. Whether it's listening to a live performance, sitting in front of your hi-end system, reading a score from sheet music or simply recalling a particular song from memory, the music can only take place within the mind. The external, or in the case of memory, internal stimulus triggers the pattern recognition/recall appartus into operation and the relationships between pitch and rhythm over time is created/discerned. One conclusion of this way of thinking is that you don't need audiophile grade equipment to fully enjoy music. There's no reason that for any given person that a Bose Wave radio could not excite the same mind patterns as a vinyl driven Sound Lab system. The link between the stimulus and the mental patterns generated is arbitrary. |
Onhwy61, I am looking forward to the day when I can fill in the blanks and expand the sound from any source with my mind alone. That is, perhaps, the ultimate goal toward which we should all strive. I suspect that many other things would also fall in place with that sort of discipline. I am not saying this "tongue in cheek". You are absolutely correct. At the same time, I don't believe my capabilities are there -- even though it would make my life so much easier ;-) |
I read once that motorcycle racers engaged in a 24 race actually found it easier to race during the night. Their lap times went down during the dark hours. One racer commented that in the dark you are forced to focus on the area illuminated by the headlights and all other visual info is eliminated. With the elimination of background distraction performance improved. In some ways all the audiophile minutae (soundstage, coherence, transparency, imaging, etc.) is non-essential information when listening to music. This is a possible explanation for why so many professional musicians don't become audiophiles. Is it possible that their highly cultivated musical capabilities allows their minds to create music (in the listening sense) more easily than the average audiophile? |
Ohn: thank you for your wondeful response. Next I would say, what is the nature of those patterns constructed in the mind? A materialist will default to purely a quantitative orienation to this question and will say that you put the patterns together like counting sticks, or placing blocks on top of one another; the interpretation of patterns is didactic, linear and, accordingly, is seen as a SUMMING of patterns. This mind sees music in the mind as equal to a sum of patterns (hence, no coincidence that materialists are also invariably mathematically orientated). But a question: are patterns in the mind summed? Is the recognition and receptivity to the beauty of music synonomous with a summing of patterns? Just because the ears sums sound patterns, does this mean, necessarily, that the way those patterns are conjoined in the mind must also be linear? (this is my point above about the mode of the mechanism dictating the process of interpretation). Two points. If we look at Chaos/Turbulence theory, we see that order - or rather, what our mind interprets as "order" - arises out of chaos. Or another way, the creative formation that we recognize arises from a formation that we characterize as un-formed (evolutionarliy speaking, we use objectification to order things with our minds, so we instinctively label what is not-order as Chaos). Importantly, this arisement is characterized as one that, in a fractal mathematical sense, arises from non-linear to linear. Applied to listening of our stereos, can we perhaps say that the recognition of creativity in patterns is not simply a linear summing, but is perhaps characterized by both linear and non-linear recognition. In other words, perhaps could we say that at deep listening levels where thought is relatively absent we experience the patterns in a non-linear way, and when we first sit down to listen, and when our cognition is more pronounced, we listen in a linear way consonant with that faculty. If we are experiencing the music as a summing of patterns when we first sit down, does this mean that that mode of perception must continue? If thought is absent at deeop levels, and summing is a linear process wholly characteristic of thinking, then what type of percieving happens when we are not thinking, yet still perceiving the music? Could, perhaps, the deep listening mind be percieving music from that level in a way that is different from the thinking mind's way of listening, particularly if the non-linear aspect of creative arisement is recognized? At surface levels, the mind is linear, looking out at reality and objectifying what it sees. In this mode it sees linear relationships between these objects and its main mode of assimilation is summing experience. At trans-thinking levels, the mind merges patterns into currents and these currents, the meaning they impart/that we percieve, is greater that the sum of their parts. |
An interesting article on the subject: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/brainmusic021213.html |
Ohn: thank you for the article. Active/receptive perception - the moment of interpretation - is not the same as memory engrainment, or the storing of the interpretive impression of that moment. I have no doubt that memory data is stored in nueral pathways/centers etc in a material sense, but again, this material condition subsequent is not necessarily determinitive of the process of original discernment. In other words, because memory is found in matter does not mean necessarily that matter causes the original creative thought. Most new evidence shows, and the pattern of dicovery is quite revealing, that thought produces movement of nueronal cells. Its being called neuroplasticity. Prior to 1989 or thereabouts, scientists maintained the old idea that the brain never changed, which of course fit nicely with their assumption that brain matter determines thought (ie only the material exists as assumption). This, of course, becomes interesting because the causal sequence of matter-to-thought maintained by science is being eroded in favor of a modified model where consciousness is primary to brain matter. This model would also be consistent with the memory being subsequent and easily located in matter. Of course, if you only want to watch billiard balls bounce off each other to discern truth - even denying the mind's existence, the same mind that came up with your scientific method, because, underneath it all, you are so attached to the power of that same mind over matter - then you are not too crazy about hearing that interpretive consciousness is casually primary to matter. Because, it means that the mind that science has tried so hard for two hundred years to discount is, even by their emerging measures, existant and primary. The question then becomes, what is forming in brain matter when you are percieving but not thinking. What mind do you form in deeply listening to music? Hmmmm. Karmic overtones from the dicoveries of science. Geez, that science ended up proving the mind, implying that you reap the brain matter that your perceptions sow, do you think that's a coincidence? BIG Hmmmm.... Yes, I can hear the minds of materialsts everywhere scampering as we speak, saying that if a monkey writes to infinity he's bound to write a poem, stretching their probablistic assumptions to a tight thread, nearly breaking in their effort TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE. But here's a BIG question: if thought arisement engrains brain matter, and matter is responsive to thought in that regard, then what is engrained in the mind that denies the mind and says only matter exists? Isn't the attachment to staying where you are an implicit denial of what you might become; a denial of future possibilities? A man said, "Argue for your limitations and sure enough they are yours..." You create your world, and the limits of it, and what you will see; you choose how deeply you want to listen to the Music. Of course, you may have to "take a step into the dark (the chaos you precieve)" [Saint John of the Cross] But, perhaps, the dark-ness is only the limits of possibilities that you have already chosen... |
Oh, how painful, one on top of the mountain; nowhere to go but down. Can't walk down because, one's back to square one. Can't jump down because it means an end to live, path, all that times and knowledges are wasted. The only way is to jump up. But where? The door is right in front, yet far away; far away yet, like right at the nose. I'd felt the pain/beauty. :-). I also felt. ;-). When the mind (internal) rises, everything (external) rises; when everything (external) rises, the mind (internal) rises. When the mind falls, everything falls; when everything falls, the mind falls. When is it end? When is this dualism end? And How? Twl, "Koan" = "koh'an/ n" is a Chinese pronounciation, but it means "to ponder". It's Friday, time to jam people. |
6ch: is the flag moving, or the mind watching it? If neither, what is move-ing? If both, what is move-ing? How many paths are there up the mountain? If infinite, what is one's point of reference to say "path"? Where is the center? The Zen you have on the top of the moutain is the Zen you brought up. If you are attached to the "top", or "thought" or "matter", however, sometimes you don't see this... If don't see this, what are "you" seeing? If see this, what are you *seeing*? The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection The water has no mind to receive their images. |
Moving/stopping is a dual... so is wind/mind. You see the point... How many path are there up the mountain? - Let's see, a flick of the eyes is one, a heartbeat is one... Running forever is one (Forest Gump)... You do the math... If infinite, what is one's point of reference to say "path"? Where is the center? You're doing it all day, and still ask me? Off-center... The Zen you have on the top of the mountain is the Zen you brought up. If you are attached to the "top", or "thought" or "matter", however, sometimes you don't see this... - You keep come back to this, are you a Zen master? Is this because you read to much Zen book? I speak from here; I see all the times, not blind you know! Even the blinds can see; they see the darkness. The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflection. The water has no mind to receive their images. I really don't want to get into the quote of yours (is it yours?). Don't want to be your mirror. The last time I paraphrase the quote still stand. Jump my friend, just jump, not up, not down, not side-by-side, just jump... (brake) Last of all, please don't call me 6ch. It sounds like 6 channels home theatre. You don't want me to call you As_, do you? Thank you. |
"6ch" says: "Don't call me!" "I really don't want...!" "Don't you see my point!" "Do the math!" "You are off-center!" "Stop calling me blind!" "If you don't call me 6chac - this sound that "I" like, that is "me" - then I'll start calling you As_!" My "you" will call "you"!!!!! I, I, I, YOU, YOU, YOU!!!!!!! 6ch/6chac (the "I" who wants the "ac"), didn't the deep-you see, I wasn't talking to "you"? But look who answered... Oh yes, 6, nearly forgot. I call you "six channel home theatre"!!! (the CRACK of bamboo across the back) You can call me As_ if "you" like.... (Hmmm....) Prescription? Take two "I" pills and call me in the morning. |
Accident? Why so afraid? Its Christmas, snow on the trees, collective memories of why we are here arising, if you let them, into our minds, why such fear? From words? Isn't music we listen to related to Music we are talking about? 6ch/6chac/six channel comes out to say "I!", in a lull, when it robs no one of their voice, and you still have your finger on the channel changer; the accident is only his, to choose. Citing it and you crawl into the car with him. Altruism? Let them. Let what? 6ch? No, the memories... Unsound, if you want to return to the music, a question for you. We have said that the brain changes with the perceptions it experiences. Since not all experience is derived by thinking - notwithstanding what those Cartesian minds attached to the power of cognition would like to tell themselves - and since I listen to music, or watch the waves, I am experiencing reality also, then what brain/mind is formed by the experience of music? If we can say what next "you" is being formed by the music - or rather, not BY it, but through your participatory, integral relationship to that external experience - then aren't we closer to saying what the purpose of it is in our lives? When we look at beauty, what next "me" am I chossing to form? Last, how is that "me", or rather, my orientation to reality that allows the event of my beauty apprhension to occur (ie some deny it exists...) related to the beauty of the collective memory I talked about above? Simply put, are the abilities to percieve music-beauty and compassion-beauty related? Aren't they both percieved through open-ness; through receptivity to what is; through a forgetting of the "I" in the moment of rceognition? Perhaps, Unsound, what you have been hearing are not as unrelated as you think. But, were you listening, open, receptive? |
Asa, good questions. 1) What brain/mind is formed by the experience of music? I'm not sure "formed" is quite as appropriate as "excercised". For me, the left and right brain come together and dance. Sometimes one is leading, sometimes the other. The analytic and the artistic/intuitive -- we need both and music helps bring them both out. 2) What next me am I choosing to form? For me, I choose to strengthen the artistic/intuitive. As many threads have pointed out, sometimes the analytic overwhelms, especially among audiophiles. 3) The "I" always gets in the way -- of listening, of art, of beauty, of appropriate action. Why should music be any different? Asa, I must admit that I sure wasn't following everything that was being said (and not just by you) but we are ending up in a good place and your comments always make me think just a little harder and differently. |
Thank you ozfly, your thoughts too. On "formed", I was actually talking about the actual matter of our brains conforming to the stimulus of our thoughts, not psychological forming (which are, of course, related, see below). We had talked about the newer discoveries in neuro-physiology and how we are now finding that neuronal cells move in response to signal. The trend seems clearly to be towards a model that posits consciousness as primary to matter. I took this, and asked, if so, and matter "forming" follows creative thought, then what is being created - what brain matter is forming - when I listen to music. Granted, its easy to get confused, especially when I say "brain/mind" at the same time. When one discusses the brain/mind interface, which I have only alluded to so far, things become much more complex. Because, while we might say that listening to music moves networks of cells in response (I argued for the proposition above that at deep listening levels apprehension occurs in a non-linear mode; or, a perception that can interpret non-linear perceptive data), that doesn't necessarily mean that the brain's control is wholly divorced from the function and forming. This is a very difficult issue. I know the answer, I'm writing about it right now, and it has to do with levels of consciousness. In higher aware individuals (transpersonal stages of development) the matter of the brain has less influence on thought construction (ie. instincts engrained and originating from more ancient parts of the brain have less power over thought). But in lower levels of awareness -where, not coincidentally, the mind is attached to matter/form to a determitive degree - the matter of the brain, its habitually furrowed pathways, are more influential on the formation of the next mind. Its a sliding, progressive dynamic relationship between attachment to matter that enslaves you to the matter dominance of brain matter and the transcending of the mind's attachmnet to form and a consequent reflection of that movement in worldview in the shift in formation emphasis from matter to consciousness as primary. In Neanderthal, the inner brain matter predominates in formation of thought and, hence, in continued formation of nueronal movement (signal tends to stay in the same ruts, so to speak); in Jesus, who has transcended attachment to matter (and, consequently, to objectify other minds/souls into the "other"), the brain matter has no control on thought formation. Each time you open yourself to beauty you form the next "brain" that then can move closer to the point where mind forms matter and matter is less dominant. There are better ways to do it faster (music listening opens the "I" self to beauty through a forgetting of it in the receptive experience, but, unlike so-called mindfulness meditation, it does not observe the forming of the "I" as one thinks and, therefore, does not as actively dissolve it), and in the way you live with the world (the world is the teacher), but any form of opening to beauty moves you closer. Those who deny the possibility that "beauty" exists as a mind state, are, again not coincidentally, the same minds that say only brain matter determines thought. Anyway... |
Asa, I think you confused fear with caution. Thinking is effected by more than the brain as refelected in research that indicates that serotonin is effected quite literally by gut reactions. As to what brain/mind is formed by the experience of music, there are too many personal variables to answer (do we need an answer?). As such I think your next question is dependent on an unknow premise. Listening to music might be more about surreality than reality. I believe the act of recieving music (art) is also one of letting ones self control disolve (at various degrees) into an individual journey navigated by all those involved in the artistic expression in concert with the recieving individuals artistic impression. As such there may not be much control in the "choosing". The inverse may also be true, for example some music is political in nature (though still true art) and may stir completley different reactions to different individuals. The artist may not have any more more control than the audience in the journey. How do we know what to expect from a new performance? Our perspective / interpertation may change upon new insight of a previously experienced one. I think the improvisations inherent in Jazz capitalize on this premise. Regarding the premise of ability to percieve music-beauty and compassion-beauty are related has to hold true if one doesn't want to limit the artistic spectrum. Of course the inverse is true. Art can offer music-ugly and compassion-ugly. George Crumb's work "Dark Angels" comes to mind. And then there are those who for what ever reason (disease,denial?) will be out side the realm. Of course beauty/ugly are the same thing on some level, but I use the words in there more common usage. Answering your last question after your last question, Yes! It's the journey that makes the music compelling. |
Unsound: Are you sure that the premise is unknowable? I guess I don't know what you mean by "too many personal variables" Please help me. Personality, the source of "personal variables," is constructed by the thinking part of the mind from an idea of the self. What I am asking is, if science shows that thoughts create neural pathway engrainment within the brain, then what engrainment occurs when we are in a not-thinking mode of perception, as characterized, but not limited to, music listening at deep levels? On "serotonin": the substance is still matter. Matter effects matter, that's what we've been staring at for three hundred years. My point, that mind is a causal agent TOWARDS matter, is a much more radical departure, that I don't believe your serotonin anology is relevant to. On "surreality":All perception of the surreal is already in reality; no experience escapes reality, so you will have to help me understand how you mean this, analogously, metaphorically, illustratively, etc. On "choosing": as ommission is action, so you choose to let go of your attachment to thought, which is, below that, an attachment to the thinking mind's power over form/matter. The compassion-beauty I was talking about is never ugly. If you proceed from the premise that all mind's ability to interpret "beauty" is equal, or truth, and so resort to a radically relativist stance to say that there are too many variables, or that each interpretation is equally valid, then we will have to agree to disagree. (Although I would point out the relativist position is self-contradictory because it is itself an opinion that claims the truth, even while it denies it for others through its argument of relativism). The more I look at what you've written, and with no disrespect meant, I think I might not know exactly what you are saying... Maybe help me a little. |
I get the sense we are all saying about the same thing but coming at it from different directions. What neurological pathways are created? It probably does depend on what paths were created before and, I suspect this is true, what paths are being altered or destroyed. Hence, it is personal. That is not to say it does not happen; simply that it happens differently for everyone. I beleive all will agree that energy and mass are the same thing and that we don't understand more than we do understand. Everything stated above, by 6chac, Detlof, Onhwy61, Unsound, Asa ... all reflect those propositions. In my mind, art, including music, is both special and universal. It is a way to communicate across boundaries because it breaks them down. That is, it breaks down the conventions and language we have learned to accept as reality. Music does change how we think and who we are. The more we accept that, the more we can change (at least I think so). Some time ago, as I was walking to a friend's house, I heard a new symphony. It was beautiful. No electronics were present. It disappeared only when I stopped to think about it. I was not on drugs and I am not a musician. What happened? How did it happen? Honestly, I don't know. But it did happen. And it happens occasionally again in the dusk before deep sleep and the dawn before full awakening (pretty poetic, huh?). It just happens -- but never when my normal thinking can get in the way. Therefore, for me, our day to day perception of music is only the tip of the iceberg. I believe that music is fundamental to humanity. Is it hardwired for Darwinian purposes, a melding of thought & soul or is it something that is simply present and is the dance of the universe? Maybe all of the above. Look at a video of Stevie Ray Vaughn playing music. It's magical. Someday, like most magic, we may be able to explain it. I've tried very hard to do so above and I've tried very hard to follow everyone's views. I feel like I'm closer (that journey thing, Unsound); it's near the tip of the tongue but not quite there. Maybe it never will be since the tongue, representing language and structured thought, is not where it belongs. P.S. Unsound, I think we're all starting to scare each other. |
