Asa, No, I don't mean unknowable just impractical to quatinfy on any general level. Personal variables as in different genetic predispostions to different environmental stimulations at different specific times. Obviously we differ on the subject of "personal variables". As for what happens in the brain during "non-thinking mode of perception" I don't know. To think about what one is not thinking about is challangeing to say the least. Perhaps research on individuals in a comatose state when subjected(?) to music might give us further insight. It's certainly out of my expertise, to suggest otherwise would be fool hardy of me. My mention of serotonin being a by product of gut reaction was effort to demostrate that we are affected on every level. Even a meal or beverage can influence us in very real and marked ways. Forgive me but, "life is within you, and without you" on many levels. As for matter, if art is an expressive / interpertive vehicle, outside of the conceptual mode, art is matter to matter. The exception might be mathmatics (being the ignorant insensetive clod that I am, I've yet to appreciate this art form). My reference to surreality was meant in the interpertive sense. I think we actually agree on "choosing". Much in the same way we choose a "journey". We may choose the vehicle, we may choose the path, we may choose the time, but inevitably unexpected events happen in that vehicle on that path during that time. Things that are beyond the scope of our choice. We do choose the unexpected. You have no compassion for the ugly? While most Westerners don't embrace sadness because it's considered unhealthy, they can still appreciate it's beauty. Despite claims (not necessarilly yours) to the contrary we have always appreciated the beauty in both tradgedy and comedy. After all American music is very much based on the blues. With all due respect I don't belive it's appropriate for you to categorize my thinking and then dismiss it, especially when you claim that you don't understand it. Whether it's right or wrong in the human experience the truth can change, but at any particular time the truth is the truth. I don't think every interpertation is valid in the big picture, though it can be in the small one. If the interpertation has been based on incomplete or modified or with out understanding of the source (taken out of context)or on just plain faulty premises then the interpertation is suspect. Ironicaly, a faulty interpertaion may be inspirational for future art. Asa, I've tried to answer your questions. I fear that I may never satiate your inquiry. Forgive me, but I must bow out of this discussion. Your questions deserve time for thought that I can't quite afford at present. Good listening. |
|
Ozfly: thank you for your beautiful response. Yes, that, in words, is as close as we can get. But, we did get there didn't we (Unsound, do you think that was an "accident"; that my purpose was to satiate my inquiry? It was never about "touches"...). Interestingly, Ozfly, we got there, in the essence of your response, its meaning, only when you responded that we were being circular. I wonder how that happened? Hmm. (Although detlof said something beautiful back there somewhere...)
Unsound, the reason we keep talking around each other - even though, beneath that and tying us together is the journey we agree on - is because we define consciousness and its capacities differently. You say, you can not think about a place absent thinking - which is true - but then go on to assume that because your thinking can't see itself that you can't know anything about its absense. The underlying assumption of this is that only thinking derives truth about non-thinking spaces of the mind. This, essentially, reduces all trans-thinking perceptions into a category of unknowable (hence, my original question asking you if you were sure it was unknowable).
You ask, how can we derive truth about non-thinking spaces, and my answer is, by watching them. The thinking mind says this is not possible because it tells you that there is nothing left to see or to be the seer, but, again, this is a bias of the thinking mind (cognition is objectifying; any space absent objects is categorized as a nothingness, then, as non-existent).
In fact, you can watch your own thoughts, and even discern eventually their arisement in the mind. Yes, you can not "see" this silent watcher with thoughts, but it does exist. Of course, like any searcher for the truth, one must engage the injunctive to prove or disprove its existence. With thought discernment, we can share that knowledge with each other through thought-based language, but the knowledge that is derived by the silent witness to your own thought processing can only be done, that experiment upon your own mind, by yourself. The "what is" has it rigged that way. You experience the truth of the silent space by be-ing it...The beauty of compassion that I talked of is found there.
Which is why I always come back to trans-cognitive levels of perceiving music as a valid perception; because it allows a discussion of these levels in general; music is my foil.
Interestingly, the thinking mind of many can experience the "letting go" of cognitive impulse and the consequent experience of trans-cogitive perception listening to music, but then, when we come to dicussing it, that same thinking mind denies a place beyond itself where truth (especially of itself) can be discerned.
This is, of course, a logical incongruency. |
Asa, my "touche' was meant two fold, first as reflection upon previous posts that Ozfly and I submitted and to congratulate Ozfly on the points of his last post, nothing more. I think you believe that I think that some subjects are unknowable, when in fact all I'm saying is that "I" don't know. I hope that all is knowable. I have availed myself to my feelings of my feelings but have not afforded myself the opportunity to analyze them into true thought. At present I'm not up to the challange because it seems daunting for the very reasons you mention. With all due sincere respect, I really have much more pressing matters right now. Perhaps the future will afford me the opportunity to pursue these interesting considerations. Good listening. |
Unsound, I owe you this, for slamming at you one time. I'd told you before that, you sir, arrived at the door. I was not joking, nor picking on you at the time. Didn't I?
Do you really think that, "you" can run from "yourself"? ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------
It's snow and cold outside...
Come in... Come in...
Yes, you and you and you... All of you.
Leave the snow, the cold and wet, outside...
It's warm and dry in here...
There're some chairs, please seatdown...
Here, have a hot cup of tea... Slowly! It's hot.
Nice... warm... and calm... in here, huh?...
My friends, when you done with your teas, and leave here; don't bring the cold from outside; don't take the tea, the warm and dry from in here with you. Out that door you go, walk the Heaven on earth... |
See you next time, Unsound. Thank you for taking the time to listen and respond. |
6chac, I hardly think I'm running from myself. I'm comfortable with how I feel about my feelings. That I'm unsure as to whether there is there is a need to quantify that, is a reflection on my inner peace not an escape from my feelings. To quantify my "thoughtless" journey would require much thought into a clinical realm that might best be accomplished with the help of others. Could end up being a rather selfish burden. In the interim I'm content with myself. Thank you for your poetic words. Peace. |
Thanks Unsound, really? Poetic? :-) Also, called...
Roll, roll, roll your boat gently down the stream...
Merry Christmas to all |
One of the greatest threads with some of the greatest people. I love and miss your passion! Where have you all gone? I have been here a long, long, time hoping for your return. |
there is no difference between "musical" music and "ordinary music". music is pitch, timbre and harmonics.
there is no medium for communicating music is universally accepted. enjoyment can come from a $10.00 walkman or a $1,000,000 high end stereo system.
receptivity to the music is more important than any other factor.
certain combinations of frequencies, presented at certain intervals is pleasing to some people.
i see no evidence that there is some music that is universally popular. some people react minimally to music, or rarely listen to it. |
|
The music I enjoy the most and receive the thrill or peaceful feeling from, depending on the style I am listening to at the moment, is performed by humans who learned how to play an instrument and sing from their soul. This means to me music that is sung by real singers and real instruments played by musicians. The overly electronica styles, samples, machine played, taped, lip-synced crap is not much different to me than listening to a washing machine or equipment at the plant I work at. I do make small concessions for electronic amplification. |
One thing the always amazes me is that there are a few groups that consider music and dancing "sinful". The groups that come to mind are sects of Christianity and Islam. Can anyone explain the rationale behind these beliefs?
I personally believe that music and art are achievements of mankind. |
Bin One of the greatest threads with some of the greatest people. I love and miss your passion! Where have you all gone? You echo my occasional nostalgic musings! I am Detlof's old thread is back again (it would be even nicer if he were back, too). Rja: the "sinful" aspect relates to relaxation and the loss of control -- which, in the minds of some, may eventually lead to terrible things: boy meets girl and then something happens without prior consent by the powers that be (were). Don't forget too, that some dancing is very expressive erotically, and most traditional dancing is a collective affair: i.e. people being together and gesturing/moving freely, as evidenced by the "unusual" movement dancing requires. Unusual because we don't usually act this way (at a job interview, for example). You move your body... very suggestive! Cheers |
Gregm; You are one of the ones I was talking about. There are still some around worth reading but so many seem to have gone from Audiogon. I could start to list them but it would be so long it would just depress me.... We go back a long way here so I know you know what I mean. Maybe it would be enlightning to do a thread listing some of the posters who made this site a part of their lives for a time and who have long since disappeared. Would be great just to know that they are slill enjoying music and are ok. |
Bin, the passion is still there, but as the years pass by, you learn to rather cherish quietly, privately, because you've learnt, that words fall short to describe what music can do to and for you. It is in the exuberance of discovery that you speak out, share and spread the word. Later, perhaps in the winter of your years your ears may fail you, but not your spirit, because finely honed through time and experience, music touches you ever more deeply, so deep sometimes, that you know that words fail you and you don't even try to find them. You're grateful, that's all, because in those moments of being enthralled, you're joined with something which is bigger than just your ego. It is in those moments, that you forget your rig, you forget what you know about the composer and what you might know of theory of music and all that noise your brain generally produces, called thoughts, just abates. You're transported to another plane, which sometimes may enfold you in an all encompassing feeling of bliss, which may only last a split second but will reverberate in you for a long time. Or laughter will come up, awe, sadness, whatever you like. The point is, you're being moved, because the composer or the interpreters of his music have touched upon something, which is universal, belongs to all humanity and for a moment you are enjoined within this, become part of it. This is also, why some forms of music are sometimes the best remedy against loneliness, despair and depression, because it can sometimes transport you beyond and outside of your everyday-self. And yes, Rja, I think Greg has made an excellent point as he usually does and I could not agree more. Indeed the effect of music, as I have tried to point out, can make you transcend your usual self. It can make you wild, drive you crazy, even bring you close to what might be experienced as the godhead. Organised religion, churches of whatever denomination , do not like that, would call it heretic,ostracise it, burn it at the stake, call it dangerous and a deviation because it cannot be controlled, is too "private" and mostly not in accordance with the official interpretation of what is "holy" and what is not. This is of course not true within every "church". Bach has written wonderful and moving church music, congregations sing, wonderful requiems exist and are performed in churches. The Kantor is an important figure in Jewish liturgy and the better his voice, the more a feeling content can be added and experienced around the ancient words he is using. It is probably those forms of religious practice, which stick to a very strict and rigid interpretation of whatever it is concieved as holy and contained in WORDS, that abhorr not only symbols and imagery, but especially music, because of its inherent possibility to transport you into another realm, where words lose their meaning and their power and it is though WORDS again, which tell you of the consequences of not adhering to whatever is seen as the straight and narrow that preachers try to control their flock and of the rewards you'll get in the here and the beyond if you stick to the rules. As Greg so rightly points out, the effect that music can have on some people, lies in the fact, that rules, which by their very nature are always collective and are WORDED, might lose their grip on you and you could break free of them for better or for worse and might in sometimes decisive moments for your life, suddenly land in another realm, where words fail you and lose their power. Many organised forms of very strictly practised religion fear that like the devil and would also call it just that. |
Detlof bemones the paucity of words;, yet his article above (or "post", if you will) manages to be very direct, explicit and very important.
*Explicit and important, because it can be read independently (hence my use of the word "article") and retain its full potency;
*Direct and important as well WITHIN the context of discussions dedicated to music and audiophile subjects.
But we rarely combine music and its universal powers and the simple subject of reproducing music, in a way that these become interdependent, and the former defines the latter.
Reading carefully however, the pointers are there for those that wish to acknowledge them (others will see these too, but will chose to ignore): personally relate to the subject of music; allow yourself the freedom from personally induced noise i.e. rules & regulations contained in our brain. Let me call this, "subjective distortion" -SD- products.
As Detlof implies, this transcendence may happen when one is physically alone -- and when it does because we allow it, we are in communion with everyone. As we all suspect, being in company means we are exclusively with that company; when alone and in private, one is with potentially with everyone.
Needless to say, the discussions on reproduction systems in relation to music, should start with a defined principle and free from SD. Then, we trickle down to analyses of the parts (what is the "best..." etc, "the bass" the "mid", the amp, etc, etc) -- not the other way round. But that would be the subject of another thread. |
Detlof;
That is so beautifully, eloquently, and truthfully spoken. That strikes right through to ones heartfelt emotions, by passing, as great music does, conscious, cognative thought. My spirit loves your spirit.
Thank You. |
Bin, Greg,
Thank you. You've warmed my heart.
Detlof |
