music , mind , thought and emotion

Bin, Greg,
Thank you. You've warmed my heart.
Detlof

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

music is also time

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.

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.

Thanks Unsound, really? Poetic? :-) Also, called...

Roll, roll, roll your boat gently down the stream...

Merry Christmas to all

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.

See you next time, Unsound. Thank you for taking the time to listen and respond.

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...

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.

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.

Ozfly, touche'.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

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?

Winters come early this year. What started out as snow has turned into slush. Better clear the roads, lest an accident occur.

Policemen with anonymity, without badges...

My EMOTIONal response to the direction of this thread is that the THOUGHTs presented here don't seem to MIND that there is little refererence to MUSIC. Seems like the time is upon us to don the boots and bring out the shovels.

"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.

Hi detlof.

I've never read Jaynes. What does he say?

Agree is fine, hello, but order arises from chaos. Stir pot, then, is good too. I didn't make the "rules"...

Hope you are well.

Mark

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.

Asa, your above thoughts about mind (consciousness) and matter ("real"world) seem to me highly Jaynseian, hence only once removed Jungian and I could not agree more. (Sorry, generally it seems to please you less, when you are agreed with (-; )Greetings from South Africa this once,

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.

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.

Ohn: when I said "you" or "your" I didn't mean you personally; just a foil, of which i thank you in advance for your indulgence.

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...

An interesting article on the subject:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/brainmusic021213.html

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.

Unsound :A very sound statement to my mind and true for most of the professional musicians I am familiar with. Cheers,

I think musicians might be more in tune with music in the conceptual and and mechanicaly produced sense and Audiophiles might tend to be more in tune to reproducing the experience of the event.

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?

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 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.

No tickets...! (Indiana Jones - The last Crusade). Hahaha... Sorry, can't help it. Hahaha...Hahaha... HAHAHA...HAHAHA...

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...

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 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!

I'm with you, cheers!

Unsound, if it's any consolation, I'm starting to scare myself. Maybe it's time for a nice single malt!

Ozfly, your starting to scare me.