what are the conditions that enable music to provide meaning vis-a-vis consciousness. — TimeLine

In a word, training. It isn't that one has to go to an academy to learn the fine art of music, but one learns it as part of enculturation.

Here, Take some Peking Opera, Japanese NO plays, Native American songs and dance, or whatever it is that is totally unfamiliar to you. On first hearing, I doubt very much that they will mean anything to you. Just as, if you take Mozart, Waiting for Godot, and abstract expressionism, and present these to a previously unmet tribe in the Amazon, these genre will mean nothing at all to them. They can't mean anything.

Art forms aren't universal. The desire to produce rhythm, vocal sound, myth, and decoration may be universal among people, but the specifics are not. What the creators of Peking Opera, and its audiences liked, was learned. You too could learn all about Peking Opera, Japanese NO plays, and Native American dance, and you could become familiar enough with it to appreciate it. The same for the previously unmet Amazon tribe and Mozart.

In a word, training. It isn't that one has to go to an academy to learn the fine art of music, but one learns it as part of enculturation. — Bitter Crank

Training in what way? Instrumental? Because not everyone can play an instrument and regarding what would happen if we take Mozart to an unmet tribe in the Amazon, it would still be difficult to ascertain whether they may be moved and inspired by it in their own way. I was moved by Puccini and other operas, though I come from a very different culture. Radical changes such as expressionism and surrealism were used to challenge artistic methods as a way to infiltrate the material or social elements of art and expose the inauthenticity. Enculturation could be the problem, not the solution.

And it has nothing to do with me assigning meaning personally — Agustino

But that's what meaning is, how it works. Either someone assigns meaning personally to something or there's no meaning (for them)

when I read The Sorrow of War by Bao Ninh, it's not me putting meaning in there. It's the author! — Agustino

No, it's YOU putting meaning there. There's no meaning literally in those marks on the paper. The author has meaning in mind when he makes the marks on paper, but the meaning isn't contained in those marks. It's in persons' brains.

Training in what way? Instrumental? Because not everyone can play an instrument — TimeLine

Doesn't matter. If you grew up in X culture, you know X culture, whether you can produce its art forms or not. I can't play Mozart, but I can appreciate Mozart, and tell whether it is being played more or less well or very badly.

and regarding what would happen if we take Mozart to an unmet tribe in the Amazon, it would still be difficult to ascertain whether they may be moved and inspired by it in their own way. — TimeLine

It would depend on whether we were playing a recording through a device or had brought out a symphony orchestra to sit in the jungle and play. In either case, they would probably be more struck by the mystery of sound coming out of a box, or what the hell all these people in strange clothing were doing in their jungle. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation. But I'm sticking with it.

I was moved by Puccini and other operas, though I come from a very different culture. — TimeLine

Well, how different? Norwegian as opposed to Italian? You can give me a little more detail without spilling too many secrets, can't you? You still haven't explained how you picked up "whilst".

Radical changes such as expressionism and surrealism were used to challenge artistic methods as a way to infiltrate the material or social elements of art and expose the inauthenticity. Enculturation could be the problem, not the solution. — TimeLine

And you think the Amazonian tribe would get that?

Isn't the amazing thing about writing that it enables your mistaken thoughts to be transmitted to me so that I can criticize your thinking and offer you correction?

Either someone assigns meaning personally to something or there's no meaning (for them) — Terrapin Station

You are still scraping the surface; the question is about how or why this meaning is assigned and the influence underlying the decision.

But that's what meaning is, how it works. Either someone assigns meaning personally to something or there's no meaning (for them) — Terrapin Station

:s So you cannot perceive the meaning of others? Really? If you see someone crying you cannot perceive the meaning of the act for them, even if it means nothing for you?

No, it's YOU putting meaning there. There's no meaning literally in those marks on the paper. The author has meaning in mind when he makes the marks on paper, but the meaning isn't contained in those marks. It's in persons' brains. — Terrapin Station

The meaning is contained in those marks, and someone who understands those marks can understand the meaning. That is quite self-evident. Understanding marks isn't the process of assigning meaning - it's the process of perceiving meaning.

Because not everyone can play an instrument — TimeLine

I, like Schopenhauer, can play the flute! :D >:O

So you cannot perceive the meaning of others? — Agustino

No, of course you can't perceive others' meanings. We can't make mental phenomena third-person observable period.

If you see someone crying you cannot perceive the meaning of the act for them, even if it means nothing for you? — Agustino

No, you can't perceive any meaning there. You assign meaning of your own to it rather, interpreting the behavior as you do, etc.

The meaning is contained in those marks, — Agustino

No it isn't. Those marks are just ink on paper or whatever we're talking about in a given case.

No, of course you can't perceive others' meanings. We can't make mental phenomena third-person observable period. — Terrapin Station

Actually boss, I think I can. Maybe you lack in empathy, that would explain an inability to perceive others' meanings.

It would depend on whether we were playing a recording through a device or had brought out a symphony orchestra to sit in the jungle and play. In either case, they would probably be more struck by the mystery of sound coming out of a box, or what the hell all these people in strange clothing were doing in their jungle. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation. But I'm sticking with it. — Bitter Crank

The bias of your assumptions on the possible reactions of our Amazonian group is seriously challenging the anthropological position of cultural relativism. Nevertheless, I am confident we cannot distinctly conclude any probable outcomes, so going onto:

, how different? Norwegian as opposed to Italian? You can give me a little more detail without spilling too many secrets, can't you? You still haven't explained how you picked up "whilst". — Bitter Crank

Not sure how different, but I never made contact with opera or classical music until I was about 17 and heard Andrea Bocelli one day after school at a music store and really liked it. I had no clue what was being said but it compelled me to further investigate; in my early twenties, I went to the Magic Flute live in concert and that was that, I loved it. My environment is your standard Western environment but where no contact with classical genres are made, so I kept my love for Vivaldi or Beethoven under the radar.

As for Whilst? I am self-taught and I did a lot of reading by authors and translators that used whilst, but from memory I remember it was when I read Plato' Last Days of Socrates that I picked it up, which was a long time ago now.

you think the Amazonian tribe would get that? — Bitter Crank

Cultural relativism, my dear friend. Does the tribe need to get that?

I, like Schopenhauer, can play the flute! :D >:O — Agustino

(Y) ;)

Actually boss, I think I can. Maybe you lack in empathy, that would explain an inability to perceive others' meanings. — Agustino

It appears that TS is refusing to listen to the question, which is about deconstructing the assignment itself, the reasons for the initial decisions and interpretations we make and why we make it.

the question — TimeLine

The question? :s You mean "to be or not to be"? :B

Ahh right - this question >:O :

Question: Setting aside your indifference to empirical states of reality, what are the conditions that enable music to provide meaning vis-a-vis consciousness. — TimeLine

I've outlined an answer before you even asked the question I thought 8-) - but maybe I was wrong :D

Well music certainly has eternal properties, if you buy Schopenhauer's Kantian point that the in-itself of the world is revealed through man. This means that subjectivity is something that cannot be understood objectively, but only by being it - and hence this objective aspect of the world can only be revealed subjectively. This revelation breaks the barrier between noumenon and phenomenon, and thus makes the latter accessible, though not as object-for-a-subject. Music, by creating subjective movement in the soul, makes one aware of the noumenon as it is moving - for no one can be aware of something which is static. For a fish to be aware of the water in which he moves and has his being, someone has to produce a ripple in it - music performs this function for the soul. It's similar to what they do in physics, for example to discover the Higgs Boson, they need to produce sufficient energy to disturb the Higgs Field, and thus determine that it actually exists.

We call music authentic when it crystallises (ie objectifies) the creative activity of the soul - its creative struggle. All music is dead by this definition. Some music though is also empty of content; "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" - such is the music that is created by many modern artists, where their main aim is to sell.
Individuals create meaning in response to reality. The creation of meaning is what the Universe itself does through people. And yes, there is no doubt that meaning is subjective - it's about how you - Terrapin Station - relates to reality. It's your own response to reality.

Not all music is meaningful. Not all music is a creative expression of the individual. And it has nothing to do with me assigning meaning personally - I see the meaning of others in it. And this is so with all art - when I read The Sorrow of War by Bao Ninh, it's not me putting meaning in there. It's the author! I experience the meaning that the author has placed in there - I experience the protagonist's anguish when he sees his own girlfriend raped for example - and for a moment, he and I become one. His infinite brokenness becomes my infinite brokenness - I have creatively assimilated his meaning at that point. — Me!

Hey TL, I like the music you posted. Both are lyrical poems set to music, laments about doomed love. "Dream Brother"'s music seems to act as the backdrop for the singer's voice, its music expands out from simple notes, its language is much more complex than "Heart's a Mess" which seemed to me to totally different, almost a comfortable/smooth rocking reggae/calypso back beat. "Heart's a Mess" music rocks its way though the song working its way into the connection that he is so desperate to make. His singing voice reminds me of Sting on this song.

A work of art mediates the strife between the form and matter. This strife is in every work of art, but strife is not the lyrical "I", which (I think) speaks to us from the work, the character of the work, the linguistic quality of the work, how it ties into the narrative we tell our self about how we live, what we desire.

I wonder about their honesty. "Dream Brother" is about abandonment and Heart's a Mess about inability to connect. What is the honest response to "Dream Brother"...maybe this separation is right for the children, an unhappy marriage can't be good for children. The song relates the singer's lack of experience with his father... his antagonism is because of his father's abandonment, which does not mean that his friend will abandon his children.

"Heart's a Mess" simple language is repeated and repeated, his voice almost sounds like Sting (to me) the power of the song is seems to lie in its motion and in the simple language of its refrains.

I like "Heart's a Mess" more than" Dream Brother", perhaps because I can relate to it better than I can to "Dream Brother". "Heart's a Mess" has an infectious beat that works for me.

Maybe you could post a song on TPF's creative thread, I would love to hear your voice.

The bias of your assumptions on the possible reactions of our Amazonian group is seriously challenging the anthropological position of cultural relativism. Nevertheless, I am confident we cannot distinctly conclude any probable outcomes, so going onto: — TimeLine

Challenging or confirming cultural relativism? I think it confirms relativism. Western music isn't a universal genre. It's more or less specific to European culture, which of course can be learned by non-westerners. A glance at many orchestra programs will reveal all sorts of star performers from China and Japan, for instance.

There is a 1970s or 1980s film (look on YouTube) "From Mao to Mozart" about Isaac Stern (late famous violinist) conducting master classes with students who were trying to acquire western musical performance competence. The Cultural Revolution hadn't been over for long, and the cadre of western classical music teachers had been thinned out rather severely by the Red Guards. It is quite moving.

We can overcome our relativistic limitations, but it takes substantial effort.

Not sure how different, but I never made contact with opera or classical music until I was about 17 and heard Andrea Bocelli one day after school at a music store and really liked it. I had no clue what was being said but it compelled me to further investigate; in my early twenties, I went to the Magic Flute live in concert and that was that, I loved it. My environment is your standard Western environment but where no contact with classical genres are made, so I kept my love for Vivaldi or Beethoven under the radar.

I'm glad you made that acquaintance and pursued it. I grew up in the 1950s when classical music could still be found on AM commercial radio, plus some AM college stations, but I also grew up in a very rural community. My family liked classical music, and some of my siblings were in choir or band, and my folks could play piano and sing. If it handn't been for the radio, my exposure would have been minimal.
— TimeLine

As for Whilst? I am self-taught and I did a lot of reading by authors and translators that used whilst, but from memory I remember it was when I read Plato' Last Days of Socrates that I picked it up, which was a long time ago now. — TimeLine

There's nothing wrong with whilst; it is common in British English. I'm just curious about word usage and geography. (Like whether one prefers "pop", "soda", "tonic", or "coke" when referencing carbonated soft drinks.)

Map of Pop

Cultural relativism, my dear friend. Does the tribe need to get that? — TimeLine

No, not really. and I don't much care if they do or not. Not my problem at this point.

By the way, This was found in a hut in the jungle not frequented by westerners. However it got there, somebody there liked it.

I'm with Bitter Crank on this one. What westerners (or those living in highly western-influenced countries, which is the vast majority at this point) consider to be important for music is very different from traditional non-western music.

I play guitar. There is a major difference between hearing music as a listener, playing music, and composing music. The reason why songs feel a certain way is often the result of a talented group of individuals (musicians, producers, etc.) all working together to make it that way. When you play, you realize that there are only really twelve notes in different octaves, only seven of which are in a given a key and usually make up the majority of the music. You have to watch your timing and often can't just stop and go on auto-pilot mode, so to speak. That is, you can't sit passively and get engrossed in the music as a piece of art, you have to actively take a part in the music, which requires you to usually put your attention into it and constantly think about what you are doing. I can only imagine this feeling of dettachment would only increase as a musician who spent hours writing a 3 minute piece of music and many more hours practicing it in order to play it live.

I suggest that being an active part in music is what is making TimeLine feel their music is off ("inauthentic").

I wonder about their honesty. "Dream Brother" is about abandonment and Heart's a Mess about inability to connect. What is the honest response to "Dream Brother"...maybe this separation is right for the children, an unhappy marriage can't be good for children. The song relates the singer's lack of experience with his father... his antagonism is because of his father's abandonment, which does not mean that his friend will abandon his children. — Cavacava

It is great deconstructing why I am compelled to certain music as I never interpreted Dream Brother as you have and perhaps the morality behind the lyrics is what I appreciate being someone dedicated to traditional virtue. I also remember that when I first heard his album, I was struck by Corpus Christi and a few other songs that just made me believe he was original in his approach, which lifted my respect for him. I have listened to Jeff - he doesn't have many songs because he died so young - over and over again over the last decade and never get sick of him. Yet, Bob Dylan is someone I have the same respect and adoration for but I have trouble listening. Music requires a combination of factors and it could be that the reason why I love certain operas is because I don't understand and so the singer is merely another instrument. With Heart's a Mess I felt the same desperation and anger at my inability to connect, as though I was telling me what he wrote in the lyrics.

Maybe you could post a song on TPF's creative thread, I would love to hear your voice. — Cavacava

Maybe one day ill record something.

Yes, I do have the unfortunate tendency to be compelled to epsilon semi-morons when the person I need is right in front of me. :-#

Well music certainly has eternal properties, if you buy Schopenhauer's Kantian point that the in-itself of the world is revealed through man. This means that subjectivity is something that cannot be understood objectively, but only by being it - and hence this objective aspect of the world can only be revealed subjectively. This revelation breaks the barrier between noumenon and phenomenon, and thus makes the latter accessible, though not as object-for-a-subject. Music, by creating subjective movement in the soul, makes one aware of the noumenon as it is moving - for no one can be aware of something which is static. For a fish to be aware of the water in which he moves and has his being, someone has to produce a ripple in it - music performs this function for the soul. It's similar to what they do in physics, for example to discover the Higgs Boson, they need to produce sufficient energy to disturb the Higgs Field, and thus determine that it actually exists. — Me!

There really is nothing more I can add and I will be delving into this area with a focus on musicology over the next week. My only concern is the moving element in your response; is the Higgs Boson the soul and only music can enable us to capture its presence? I find this problematic because I personally view music as having phenomenal attributes without as greater impact on the consciousness of our souls; that is, if we access this barrier and make one aware of the noumenon as it is moving, this becomes a consciousness of the soul but without the clarity of mind to appreciate this consciousness, it renders it null and void. Philosophy provides this clarity and thus it must be that Plato was correct; philosophy is the highest music.

There's nothing wrong with whilst; it is common in British English. I'm just curious about word usage and geography. (Like whether one prefers "pop", "soda", "tonic", or "coke" when referencing carbonated soft drinks.) — Bitter Crank

You would have a field day in Australia. Even I don't understand half the things that are said here.

Challenging or confirming cultural relativism? I think it confirms relativism. Western music isn't a universal genre. It's more or less specific to European culture, which of course can be learned by non-westerners. — Bitter Crank

If we were at an Amazonian village, why would they need to care about our enquiry? What about listening to their music. They're not savages who would wonder in awe at the musical box. That is my point about whether they need to because the overall point was challenging the cultural norm whereby people are listening to the same music without really knowing why.

Well music certainly has eternal properties, i — Me!

We don't know that anything is eternal.

Yes, I do have the unfortunate tendency to be compelled to epsilon semi-morons when the person I need is right in front of me. :-# — TimeLine

Haha I see you've been reading your Huxley (Y) :D

My only concern is the moving element in your response; is the Higgs Boson the soul and only music can enable us to capture its presence? — TimeLine

Not exactly, because you don't know the soul as object-for-a-subject (hence the Higgs Boson is an imperfect analogy) - as it is pure subjectivity. You know it by being it - through music you become what you are.

without the clarity of mind to appreciate this consciousness — TimeLine

Is that clarity of mind, or is it attention? Or is attention in fact one and the same with clarity of mind? I can listen to Beethoven inattentively - that means without being actively engaged in the act of listening. I listen to (a live performance of) Beethoven when I play a game of chess - not actively devoted to the music. Or I go to a live concert of Beethoven - what's the difference? Why does the latter feel better? Because I am absorbed in it - I become one with the music. To become one with the music is an activity of my own soul - attention isn't just listening to what is there - it's being creatively engaged with it. The affinity between music and our subjectivity is what draws us to it - that's why Schopenhauer for example viewed music as being the closest manifestation of the Will as it is in-itself (and hence of ourselves as we are). Indeed the temporary contemplation that music gives rise to - the temporary quietus of the Will - that is us becoming, sub specie durationis, what we are sub specie aeternitatis.

Philosophy provides this clarity and thus it must be that Plato was correct; philosophy is the highest music. — TimeLine

Philosophical activity provides clarity I would say, not philosophy. To be engaged in philosophical activity is different than merely to be reading words in a philosophy book or the like - you have to actively be reflecting on those words. It's similar to the act of actively listening to music :) - and philosophy may be the highest music granted that we relate with it through our reason, which is our highest faculty.

We don't know that anything is eternal. — Terrapin Station

Yes we do know that something must be eternal, otherwise we're stuck with an infinite regress. Whether you're a materialist, and this something is the Multiverse, or you're an Aristotelian and this something is the Prime Mover, or you're a Spinozist and this something is Substance, or you're a Kantian/Schopenhaurian and this something is the noumenon - metaphysics is still stuck in this same form - the idea of each of those thinkers plays the same functional role in their thinking - that is, in fact, what makes it true. Truth for metaphysics isn't correspondence - but coherency and function.

X is eternal if x exists for all time, and time doesn't have an end point.

We don't know either that (a) time has no end point or that (b) there is any x that exists for all time (whether time has an end point or not).

There's no infinite regress there.

I don't buy the idea of a multiverse, or a prime mover, or substance in that sense of the term where substances are independent of properties, or noumenon in the sense if the latter being a "category of understanding" that is independent of individual humans.

Can I give you a gift? :B Let me give you a gift haha :P - let me know if you like it - few philosophers know of this man, but he's quite relevant for your interest in musicology and philosophy (it's good if you can understand french, because the conversation is much richer in french than in the English subtitles - in addition french words have a multitude of meanings in a philosophical context - for example "esprit" means mind, or it means soul, or it means psyche or it means being - and the multitude of meanings are lost in translation; likewise for example for "tempo" - which means "tempo" or "rhythmic time", or "rhythm"):

X is eternal if x exists for all time, and time doesn't have an end point. — Terrapin Station

“If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present.” - L. Wittgenstein

"Timelessness" non-poetically being what?

"Timelessness" non-poetically being what? — Terrapin Station

What makes you think that timelessness is poetic? You have to understand that concepts such as eternity do not refer to empirical states of affairs. So when you define (crudely, as you do) eternity to be infinite temporal duration, you define a non-empirical state as an empirical state. That's contradictory to the very nature of the concept you're trying to define.

Timelessness is being outside of time. What is time? Time is change - ie causality. So to be timeless, to be eternal, is to be unchanging. Values, for example, are eternal. Love is eternal - whether it has any manifestation in the empirical world or not.

There can't be anything extant outside of time. And time isn't causality, but change. Change and causality aren't the same thing.

And what sort if thing are you referring to by "non-empirical"?

Values and love aren't at all eternal. They're mental (brain) phenomena that obtain in individuals.

Change and causality aren't the same thing. — Terrapin Station

Change is causality - how can you make sense of change except by causality? By saying this state follows the other, and thus is the cause of it? This is following the Humean notion of causality which I suppose you must share.

Values and love aren't at all eternal. They're mental (brain) phenomena that obtain in individuals. — Terrapin Station

The brain phenomena that obtain in individuals are the empirical manifestations of values. You speak exactly like a reductionist, as if the eternal and the temporal were reducible - as if the metaphysical and the physical were the same.

There can't be anything extant outside of time. — Terrapin Station

Justify it.