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. — Agustino
You speak exactly like a reductionist, — Agustino
Justify it. — Agustino
You stipulated that it is acausal. But that doesn't mean that you have conceived it. For example, didn't you still imagine a red ball, and then imagine it disappearing and being replaced by a green ball? Didn't you therefore imagine a transition from one state to another, and thus a causal explanation in that state X was replaced/followed by state Y?Say that we have a red ball. Randomly/acausally It disappears and is replaced by a green ball. That's a change, but it's not causal--in fact, we just stipulated that it was random or acausal. — Terrapin Station
Empirically it can't obtain. But, say, "1+1=2", does the relationship that this proposition describes exist even if there is no empirical world? Relationships between concepts - meaning - exists even if it has no instantiations in the world. It doesn't exist in the same sense that chairs exist - sure, but that isn't to say it doesn't exist at all. And this is just one category of things which are eternal - timeless - simply because they don't exist empirically, and thus are not subject to change.There isn't any that doesn't change, at least in its relations to other things, and even science suggests that a lack if change--basically something at absolute zero--can't obtain. — Terrapin Station
Didn't you therefore imagine a transition from one state to another, and thus a causal explanation in that state X was replaced/followed by state Y? — Agustino
Furthermore, Elizabeth Anscombe makes this point originally - but if you imagine something disappearing, have you really imagined it going out of existence without a cause? What difference is there between conceiving something going out of existence without a cause from conceiving something going out of existence without a known cause? — Agustino
But, say, "1+1=2", does the relationship that this proposition describes exist even if there is no empirical world? — Agustino
Relationships between concepts - meaning - exists even if it has no instantiations in the world. — Agustino
You'd have to actually present an argument that acausality is logically contradictory.
Right I guess it's just about time that we open some skulls and go looking for those damn concepts.Concepts do not obtain at all aside from being something in individuals' brains. If there are no individuals, there are no concepts. — Terrapin Station
So I suppose in the absence of human beings, one atom and another atom don't form two atoms together :sFirst off, it doesn't literally describe any relation that's external to us. It's an abstraction of--a way we think about--relations we experience. — Terrapin Station
For something to be inconceivable, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's logically contradictory in-itself. For example, Spinoza's point that there exists only one Substance is undeniable - it is indeed a necessary truth once you understand the argument. But it's not so because it's logically contradictory that there's more than one substance. Rather, if we try to conceive more than one substance we fail.You'd have to actually present an argument that acausality is logically contradictory. — Terrapin Station
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. — TimeLine
I'd take you up on this in more detail if this thread was about conservatism - it seems to me that if they got to the point of "unhappy marriage" + "children", then the dice have already been thrown so to speak. Whether they separate or not, the children and they will still suffer; suffering becomes inescapable. Not running away simply becomes the moral way to deal with this - indeed the point of marriage is "through thick and thin together", otherwise why bother to get married in the first place? "Running away" is merely failing to assume responsibility for your own actions. Nobody forced you to get married and have children in the first place.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. — Cavacava
Now that is certainly a great argument :-!I thoroughly disagree. I've been there and done it. There is no way you want to put a child through the anger, pain, and turmoil of a bad marriage. Its adversely affects all the lives that involved, fuck traditional values. — Cavacava
Over time, he revisited them several times. You can read the book -- you'll have to buy it on the used book market, most likely -- but it is quite interesting.
When the Beatles helped introduce Ravi Shankar, the sitar, and Indian ensembles to British and American audiences, Shankar noted that the audiences, totally unfamiliar with the Indian music, could not tell the difference between their tuning up and their actual playing. Someone who had never heard western music before (if there is any such person left on earth) might be similarly unfamiliar with the symphony orchestra's tune up before the conductor appears on stage. — Bitter Crank
So these people who abandon their partners not only cause a grave harm to their partners, but they wreck their own souls (as you can see, this all comes before we even speak of the pain of the children, who have been deprived of the love that they are entitled to as people, as human beings, as ends-in-themselves of which the song speaks about). — Agustino
Its adversely affects all the lives that involved, fuck traditional values. — Cavacava
While I don't think you've accurately represented my position given:A good marriage is two good people, marrying. You cannot understand others if you do not understand yourself and so one would need to first better themselves. That would mean to do what Cavavaca suggests because one would need to eliminate all bias [customs, traditions, or what others expect basically enable marriages that are bad and the eventual misery results]. — TimeLine
it seems to me that if they got to the point of "unhappy marriage" + "children", then the dice have already been thrown so to speak. Whether they separate or not, the children and they will still suffer; suffering becomes inescapable. — Agustino
But:But unfortunately, in all societies that have ever existed, exploitation was taken as the social norm - indeed hypocrisy has always been the face of society. — Agustino
You are indeed correct about this, and that's my bad. So my apologies for digressing from the OP O:)While I am annoyed at the sudden digress from the OP — TimeLine
Right I guess it's just about time that we open some skulls and go looking for those damn concepts. — Agustino
So I suppose in the absence of human beings, one atom and another atom don't form two atoms together — Agustino
For something to be inconceivable, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's logically contradictory in-itself. — Agustino
Spinoza's point that there exists only one Substance is undeniable - it is indeed a necessary truth once you understand the argument. — Agustino
Indeed, you have just another instance of state X following state Y (ie of causality, where state X is a cause for state Y). — Agustino
"But time and space are not only, each by itself, presupposed by matter, but a combination of the two constitutes its essential nature, just because this, as we have shown, consists in action - in causality" — Schopenhauer
I recently started learning the piano so that I could give both singing and playing a chance, and it has inspired me to do a little bit of research mostly because I feel so insincere. — TimeLine
Whilst the musical notes itself, my vocal register being at the right pitch and other concrete elements are correctly applied, it is theoretical and lacks any aesthetic properties that I would intuitively attribute as authentic. — TimeLine
Then I thought what exactly is authentic music? — TimeLine
Would that mean it is not music, though I am replicating a Norah Jones song for instance? — TimeLine
If I were to play Chopin’ March Funèbre using a keyboard without the damper pedal, would that mean I am not playing it? — TimeLine
From an ontological perspective, music being an eternal existent and therefore not contained within the confines of space and time is rather intriguing. — TimeLine
I noticed that my selection of music – whilst broad – has often been compelled to artists like Jeff Buckley or Joni Mitchell, mostly because of thehonesty in the lyrics combined with an authenticity in the music that turns the entire experience into lived poetry. Bob Dylan, for instance, I have profound respect for and absolutely love his lyrics, but I don't necessarily enjoy listening. — TimeLine
Yet, when I listen to Turandot by Puccini, I have no idea what is being said and particularly Nessun Dorma find myself nevertheless feeling moved and emotional. — TimeLine
When I think of Beethoven, I sense something different to Mozart as though who they are is exhibited in the compositions. — TimeLine
Does music have eternal properties? Or is philosophy is the highest music? — TimeLine
Que? :-OHow did you begin to "learn the piano"? — Cabbage Farmer
In what sense did learning or playing the piano lead you to "feel insincere"? And why did this experience of insincerity lead you to try "research" -- instead of to try banging on the piano and singing your heart out in another way? — Cabbage Farmer
But the sound that strikes our ear, the sound that we produce by shaking a string -- that sound is a concrete thing in each instance, and the real focus of the musician on each occasion of performance -- that shaking thing, that motion in a medium, that unique soundcloud, not some abstract "notes" jotted down on paper or recalled by rote. — Cabbage Farmer
Is the damper pedal indicated in the score? In that case, it would mean you were playing it inconsistently with the score in this one respect. — Cabbage Farmer
I like Bob Dylan's singing overall. He's like an American griot. He sings phrases with a human voice, not "notes" according to some artificial standard of precision and correctness -- and the way he does it, it's no accident, it's nuanced and musical, he knows what he's doing, he's in touch with the sound he's making and he does it on purpose. Maybe he gets carried away sometimes, one way or another at different points in his career, because he's an artist leaning into his craft one way and another, trying it out, figuring out what works for him by trial and error. He's a real folk singer. — Cabbage Farmer
Shall we say some styles and voices and personalities are more "authentic" than others? — Cabbage Farmer
Que? — TimeLine
Well, I'm not that advanced yet to simply improvise — TimeLine
and I believe my insincerity lies with the fact that I am learning other people' music rather than creating my own, something I hope to do once I feel confident enough with playing. — TimeLine
As for the research, that was the other phenomenological aspect of my enquiry, to try and ascertain the properties that enables a person to experience music[...] — TimeLine
[...]and whether sound and perception help conceive of subjectivity. — TimeLine
Think Hegel' aesthetics and the 'inward movement' or the subjective life that music is experienced conceptually without transcending 'Notion' or toward the immediate perception of 'Being' - music provides the aesthetic opportunity to access and express via sound the inward dimensions and turn it into a form, the “the Ah and Oh of the heart” as he says. When a piece of music is created, it enables us to understand this movement; this 'movement' is not subject to the constraints of space and time and music provides us with the link to these 'feelings'. He also notes that formalizing music may destroy this link or feeling [...] — TimeLine
That is the precise point. If the music was created through this elusive access to our subjective 'movement' would changing it according to the way it was meant to sound by the creator mean we have ruined it — TimeLine
I love Bob Dylan as a person, as a musician and as a poet and was overwhelmed with joy when I heard he had won the nobel prize. But, I still do not enjoy listening to him, however much I respect him. I agree with everything that you write here. — TimeLine
Yes. — TimeLine
mean, what steps have you taken, how have you approached the project of learning to play piano?
For instance: It sounds like you've mainly been learning to play songs on the piano and to sing along with your own playing. How have you gone about learning the songs? Instructional books or videos, sessions with a local teacher, playing along to recordings by ear, putting each song together purely on the basis of memory.... Have you learned the names of the "notes" corresponding to each key on the keyboard? Are you acquainted with concepts like "octave", "scale", "phrase", "chord", "meter"?
For that matter, is this the first time you’ve learned to play an instrument? Why now? Why piano, instead of guitar or sarod or shakuhachi or dumbek, or any other instrument? — Cabbage Farmer
Well, I was once a dancer and recently I tried to dance on my own at my friend's studio but couldn't because of an injury. I cried my heart out when I tried dancing to Ben Howard' 'Small Things' as though the song was expressing the misery within that I wasn't aware of. If you know me, there is no chance of seeing me fall in the face of an injury, nothing stops me, but because I was listening to that song it effected me. I felt wonderful afterwards because I knew something was over, out, that my vulnerability was no longer controlling my inner 'movement' because 'small things' understood me....in musical sound-production and music-coordinated activities such as dancing — Cabbage Farmer
Does music have eternal properties? Or is philosophy is the highest music? — TimeLine
It is mathematics which expresses eternal properties, and to the extent that music partakes in mathematics, it has eternal properties. Do you understand the physics of consonance and harmony? This is when the wavelengths produce synchronized crests and troughs. Here, the subjective becomes objective, because what I like may be the same as what you like, due to something describable by mathematical principles. — Metaphysician Undercover
Look, I absolutely love this that I got a little tingly when I read it, but the equal division of harmony [or two synchronous wavelength sources of equal amplitude] fails to adequately explain the question and is theoretical in its explanation of the concordance between harmony. Would that imply that something may be temporally wrong with jazz music because of its dissonance? Does something need to be pleasant in its consonance to be deemed harmonious?What this indicates is the fundamental difference between doubling a number and halving a number. From our mathematical training, we tend to see halving as a simple inversion of doubling. But what music demonstrates to us is that when we are dealing with frequencies there is a fundamental difference between doubling and halving. This problem manifests in the Fourier transform, and is well known as the uncertainty principle. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, you may need to further explain how you concluded wavelengths can reach into the subjective and objectify rather than it being relative to the individual aesthetic and experience. Are we really experiencing something subjective or have we formed constructs where we attempt to form meaning through tonal patterns where our subjective inspiration is psychological? Is mathematics real? The former, I much prefer but would still be keen to know your thoughts. — TimeLine
Look, I absolutely love this that I got a little tingly when I read it, but the equal division of harmony [or two synchronous wavelength sources of equal amplitude] fails to adequately explain the question and is theoretical in its explanation of the concordance between harmony. Would that imply that something may be temporally wrong with jazz music because of its dissonance? Does something need to be pleasant in its consonance to be deemed harmonious? — TimeLine
Thus we have two distinct forms of "objectivity" here. We have the objective fact of harmony, and we also have objectivity by convention. Objectivity by convention is created through inter-subjectivity, and since it is based in subjectivity it is not a true or real objectivity, like the objectivity found in harmony. Inter-subjective convention is produced by a number of factors likely starting with the goal of maximizing the potential for harmony. But the purity of this goal is mitigated by many factors such as the basic objective difficulty of the Pythagorean comma, and many other practical concerns such as the nature of the various instruments. — Metaphysician Undercover
The point to remember is that we are trained, or we train ourselves, to ear the different tonal aspects of music. So we do not automatically hear even the pure objective harmony of the two tonics of the octave. And even if a tone is played, and a second later the same tone is played, we must train ourselves to recognize this as the same tone. Musical theory seeks to determine objective facts concerning wavelengths, but then we must practise in order to be able to recognize the principles put forward by the theory. Subjectivity enters into the theory itself, because of the pragmatics of practise. The theorists may attempt to hide their subjectivity behind conventions of inter-subjectivity, to the point where the average musician cannot draw the line between objective principles of harmony and inter-subjective conventions. The creativity of the artist may inspire one to disrespect all conventions and experiment with new forms, but nevertheless, we all recognize that there are some basic objective facts, such as the octave. — Metaphysician Undercover
Subjective experience can quite easily be flawed considering it is subconscious and therefore wrought with little conscious awareness, but it is nevertheless 'alive' and I tend to believe that the subconscious realm - or intuition - is a network of perceptual experiences that we are unable to identify and make sense of. So, pretend that when you were a child you were walking in the park where there were pigeons and your older brother jumped off a tree he had climbed and frightened you along with the birds that flew up and made loud noises. You grow up fearing or disliking pigeons because the experience with your brother and your limited cognitive and linguistic capabilities have transferred that 'feeling' and you grow up not really knowing why (I read of a similar situation in Helene Deutsch' Character Types). When I think of how my feelings could be flawed in some way, I begin to doubt my intention for liking the experience of music.Surely perceptual experience is very much part of what we might call "subjective experience", or experience considered in its subjective aspect; though in the course of ordinary affairs we may tend to focus on the objective aspect of perceptual experience. — Cabbage Farmer
Hence my previous remarks and this includes everything that we experience but that we cannot completely maintain at conscious or objective level, filtering out what is necessary. It does not mean that everything else disappears, it is still there, we just cannot articulate it and it is expressed through emotions rather than language.Accordingly, I'm inclined to think of perceptual experience, and thus subjective experience, as closely coordinated with what seems to be a ceaseless play of things outside, upon, and within my body, including the lights, sounds, and odors that appear to me; as well as the things in the world that seem, for instance, to produce, reflect, transmit, or absorb lights, sounds, and odors.
The soundcloud appears as a body in the world, a physical phenomenon. This is the body the musician moves and shapes and responds to and is moved by, the thing the musician plays and plays with and plays to, the thing we hear. — Cabbage Farmer
It is hard for me to fathom too, just as much as why I like opera though I do not understand the lyrics and why I feel intense passion when I listen to Vivaldi' Summer Presto and Mozart' Requiem, which was used perfectly in Amadeus. Its the feeling; that is, I respect and admire Bob Dylan when I read his lyrics and him as a person as he epitomises the type of man I respect for his dedication to justice and principles, but I do not feel anything when I listen to him, it simply does not work. I feel more when I read his songs than when I listen.It's hard for me to fathom: In what sense do you "love Bob Dylan as a musician", and why do you "not enjoy listening to him", and how do these two attitudes fit together in the same person? — Cabbage Farmer
Do you understand the physics of consonance and harmony? This is when the wavelengths produce synchronized crests and troughs. — Metaphysician Undercover
So it is epistemological?It is this recognition which makes us feel good — Metaphysician Undercover
So it is epistemological? — TimeLine
Subjective experience can quite easily be flawed considering it is subconscious and therefore wrought with little conscious awareness, but it is nevertheless 'alive' and I tend to believe that the subconscious realm - or intuition - is a network of perceptual experiences that we are unable to identify and make sense of. — TimeLine
When I think of how my feelings could be flawed in some way, I begin to doubt my intention for liking the experience of music. — TimeLine
Yes, but I didn't realise you did. I'm feeling a tad bit like a crusty dragon right now. :sI would think so, don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover
I am slightly confused as to your position here. I never said that perceptual experiences were the same as listening to music but rather to the architecture of our subjectivity that amalgams memory, intuition and emotion. Our subconscious is filled with a network of experiences that our conscious mind has yet the tools to comprehend adequately with and becomes the reasoning behind why we are unable to articulate the 'movement' or emotional sensations we feel. It is perhaps the reason that makes it possible to enjoy music, since the subconscious mind it still conscious in that it is accessible but lacks a control since you are unaware of why, perhaps intuitively, you feel something is wrong or right. So, we may not be aware of why we associate certain feelings to particular musical experiences, but the logic is that we explore this subjectivity through sense rather than reason. As you say below, music brings up these emotions.If listening to music were like this, "a network of perceptual experiences which we are unable to identify and make sense of", would it be possible to enjoy music? Imagine if music appeared to you like random unidentifiable noises. Wouldn't this make you very confused, maybe even scared, how could this be enjoyable? Even if you listen to music when extremely wired on acid or some other hallucinogen, you recognize it as music, and make associations. If there were some kind of background music, which you didn't recognize as music, it could really freak you out. — Metaphysician Undercover
Have you ever experienced an association with that through songs, such as a singer whose voice may induce the same feeling of being relaxed and happy as you were when you were a child? I take it that associations such as this must therefore be linked to particular memories, but I recently had a conversation with a friend about this who like death metal and what I gathered was that the music he liked provided him with a sensory experience that explained his subjective frustrations, agitation and anger that he felt that listening to the music almost provided him with relief. Though it may not provide him with the tools that would enable him to understand the causal roots for these rather negative feelings he had subjectively, there was nonetheless a connection and this raises the question itself to the fore. It helps articulate the feelings that would otherwise remain dormant, bringing it up to consciousness. Conversely, though, when I think of popular music and the simplicity it affords, I really wonder about the minds of the masses.Music helps you to bring up these emotions, understand them, and ultimately assist in knowing yourself. My mother had a guitar, which she would pick up, to play and sing a few songs, from time to time, when I was very young. These may be the earliest memories which I have. A mother's voice, singing, can be very pleasant for a child. When you're a baby, and you know that your mother is relaxed and happy, then so are you. — Metaphysician Undercover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.