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

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.

You speak exactly like a reductionist, — Agustino

I suppose that I am a reductionist. I'm simply a reductionist who includes structures and processes as "parts."

Justify it. — Agustino

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.

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

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?

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?

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

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.

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

No, I didn't imagine anything causal about it, and it's not about imagining things anyway. It's simply about logical possibility. There's nothing contradictory about acausal events. Yet acausal events are changes. Thus change is not identical to causality.

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

You'd have to actually present an argument that acausality is logically contradictory.

But, say, "1+1=2", does the relationship that this proposition describes exist even if there is no empirical world? — Agustino

No, of course not. First 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. (And then beyond such simple abstractions, most of mathematics is a game of sorts that we build upon those abstractions about relations.)

Relationships between concepts - meaning - exists even if it has no instantiations in the world. — Agustino

Not in the slightest. Concepts do not obtain at all aside from being something in individuals' brains. If there are no individuals, there are no concepts.

It seems like you're forgetting that I'm both a physicalist and a nominalist. I don't at all buy that there are real abstracts. I don't buy that there is anything that is non-physical. I don't buy that there are universals. I don't buy that there are things with no location, etc.

I agree with Agustino on this,

You'd have to actually present an argument that acausality is logically contradictory.

Isn't this the problem. Causality can't be logically anything but the the way it is, to conflate it with reason is the problem Hume had with it. Nature is not set up to follow our logic.

Concepts do not obtain at all aside from being something in individuals' brains. If there are no individuals, there are no concepts. — Terrapin Station

Right I guess it's just about time that we open some skulls and go looking for those damn concepts.

First 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

So I suppose in the absence of human beings, one atom and another atom don't form two atoms together :s

You'd have to actually present an argument that acausality is logically contradictory. — 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.

So my point isn't that acausality is logically contradictory. My point is that you cannot conceive it. You claim you have conceived it by having one red ball which pops out of existence and is replaced by a green ball which pops into existence. But this sequence - if you actually experience it - isn't outside the realm of causality. Indeed, you have just another instance of state X following state Y (ie of causality, where state X is a cause for state Y).

Schopenhauer: "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"

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

My "Amazonian village" was described by Tobias Schneebaum in 1969 -- quite a good book, Keep the River on Your Right. Schneebaum was investigating a group of people who had not been previously contacted by westerners. (They hadn't been contacted by a lot of other Amazonian tribes, either.) He presented himself to them on a river beach near their presumed area. He had quite a bit of western tech (1969 version) with him: matches, cigarette lighter, flashlight, drawing supplies (paper, pencils), some clothing, -- no radio. I think he had a camera too, but his film was exposed during the "new guy party" that occurred

The "investigating team" from the tribe were not hostile; they were VERY curious, especially about the mirror, the matches, and the lighter. He made some quick drawings for them, which also intrigued them. He was systematically undressed and inspected intimately. Then he was accepted as a visitor.

He stayed with the tribe for a year or so, if I remember correctly. The tribe was in conflict with some other tribes, there were instances of cannibalism (no, he didn't report back on what we taste like in stew.) and a lot of sitting around and just maintaining life as they know it.

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.

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

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.

Second, the idea of marriage is the idea of the spiritual unity of a man and a woman. This is the foundation for children, family and the rest. And the idea of spiritual unity between a man and a woman is underscored by the idea of personalism - of treating the other with the full significance deserved by another person, by virtue of them being a person (and thus according to them or better said recognising in them infinite value). Treating them as an end-in-themselves instead of as a means-to-some-other-end. So marriage is an end-in-itself - the spiritual union between the two people is end-in-itself, and as such is not engaged in for the purpose of having children or for any other purpose greater than itself. Having children is something that either happens or doesn't happen depending on a multitude of factors including material conditions, biological possibility, the wisdom of the couple, etc. If I am to put it in these words, having children is to marriage, just as what your shadow is to you if the conditions are right.

In such a marriage children cannot suffer emotionally because of the parents - such children are born under a house founded on a rock. Now marriage does not occur at the moment when people go in a church or wherever they go to "officially" get married. Marriage occurs when they commit to each other - it is a spiritual affair between the two people involved and their God - the state plays no role in it. As such, two people in a relationship, a couple, are already married. The bond of marriage, Love, is eternal (which doesn't imply infinite temporal duration, because one of the people can die for example - but if they die, it doesn't follow they're no longer married) - otherwise how can it be Love, as Kierkegaard asks us?

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). Those who abandon their partners have never loved them, but have only used them, and hence objectified them. And a torturer doesn't only harm his victim, but perhaps more importantly, they also do irreversible harm to themselves. It is not merely as the legalists and the Pharisees claim that divorce is a problem - it is the breaking of the spiritual unity, and the objectification of the other that is the real problem. Exploitation of the other, whether this is for sex or for any other thing - that is still exploitation and despicable, never excusable. 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. Whether this was, as in the past, cast out as the woman having to "tolerate" their husband's affairs, or as it is today where promiscuity has become open and rampant for both men and women - indeed it has been "normalized". It remains equally despicable.

But the fact remains - marriage is of such infinite value - indeed it is the infinite sharing of value between two people - that no other replacement exists for it - not promiscuity, not anything - and thus, it is as Spinoza has said: "Blessedness is not the reward of virtue, but virtue itself; nor do we enjoy it because we restrain our lusts; on the contrary, because we enjoy it, we are able to restrain them"

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.

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

Now that is certainly a great argument :-!

Well for what it counts, my parents didn't have a good marriage, and have always been fighting for quite a bit of time. Doesn't seem like I "fuck traditional values" because of that. Indeed, they were fighting because they didn't respect traditional values :-} One of my earliest memories in fact is waking up to hear my parents shouting at each other, and being so scared that I picked up one of their phones, and called the other one with hidden number so they wouldn't realise it had been me to make them stop. So? Would I have preferred to be without my mother or without my father only not to have the shouting? :s And yet, according to you I should be the first to "fuck traditional values"

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

It sounds interesting, though I have always had doubts with ethnographic research in cultural anthropology, mostly because fieldwork can quite easily be fraudulent. I will investigate a little on it, though admittingly I myself have issues with cultural relativism being a universalist when it comes to human rights.

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 am annoyed at the sudden digress from the OP, for what it is worth I think you are both on the wrong side of the extreme. 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]. As you begin to think independently, you realise that it is not the elimination of traditional values but rather a consciousness of why it is there and so you consciously select the right values on what becomes Augustino’ interpretation, because we begin to value what is moral and that would mean being capable of discerning the difference between what is right and what is a blind custom. We thus become enabled with the capacity to select a partner who we admire and deeply love and you cannot select the right person until you find that initial freedom, just as much as you cannot select what is morally worthy from what is merely blind adherence to social expectations.

That is why they say that when a man is with the right woman, he feels no anger or anxiety and when a woman is with the right man she feels no fear or sadness. The algorithm is quite simple, but the so many bad marriages are because of people being unable to think independently.

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

While I don't think you've accurately represented my position given:

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 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

But:

While I am annoyed at the sudden digress from the OP — TimeLine

You are indeed correct about this, and that's my bad. So my apologies for digressing from the OP O:)

All good, the thread has reached its end. And I liked the video :D

And I liked the video :D — TimeLine

:)

Right I guess it's just about time that we open some skulls and go looking for those damn concepts. — Agustino

We see the brain activity of such things via fMRIs for example.

So I suppose in the absence of human beings, one atom and another atom don't form two atoms together — Agustino

1 + 1 = 2, for one, hinges on the idea of units--you have two units of something. That's a universal. But there are no real universals.

For something to be inconceivable, it doesn't necessarily mean that it's logically contradictory in-itself. — Agustino

I was talking about for it to not be a logical possibility.

Spinoza's point that there exists only one Substance is undeniable - it is indeed a necessary truth once you understand the argument. — Agustino

lol--the old, "If you disagree with x, it implies that you do not understand x."

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

Causality doesn't obtain merely by one thing following another. The one thing has to causing the other thing that follows.

"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

They're not "presupposed" by matter, they rather supervene on matter and its dynamic relations. There is no "essential nature." And causality isn't simply action.

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

How did you begin to "learn the piano"? What kind of "research" did you get into?

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?

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

It's not enough to play "correct notes". Hear the sound, feel the swing, mess around with rhythm and intonation, play with emotion, play to the sound, really mean it. Then what you play will be "authentic", even if it sounds terrible to other people, even if it sounds terrible to you when you listen back to a recording of the performance.

It may take years of practice to develop your ear and your playing. Do you have something better to do with free time?

Then I thought what exactly is authentic music? — TimeLine

I'm not sure what this phrase means either. What is authentic laughter, what are authentic tears? What is authentic exercise? What is authentic rebellion? Authentic anger, despair, joy, hope, promises, denials....

Would that mean it is not music, though I am replicating a Norah Jones song for instance? — TimeLine

In what sense are you "replicating a Norah Jones song"? It's one thing to "sing the same notes", another to sing more or less like Norah Jones. Even Norah Jones doesn't produce an exact replica of her own original performance each time she performs. Each performance of "a song" is a new product, a new act, a new creation, that more or less closely resembles past performances.

If I were to play Chopin’ March Funèbre using a keyboard without the damper pedal, would that mean I am not playing it? — TimeLine

It would mean you were playing it without the damper pedal.

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.

But matching the score is only the beginning of performing a composition. And we haven't even begun to speak of improvisation.

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'm not sure what this means. What is an "ontological perspective"? What is an "eternal existent"? What sort of thing is not "contained within the confines of space and time"?

A "piece of music" -- a fleeting phrase, or a whole symphony that has been jotted down or performed in the past -- may be repeated, in the same way that an utterance or a gesture may be repeated, in the same way that "seeing a sunset" may be repeated. Musical activity is like other activity in this respect; we understand it in terms of generic patterns. 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.

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

A song involves both lyrics and music -- but "the same notes" could be sung in another song, with different lyrics, or sung in another piece of music without lyrics, or played in another piece of music without song. Songs are one thing, music is another. The singer is another thing, and each singing is another thing.

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.

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

Of course it's not necessary to understand the lyrics of a song in order to be moved by a song. Music is moving without any words at all, and without human voices singing.

When I think of Beethoven, I sense something different to Mozart as though who they are is exhibited in the compositions. — TimeLine

Each composer, each performer, each agent has his own style, his own voice, his own personality.

Shall we say some styles and voices and personalities are more "authentic" than others?

Does music have eternal properties? Or is philosophy is the highest music? — TimeLine

I'm not sure how eternity's crept back into this conversation.

I'm inclined to think of philosophy and music somehow together. Perhaps they both tickle my temporal lobes in a similar way.

How did you begin to "learn the piano"? — Cabbage Farmer

Que? :-O

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

Well, I'm not that advanced yet to simply improvise 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. 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 and whether sound and perception help conceive of subjectivity. 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 hence your:

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

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?

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

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.

Shall we say some styles and voices and personalities are more "authentic" than others? — Cabbage Farmer

Yes.

Que? — TimeLine

I 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?

Well, I'm not that advanced yet to simply improvise — TimeLine

Anyone who occasionally hums or imagines a tune he doesn't recall having heard before, or slaps a free beat on table or thighs, knows how to improvise music. The trick is, how to transfer or apply this old skill to a new context, to a new instrument, say the piano; and how to cultivate the skill of musical improvisation, as one aspect of musical performance, in any such application and across all such applications.

It doesn't have to be great music, it doesn't have to be a masterpiece, it doesn't have to sound pleasant or marketable. You gain something from the effort, just like you gain something by straining to perform songs composed by others, even if it doesn't feel quite right or sound quite right at first, even if it feels off somehow for months or years. Even great performers feel off sometimes, don't let it get you down. Ride it out, release it, roll with it -- the opportunity for this sort of psychological practice is one of the benefits of practicing music -- and in the meantime, you're developing skills you'll be able to rely on, no matter how you feel on each occasion of performance.

Keep it simple and play freely. Do it like any of us hums a tune or sings in the shower, without worrying about "playing the right notes" or "playing in time" or what phrases to play or whether it “sounds good”. It’ll help you develop the coordination of your two hands, and your voice, and your ear, and your emotions, and a little repertoire of musical phrases, just by noodling around, playing, singing, hearing, feeling, moving, breathing.

Build up the skill from small parts by limiting your options in particular exercises: Try using two notes in your bass hand, say root and fifth, D and A; and five notes in your right hand, maybe D-F-G-A-C or A-C-D-F-G. Play without singing; sing and play simultaneously; sing without playing. Sing along with the notes you play in your left hand; sing along with the notes you play in your right hand; sing notes other than those you play in either hand; don't think about what you're singing, just sing. Play slower, play faster; play quieter, play louder; play more legato, play more staccato....

Really listen to the sounds you're making. As you build up coordination, focus on the emotions and feelings that accompany the sounds, emotions the music seems both to express and to summon, to flow from and to produce. Dig into those feelings, dig into those sounds. Play with greater emotional intensity (not necessarily greater volume). Vary the emotion.

How does "playing with feeling", or with various emotional intentions, alter the sound of the music, and how does it alter the movements of the body that produce that sound?

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

Consider the difference between aiming to mimic another performer, and aiming to perform another composer's work in one's own voice, in one's own style. Imagine the same song, say "This Land Is Your Land", as it might be sung by any singer you can think of -- Woody Guthrie, Lady Gaga, Frank Sinatra, Billie Holiday, Eddie Vedder, Maria Callas, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan... whoever.

The song, the lyrics, the "notes", don't tell the singer how to sing them. The singer appropriates the song, assimilates it, personalizes it, makes it his own: Ain't what you swing, it's the way that you swing it.

I wonder if your experience of insincerity has anything to do with an attempt to mimic other performers or performances, as opposed to learning to play the song your own way.

Of course it can take years to start getting a feel for what "your own way" might be, to start finding your own voice. That's a natural part of the process, and in a way there's no end to it.

The project of cultivating a voice, a style, an authentic musical personality won't ever get off the ground if you don't develop a skill set, build up a repertoire, develop coordinated habits of bodily movements that produce sound; of hearing and listening; of feeling and emotion, of moving and being moved by sound and by the act of sound-production; of thinking and perhaps speaking about what's involved in the process of making and hearing music.

It's natural for everything to be out of joint in the beginning. If you keep at it and you live long enough, you'll work past it, and bring it closer together.

Your feeling of insincerity may just be a sign that you're sensitive to the process, you feel the unsettledness of the beginning, and you have a strong sense of the emotional value of music. To me that sounds like a good thing. Use that experience of insincerity like a beacon to help you find your way into the craft.

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

It may be our use of words differs considerably along these lines.

I suppose the "properties" that enable us to experience music include properties of moving bodies that produce sounds in the world, properties of those sounds in the world, properties of ears and nervous systems, properties of the human organism that pertain to the production of emotion and affect in general.... I might ask how all such "properties", and the things they are properties of, are coordinated in auditory perception and in musical perception; in musical sound-production and music-coordinated activities such as dancing; and in musical imagination.

[...]and whether sound and perception help conceive of subjectivity. — TimeLine

I'm not sure what you mean.

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.

Auditory perception is one sort of perception, I might say more specifically a mode of exteroception.

I say that:

In audition we may perceive sounds, as well as objects or states of affairs in the world in virtue of their sound-relative properties, their relations to the sounds that contact our auditory receptors.

Analogously:

In vision we may perceive lights, as well as objects or states of affairs in the world in virtue of their light-relative properties, their relations to the lights that contact our visual receptors.

In olfaction we may perceive odors, as well as objects or states of affairs in the world in virtue of their odor-relative properties, their relations to the odors that contact our olfactory receptors.

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.

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

I feel I don't understand any of this Hegelian verbiage, except perhaps for Ah and Oh.

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

What do you mean by "the music"? Do you mean the composition as recorded in the score, or do you mean one particular performance of what's recorded in that score? Either one may be called "the music", and the sense of the phrase varies accordingly.

A score is a script, a recipe, a record of a generic, abstract set of steps for application in performance.

A piece of writing is likewise a script, a generic rule. The sentence "Here I go, singing low" can be uttered "correctly" -- according to the letter -- in infinitely various ways without "ruining" or "destroying" the sentence, without breaking the rule laid down in the instruction.

What if one says "Here I go, singin' low"? Is that a breach of the original rule, or one of the acceptable ways of enacting the original rule? Depends who you ask; but in any case now there are two different rules. Arguably the second is a "specification", "determination", or variation of the first; while the first is more generic, less determined, than the second; unless we agree on a strict standard by which to interpret the first rule as requiring that the last phoneme, /ng/, be clearly articulated in any "correct" performance of the rule thus determined.

As it stands alone on paper, or on this digital screen, or as expressed in my head or your head, a rule like that doesn’t say anything about how it was "meant to be interpreted by its creator". That's another thing that's up to us, to each one of us or each group of us to settle on each occasion of performance.

It may be that some interpreters or performers have insights into a score or text that its creator never had. Once the score or text is completed, the creator stands before it as one interpreter among others; he may change his mind and develop alternative or even conflicting interpretations of his own finished script over time. Accordingly the selection of the composer's or author's intention as definitive is an arbitrary selection. In any case, it seems a score or text is a more generic thing than the same score or text as determined by the intentions or interpretations of any one person at any one time; and it's not clear how we're supposed to figure out the intentions and interpretations of anyone who is not available for comment, who may have left scant traces of his thoughts on the matter, apart from the marks we call the score or text.

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

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?

Yes. — TimeLine

I'm inclined to agree, though I find such thoughts difficult to comprehend and articulate:

What is it that makes one style, voice, personality, or performance more "authentic" than another?

Can one abstract or generic composition, for instance a score, also be more or less “authentic” than another?

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

Yes, I have purchased introductory books on how to play the piano and have learnt the notes and concepts like octave and scale etc. I always wanted to play the piano specifically, doing a couple of music classes when I was in early secondary school [around 13 years old] as part of extra-curricular activities they offered but because I was in and out of school and quite poor, I never got a chance to learn and later other priorities became, well, more important. I guess my reasoning behind learning now is because I feel it is never too late to learn anything and I am no longer there anymore and have the choice and the opportunity to learn. Why weep for the past when you can change the present?

I appreciate and welcome your advice, there is not much to say in response to what you wrote as I will try and adopt the strategies you put forward and turn it into something habitual.

...in musical sound-production and music-coordinated activities such as dancing — 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.



I have to go now, ill respond to the other part of your post later.

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.

There is a deep paradox to be found in the principles of harmony which demonstrates our inability to understand the relationship between space and time. Anyone who works over numerous octaves using the circle of fifths, or some such activity, will be familiar with what is known as the Pythagorean comma. In some forms of tuning this manifests as the wolf interval. The problem is that there is a very peculiar incompatibility between the fractions which are used produce harmonies. In modern musical engineering, the problem is resolved by using equal interval tuning. But such tuning denies the perfect harmonies which are to be found in "just", or "pure" intonation. The result is that there is no truly objective way of dividing the octave. We compromise, seeking a way which is pragmatic, and also conducive to producing harmony.

I think the problem can be exemplified like this. Suppose we take an octave between 220 Hz and 440 Hz. 220 and 440 are in perfect harmony, being the octave. The next octave would take us to 880. We can find the mid-point of each of these octaves, 330, and 660, so we have another octave here, with perfect harmony. All of these, 220, 330, 440, 660, are consistent with the divisor of 110, so there is a degree of consonance, and we have harmony here, the properties of good music which produce peace and love. But when we take the mid-way point between 330 and 660, we get 495, and an octave lower than 330 is 165. So if we halve this octave, we have dissonance in relation to the 220-440-880 octaves. This makes it impossible to produce the notes within the octave according to the pure principles of harmony. Each note requires that we jump to a different mathematical base, and there is no harmony, peace or love, between these different bases.

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.

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

I find the pythagorean angle tempting but paradoxical and somehow I appreciate Hegel' view that the more we attempt to theoretically formalise music through harmonic perfection, the likelihood of losing a connection to this subjective movement; thus, we never reach the subjective for it to become objective. It is as though each time we attempt to reach into eternity, we form opposing dipoles rather than coherent magnetic field interactions just as we are never able to grasp the relationship between space and time. The numerical or relational properties between the ratio of consonance and harmony can explain qua music in its formal and theoretical as a thing in itself and can explain the diffraction of sound waves, but any objective answers as to why we experience music is no where near as clear.

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.

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

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?

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

What I believe is that there are objective aspects of tonal music, just like there are objective aspects of rhythm. In rhythm we find it in the repetition of equal temporal spacing, and in tones we find it in harmony. When we are trained in music, we train our ears to recognize the harmonies of wavelengths. This begins with a recognition of the octave. We cannot deny that the octave is an objective aspect of music. Also, it is objective fact that we can produce an octave by dividing the wavelength in half, or by doubling the wavelength.

Where subjectivity enters in, is in how we divide up the octave. We can make a chromatic scale, major, minor, or whatever, there are so many options. In general, one would choose certain points, such as the mid point between the two tonics, which are objectively conducive to harmony. There are a number of other factors which enter in, such as the desire of the composer to modulate from one key to another, and the capacity of the instrument to produce an octave from each note in the scale, allowing one to play in any key. Whichever scales are chosen, we can train our ears to recognize the intervals between tones, and train our voices to reproduce the intervals. So for instance, the major scale is a subjective division of the octave which has been agreed upon, and therefore conventionalized. 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.

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

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.

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

I understand but your argument seems to rest on the assumption of one playing an instrument or creating music; what of the movement music can inspire in people? With regards to the abovementioned, this is where my superficiality was concerned, that my replication of other’ music appeared inauthentic. From an anthropological perspective viz., ethnomusicology, some cultures experience profound mutual emotions without any cognitive awareness as to why because of the symbolic meaning and so this subjective experience is really a study for semiotics and psychology. As you say, the purity of creating inter-subjectively is thus called into question, namely whether the eternal properties that exist outside of space and time merely denote memory or intuition?

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

I think what sparked my initial enthusiasm was the relationship between wavelengths and frequencies when we objectively ascertain what is considered tonal, particularly where making an instrument is concerned. I found myself thinking about Georgia Brown whose vocal range is 8 octaves but her highest pitch at G10 is considered a frequency rather than a note; is it all just noise? I think of my placid, lazy dog that never barks and how he went mental when fireworks started exploding; what we judge as music could merely be ordered frequencies as part of our hearing range and neurological processing.

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

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.

A combination of factors can enable us to like a song; the lyrics, the music, even the video (I once watched a video that had a Tekken montage with the song 'Bring me to Life' by Evanescence and loved the combination because of memories playing Tekken with friends, the lyrics, the music, her voice), and what compels us to a song could be psychological. Where I found the latter questionable was why I liked the opera of Puccini when I had no social or environmental connection to opera at all and how I could possibly be moved when I do not even understand the lyrics. As mentioned previously, some cultures are known to not even know why they are mutually emotional about a particular form of music but the outcome rests in its symbolism. Perhaps - from a semiotic perspective - I loved Turandot because of a combination of factors that enabled me to imagine tragedy without having to directly understand what Puccini was attempting to convey. So, I was moved with emotion because I am emotional about tragedy.

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

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.

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

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.

Do you understand the physics of consonance and harmony? This is when the wavelengths produce synchronized crests and troughs. — Metaphysician Undercover

Synchronized crests and troughs are not objectively preferred or better, though.

I agree, but these are objective principles which we are trained to hear, such as the top and bottom of the octave, the fourth and the fifth, etc.. When we hear them, we recognize them because we have learnt them, and it is this recognition which makes us feel good. Similarly, we learn scales, so we can recognize the intervals of different scales. But scales hold a considerable amount of subjectivity due to the many different ways that the octave may be divided. We may recognize that a particular melody is true to a particular scale, and this could be pleasing as well. What we recognize in the tones, in relation to what we've learned, tends to determine the melodies which please us. But what we learn, and therefore what is recognized, may be a function of true objective principles (harmonies), inter-subjective principles (the conventions which produce the intervals of scales), or pure subjectivity (personal idiosyncrasies).

It is this recognition which makes us feel good — Metaphysician Undercover

So it is epistemological?

So it is epistemological? — TimeLine

I would think so, don't you?

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

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.

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

All kinds of different music causes all kinds of different associations in your mind, many quite emotional, stretching right into the subconscious level. I don't think it's really appropriate to question why you like music. It's just natural to like music, and as soon as you've heard it, it starts to bring back memories. 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.

I would think so, don't you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, but I didn't realise you did. I'm feeling a tad bit like a crusty dragon right now. :s

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

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.

I'm not sure about hallucinogens as I have never taken any form of drugs neither do I drink but I guess Huxley may appreciate the quality of induced transcendent experience.

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

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.