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

There was surely some confusion, and it was my fault, because you had been talking about the experience of listening to music, and when I joined the discussion I started talking about the principles involved in creating music. So we were coming at the same thing from opposite directions. Theoretically, you might think that they would be the same thing, the principles which make music enjoyable, are the same principles which a composer would follow in producing a piece. But since they are opposing sides of the same coin, the relationship between the various aspects, subjectivity, epistemology, objectivity, ontology, is not the same.

The artist will approach composition with intent, and the goal might be to please oneself, or to please others. If it is to please others, the composer will look toward cold hard epistemological principles, grounded in objectivity and ontology. If the goal of the composer is to please oneself, then the artist is freed from such constraints to wander down various creative avenues, perhaps even discovering new objective principles, which may be accepted as epistemological principles in the future. In any case, the artist in today's environment must find an intricate balance between epistemology (what has been proven to work), and subjectivity (what pleases oneself).

With respect to the audience, the audience needs that recognition factor, and for the individual it is a subjective experience. But inter-subjectivity makes this subjective aspect the essence of the epistemological principles which the artist must respect. So as much as you and I have had different subjective experiences with respect to listening to music, the music which we have been exposed to, and conditioned by, is similar, and this grounds the epistemological principles.

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. — TimeLine

I think that what you are trying to say here, concerning the relationship between the conscious and subconscious, is so difficult to say, that you are having trouble saying it. Perhaps you should consider that all of our sensations have already been processed by the subconscious prior to being present to the conscious mind. If this is the case, then only "reasonable" experience is present to the conscious mind, experience which has been rendered in a form intelligible to the conscious mind. What the subconscious has made sense of, is what is present in the conscious mind. We cannot call this activity of the subconscious a form of reasoning, because that is what the conscious mind does. However it is similar to reasoning as it is a form of making sense of, what is occurring. I think this is what I called "recognition", but it isn't really proper to call it recognition either, because again, this is something which the conscious mind does. If we look at it from a semiotic perspective, it might be called an association, but this may be misleading. The question would be, does this subconscious process proceed by "recognizing" something as the same, or does it proceed by association, in which case one thing is associated with another thing. These are distinct, and perhaps we need to respect them both.

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. — TimeLine

Here, you use the word "associate". Let me see if I can analyze this process of association. I believe that the essence of this association is to be found in the recognition of something as the same. I think that when something is sensed, it produces a feeling in the subconscious. When the same feeling occurs again, we recognize the cause of that feeling, the thing being sensed, as the same.

So for instance, I told you that my mother had a guitar which she played when I was a baby. The guitar was a particular Martin, with a distinctive sound, unlike any other guitar I've ever heard, unique to itself. I think, that maybe the instant I hear notes being played on that guitar, it produces a particular feeling within my subconscious, an association which goes way back to when I was a baby, when I first heard that guitar, and this causes the sound to be presented to my conscious mind as the same sound. And therefore I hear the sound as the sound of that guitar.

This would mean that I hear the sound as the same sound, because of some associations made by my subconscious. It would not be the case that I hear the sound, and then with my conscious mind, I determine that the sound is the same sound, the determination that the sound is the same sound has already been made by the subconscious, before my conscious mind apprehends the sound.

Now consider the possibility for error. Suppose there is another guitar which sounds very similar to my mother's but perhaps not exactly the same. The sound occurs, my subconscious makes the associations, and I hear the sound as my mother's guitar. I believe I am hearing my mother's guitar. So I look at the guitar being played, and see that it is not the same guitar. Now I must correct my feelings, suppress those feelings which make me think that it is the same guitar, and allow myself to hear that it is a different guitar being played.

I believe that this experience of error and correction is intrinsic to the subjective experience of hearing music. Consider first, the experience of hearing a song which you are well familiar with. The subconscious deals with the associations, and you hear the song as the same song. There is no issue of error and correction here, you correctly hear the song as the same song. Now consider that you hear an unfamiliar piece of music, but a certain portion of note progression is familiar, and triggers within the subconscious, the appropriate feelings associated with that progression. At that point, you have heard that note progression as "the same", so the conscious mind is alerted, in an attempt to remember, "the same as what?". I believe that this interplay between the conscious and subconscious, is fluid throughout the experience of listening to music. Feelings are always being triggered within the subconscious. Being the same as some other time, those feelings signify "the same" to the conscious mind. The conscious mind is then forced with the decision of impressing upon the subconscious, "not the same, forget those associations", or, searching the memory to confirm "the same". This is why listening to music can vary between a tumultuous emotional interplay between the conscious and subconscious, to a passive relaxing enjoyment of the decisive "I know and love that song", to the decisive "I hate that song", right through to the wonderment of "I've never heard anything like that before".

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? — TimeLine

That sounds right to me. If you want to do it, and you have the opportunity, go for it. If you keep at it, you'll make progress.

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. — TimeLine

Try it and see what you think. Try applying a similar approach, at least once in a while, to the songs you learn, to the songs you write, to any musical structures you want to assimilate into your repertoire.

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. — TimeLine

Sounds like a very powerful experience. The sort of emotion you can channel into your art and into your whole life.

Perhaps it's never quite over till it's over: You can apply the insight you've gained through your past experience as a dancer to your present experience playing and composing music.

Perhaps it's never quite over till it's over: You can apply the insight you've gained through your past experience as a dancer to your present experience playing and composing music. — Cabbage Farmer

That's a great point but not just yet; I feel that only once the water is rested I will be able to articulate that experience more creatively, as in, in a harmonious manner as I find the harmony within. My songs slowly start to make sense as I make sense of the world.

You get it. (Y) You must be a real musician.

The artist will approach composition with intent, and the goal might be to please oneself, or to please others. If it is to please others, the composer will look toward cold hard epistemological principles, grounded in objectivity and ontology. If the goal of the composer is to please oneself, then the artist is freed from such constraints to wander down various creative avenues, perhaps even discovering new objective principles, which may be accepted as epistemological principles in the future. In any case, the artist in today's environment must find an intricate balance between epistemology (what has been proven to work), and subjectivity (what pleases oneself). — Metaphysician Undercover

I am still not confident about such authenticity even when the composer attempts to please oneself as I find that we ultimately possess a social language that influences our aesthetic values. If we never had contact with any other human being since birth, would we still experience music? I don't think so; it will always be epistemological.

With respect to the audience, the audience needs that recognition factor, and for the individual it is a subjective experience. But inter-subjectivity makes this subjective aspect the essence of the epistemological principles which the artist must respect. So as much as you and I have had different subjective experiences with respect to listening to music, the music which we have been exposed to, and conditioned by, is similar, and this grounds the epistemological principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is why I feel musical experience can never be authentic but rather the emotional sensations music has merely ignite our imagination and enables us access to our own subjectivity; that window or access itself is authentic and not the music.

The question would be, does this subconscious process proceed by "recognizing" something as the same, or does it proceed by association, in which case one thing is associated with another thing. These are distinct, and perhaps we need to respect them both. — Metaphysician Undercover

The subconscious processes perceptual experiences that filters what our conscious minds are able to articulate, so indeed consciousness is experience made intelligible. To me, philosophy is a language as is all learning with the aid of tools such as memory and imagination that enables us to surface our awareness of ourselves or 'recognition' as something distinct; a being. As we continue through this maze of self-identity, consciousness gradually raises pleasant or unpleasant experiences, values and even formerly strongly held beliefs to the fore - via memory and imagination - enabling us to re-present ourselves authentically however under the constraint of semantic rules. It is cognition as a naturally evolving state.

However, and this I assume is where we disagree, I am of the opinion that our subconscious mind also attempts to communicate but not with language, but rather with emotion - what we call intuition - as the subconscious mind is still a form of consciousness. It is the non-linear processes [hence outside of space and time] embedded into a stable network, such as the architecture of a dream explaining experiences in an unintelligible story that paradoxically makes sense. We just cannot explain it since it is unintelligible, only, we can at conscious level appreciate the emotions that we 'sense'. It is representational. Semiotics is a way of explaining such symbolic inferential relations and that our 'quasi-mind' as Pierce denotes has levels or processes that ultimately reach reality [consciousness].

I believe that the essence of this association is to be found in the recognition of something as the same. I think that when something is sensed, it produces a feeling in the subconscious. When the same feeling occurs again, we recognize the cause of that feeling, the thing being sensed, as the same. — Metaphysician Undercover

A tryptych of recognition is explained in Pierce' process of semiosis [representation, object, interpretation] and though inter-related is nevertheless modelled under the general assumption that they are distinct from one another. Working in parallel to accommodate the distinctions, once an interpretation has been reached it is enabled to interpret other objects and representations that continues to define and trigger other definitions and so on. We falter in this process only when we attribute incorrectly through habitus. This is why you would supress your feelings when you mistakenly think it is your mother's guitar.

I am still not confident about such authenticity even when the composer attempts to please oneself as I find that we ultimately possess a social language that influences our aesthetic values. If we never had contact with any other human being since birth, would we still experience music? I don't think so; it will always be epistemological. — TimeLine

I tend to disagree with this. I believe the ability to experience music is innate, coming from deep within. Birds sing to each other. Animals in a barn are receptive to music playing. And I think that this is why a mother singing to a baby can produce such a powerful experience. There is a language here which goes much deeper than any socially acquired language.

This is why I feel musical experience can never be authentic but rather the emotional sensations music has merely ignite our imagination and enables us access to our own subjectivity; that window or access itself is authentic and not the music. — TimeLine

But what is that window, other than an innate, and authentic capacity to experience music? The capacity, the window, exists, and it is directed specifically at music, such that we can distinguish music from other noises, even as a baby. Doesn't this imply that music itself is authentic? The capacity is not directed at one of the other infinite possibilities of things to hear, it is directed at music. We are born with the capacity to experience music.

I will however, offer you a proposal for compromise. Perhaps, it is because music is an artificial sound, that it stands out to us, we recognize music because it is an artificial sound, and this allows us to experience it. So the capacity to experience music is not necessarily a capacity which is directed specifically at music, it is directed at artificial noises in general. But if we adopt this principle, then we may ask, what is it about artificial noises, which makes them stand out, such that we can recognize them as special. This will point us toward order, the temporal order of a sound. Now we go deeper than the tonal order, to the temporal order, and here we find a simpler but even more objective order, rhythm. So even if this capacity, the capacity to experience music, is based in the ability to recognize a sound as artificial, this capacity is based in something authentic, the capacity to recognize a temporal order.

However, and this I assume is where we disagree, I am of the opinion that our subconscious mind also attempts to communicate but not with language, but rather with emotion - what we call intuition - as the subconscious mind is still a form of consciousness. It is the non-linear processes [hence outside of space and time] embedded into a stable network, such as the architecture of a dream explaining experiences in an unintelligible story that paradoxically makes sense. We just cannot explain it since it is unintelligible, only, we can at conscious level appreciate the emotions that we 'sense'. It is representational. Semiotics is a way of explaining such symbolic inferential relations and that our 'quasi-mind' as Pierce denotes has levels or processes that ultimately reach reality [consciousness]. — TimeLine

I am not sure exactly what you are getting at with this description of subconscious communication. If we think of dreaming, the dream is not unintelligible, it is just the ordering of experiences in the dream that become mixed up. If we consider individual experiences within the dream, they are quite intelligible, but they get scrambled up in an unintelligible order, the experience is always being broken up and replaced by another. Thoughts are already, in a sense non-spatial, and now when you talk about "non-linear" I assume that you mean non-temporal. But notice that as soon as the temporal element is lost, then the thoughts become unintelligible. So temporal order is essential to intelligibility.

If we consider emotions now, it is the non-temporal aspect of emotions which make them unintelligible. Emotions give us the feeling of "now". I want this now, I am happy now, I am mad now, etc.. We overcome this unintelligibility by putting the emotions into a temporal context. I don't need that now, I can wait until it fits into my schedule. The reason I am happy now, or mad now, is that such and such just happened, or is about to happen, and this is why I feel these emotions now. So we put the feelings which are occurring now, emotions, into a temporal context, and this brings intelligibility to those emotions.

A tryptych of recognition is explained in Pierce' process of semiosis [representation, object, interpretation] and though inter-related is nevertheless modelled under the general assumption that they are distinct from one another. Working in parallel to accommodate the distinctions, once an interpretation has been reached it is enabled to interpret other objects and representations that continues to define and trigger other definitions and so on. We falter in this process only when we attribute incorrectly through habitus. This is why you would supress your feelings when you mistakenly think it is your mother's guitar. — TimeLine

I think there is more to faltering then making incorrect association due to habit. The true fault lies in the production of the association in the first place. The "feeling" which is associated with a particular sound is inadequate for properly remembering that sound. The feeling is a generality, and may be related to numerous similar sounds, yet the sound itself is particular. So when the feeling is reproduced, an indication is made to the conscious mind that the same sound has been heard, but this is not really the same sound. This is why the conscious mind must turn to other things, sight for example, and other memories, to determine in what sense it is the same sound, or just a similar sound. I believe we need to consider multiple levels of interpretation then, at the subconscious, and at the conscious level. It is through these multiple levels that we work to avoid mistakes.

I tend to disagree with this. I believe the ability to experience music is innate, coming from deep within. Birds sing to each other. Animals in a barn are receptive to music playing. And I think that this is why a mother singing to a baby can produce such a powerful experience. There is a language here which goes much deeper than any socially acquired language. — Metaphysician Undercover

Which is perhaps the reason why music itself can arouse this 'movement' as Hegel calls it to enable us passage into our innate or subjective self; one cannot articulate this experience because the response is emotional and the stored memory being elusive becomes all the more intense. It is only when subconscious experiences surface to conscious level that our responses are no longer emotional, or I should say as intense because the memory is understood and the genuine emotions are experienced; so with your mother it would be feelings of nostalgia perhaps, of comfort and happiness.

Conversely, when we experience something bad that remains fixed at subconscious level, we feel intense emotions and confusion that could be quite dangerous to us. So, say your mother passed away and your rather peaceful and comfortable understanding of the world was suddenly shaken, you fall into a position of having to grow up and become a man. To see reality at conscious level as it is, but you subjectively refuse to because if you do then it would be the same as accepting that your mother has died, something you subconsciously fear. So, you get stuck at the same age you were when your mother passed away, perhaps taking drugs to inhibit emotional responses that would otherwise enable you to face your intense fear and accept the fact that she is gone, following others and allowing them to think on your behalf, anything to save you from facing this fear. If you were to hear someone playing a song that reminds you of her, you could potentially hate her, harm her even, think it noise or agitating and yet at the same time you would be compelled, obsessed because you cannot express why you are having these emotional responses.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that what is innate is relative to our experiences and that is why it is epistemological and not independently innate. It triggers emotional responses through memory and imagination, only sometimes we are just not aware at conscious level as to why.

But what is that window, other than an innate, and authentic capacity to experience music? — Metaphysician Undercover

The window to surfacing our memories caught in the subconscious realm is our imagination; that is innate, a universal translator of sorts to our emotional responses that are triggered by musical experiences. It is not the same as language acquisition, but I do wander whether it may be a product corresponding to semantic mechanisms, but even then meaning and development is wholly social.

So temporal order is essential to intelligibility. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not necessarily. Ever had an extremely strange dream, cut up into multiple, unintelligible parts as you say that when you wake up think, 'what the heck?' and have a rather intense emotional response to it; but when you think about the dream, are able to piece the puzzle as to why some images were perhaps representations of certain fears or desires, it begins to make sense and the anxiety subsides. It is an intellectual sophistication that would enable one to decipher and relate, just the same as one would when listening to music. Indeed, for the most part a temporal arrow enables us to surface our emotions, but it is not essential. The sophistication itself being as you say:

I believe we need to consider multiple levels of interpretation then, at the subconscious, and at the conscious level. — Metaphysician Undercover

Also an honesty, only possible when we overcome the angst caused by our fears.

So when the feeling is reproduced, an indication is made to the conscious mind that the same sound has been heard, but this is not really the same sound. — Metaphysician Undercover

(Y)

I guess the point I am trying to make is that what is innate is relative to our experiences and that is why it is epistemological and not independently innate. It triggers emotional responses through memory and imagination, only sometimes we are just not aware at conscious level as to why. — TimeLine

I would not use "epistemological" in this way, and that's why I had trouble understanding your use of this term earlier. Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and knowledge is related to the conscious mind rather than the subconscious. It's true though, that we do talk about innate knowledge, and we must have some innate capacities which make knowledge possible, but I'd prefer to call these innate capacities rather than knowledge. These innate capacities may be related to emotional feelings, but I wouldn't call them epistemological. Those feelings are purely subjective, (of the subject), and with conscious knowledge we try to bring objectivity to bear against these subjective emotions. So I would use "epistemological" to refer to this process of trying to objectify the subjective, not directly to purely subjective experiences.

I really don't know what you would mean by "independently innate". Innate things are inherently within the subject, they are subjective, so what would you be referring to with "independent" here? I figure that everything which is present to the conscious mind during sensual experience, has been produced by the subconscious. So if I am seeing, or hearing something, this experience is actually created by the subconscious, and what is present to my conscious mind is an interpretation of what is being sensed. I think that "innate" would refer to what is at work in this subconscious level. And in the sense that it may appear to be prior to the conscious, in the case of a simple experience of listening to music, we might be inclined to say it's "independent" from the conscious. But even in such a passive experience, one's attention is always being direct through one's intention, so this underlying innate aspect of experience can never really be independent in that way.

You can experience this in a practise such as meditation. Through conscious intention you attempt to free yourself from the subconscious influence of sensation. This requires conscious effort, to completely ignore your surroundings. But if you achieve this meditative state, where sensations no longer attract your attention, then you realize that intention is required to focus on any particular sensible activity. This indicates that there must be some form of intention which is active at the subconscious level, directing the attention of the senses.

The window to surfacing our memories caught in the subconscious realm is our imagination; that is innate, a universal translator of sorts to our emotional responses that are triggered by musical experiences. It is not the same as language acquisition, but I do wander whether it may be a product corresponding to semantic mechanisms, but even then meaning and development is wholly social. — TimeLine

I would not say that if it is a semantic mechanism, it must be social. I would look at the opposite relation. I would say that a semantic mechanism is required to produce social relations, therefore the semantic mechanism is prior to social relations. That means that a semantic mechanism which is not social, can exist. This can be related to the failing of the so-called private language argument.

Not necessarily. Ever had an extremely strange dream, cut up into multiple, unintelligible parts as you say that when you wake up think, 'what the heck?' and have a rather intense emotional response to it; but when you think about the dream, are able to piece the puzzle as to why some images were perhaps representations of certain fears or desires, it begins to make sense and the anxiety subsides. It is an intellectual sophistication that would enable one to decipher and relate, just the same as one would when listening to music. Indeed, for the most part a temporal arrow enables us to surface our emotions, but it is not essential. The sophistication itself being as you say: — TimeLine

In this example of dreaming, what you are making sense of, what is intelligible, is the bits and pieces between the breaks. Each of these "pieces" is itself intelligible because within the piece there is a temporal order. But one piece does not align with the next, in a rational way, and this is where the unintelligibility lies. As much as you can create with your conscious mind, some arbitrary designations as to why this piece followed that piece, and assign an intelligibility in this way, in analysis, I believe that this is purely arbitrary. I believe that there is no real reason why X piece followed Y piece in the dreaming process, and it is truly unintelligible. This assumes a randomness in how the dream was produced. So within the dream, there is a mixing of rational order, which we can observe by understanding the pieces, and irrational order, which is a randomness in putting pieces together. In the dream state, the mind is practising its capacity for truly free thinking.

When we listen to music, we observe a very similar thing, so it can stir the emotions in a way similar to dreaming. In the case of listening to music though, it is not one's own mind which is producing the mixture of intelligible and unintelligible aspects, the composer has already done this. So it is the composer who is practising the capacity for free thought. However, the point I was trying to make, is that the musical composition usually has a particular rhythm, a time signature, which ties the whole piece together, from start to finish. This gives an overall unity to the piece, making it intelligible as one piece. Dreams are missing this aspect of overall unity. So the composer restrains the capacity for free thinking in order to increase the aspects of intelligibility.

Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and knowledge is related to the conscious mind rather than the subconscious.

It's true though, that we do talk about innate knowledge, and we must have some innate capacities which make knowledge possible, but I'd prefer to call these innate capacities rather than knowledge. These innate capacities may be related to emotional feelings, but I wouldn't call them epistemological. Those feelings are purely subjective, (of the subject), and with conscious knowledge we try to bring objectivity to bear against these subjective emotions. So I would use "epistemological" to refer to this process of trying to objectify the subjective, not directly to purely subjective experiences. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not that I have incorrectly applied the term epistemological but rather you yourself have failed to understand the subconscious mind and the structural layers of the psyche; I fear you think that somehow the subconscious is distinct from the conscious mind. It is not, and as I said earlier, the subconscious mind is still a form of consciousness. It is just as accessible and communicable only without the same coordinated semantic order of a conscious mind and though it may not have the same reality - or ego - as the conscious mind does, it consists of memories that trap the same sensations, emotions, habits, perceptions that influence your behaviour. The problem is that you are unable to articulate why, exhibiting reactions such as intense feelings of fear or guilt or anger by experiences that you do not understand. It is why when you do understand, those feelings dissipate. Thus trying to objectify the subjective is trying to objectify memories and experiences that you do not understand. Thus it is already epistemological. What we know we know only of experience.

I really don't know what you would mean by "independently innate". Innate things are inherently within the subject, they are subjective, so what would you be referring to with "independent" here? I figure that everything which is present to the conscious mind during sensual experience, has been produced by the subconscious. — Metaphysician Undercover

I apologise, I could have perhaps elucidated my point better with the use of the word 'distinct' rather than 'independent' and I do not believe that the psyche is divided into two independent or distinct constituents but that both are layers of consciousness. Think of it like this; as we increase our language through knowledge and experience, we are capable of surfacing - piece by piece - memories of experiences that we at the time did not have sufficient capacity to articulate. So the subconscious mind stores those experience until we increase in awareness to eventually understand it; perhaps if we did not have the facility to do this, we would quite simply go mad.

I believe that our imagination is innate, which has caused me quite a lot of grief since empiricism makes a great deal of sense to me.

You can experience this in a practise such as meditation. Through conscious intention you attempt to free yourself from the subconscious influence of sensation. This requires conscious effort, to completely ignore your surroundings. But if you achieve this meditative state, where sensations no longer attract your attention, then you realize that intention is required to focus on any particular sensible activity. This indicates that there must be some form of intention which is active at the subconscious level, directing the attention of the senses. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have found the experience of rationally dissecting emotions after experiencing them to be of greater value. Meditation, whilst valuable in that it provides a calmness necessary to enable rational thinking, essentially does not get to the root causes of the emotions but rather becomes a way of managing the intensity. The activity of releasing rather than managing emotional experience through various forms of communication is quite effective in taking those steps toward retrieving memories from the subconscious and being able to understand it. This is why art therapy is quite powerful, as well as writing. And... music. :P

It is not that I have incorrectly applied the term epistemological but rather you yourself have failed to understand the subconscious mind and the structural layers of the psyche; I fear you think that somehow the subconscious is distinct from the conscious mind. It is not, and as I said earlier, the subconscious mind is still a form of consciousness. — TimeLine

You appear to be entering contradiction in an effort to support an untenable metaphysical position. Subconscious, by definition is not a form of consciousness. By claiming this you only contradict yourself. I believe that you are denying the distinction between these two, conscious and subconscious, which I have utilized, in order to assume that the two exist only as an undivided whole. But this is not the case, because we see from the evidence of evolution that consciousness evolved, and that there was a form of subconscious prior to there being consciousness. So the distinction between these two, is in principle validated, while your claim that one cannot exist separate from the other, should be rejected.

The reality which you seem to be ignoring is the fact that the subconscious is necessary to support the conscious, but the conscious is not necessary to support the subconscious. So the subconscious can exist independently of the conscious, as we see in primitive animals and plants.

In my analysis, which I described in the last post, I have separated intention from conscious, so that the subconscious may still be directed by intention, but this is not a conscious intention. Consciousness is not necessary for intention, as we see that plants and primitive animals act with purpose, but not with consciousness. This allowed me to say that intention can direct the attention, at the subconscious level, without conscious interference.

You appear to be entering contradiction in an effort to support an untenable metaphysical position. Subconscious, by definition is not a form of consciousness. By claiming this you only contradict yourself. I believe that you are denying the distinction between these two, conscious and subconscious, which I have utilized, in order to assume that the two exist only as an undivided whole. But this is not the case, because we see from the evidence of evolution that consciousness evolved, and that there was a form of subconscious prior to there being consciousness. So the distinction between these two, is in principle validated, while your claim that one cannot exist separate from the other, should be rejected. — Metaphysician Undercover

:D

No, you are confusing the subconscious mind with the unconscious mind. Freud discusses three levels of the psyche; the Ego, the ID and the Superego. The Ego - consciousness - is reality as we experience it and in addition to its faculty to regulate cognitive and perceptual structures of the mind during contact with the external world, it also liaises with the Id. The Id - unconscious - contains the instinctual drives and impulses present since birth and as an developmental apparatus is inaccessible unlike the Superego - subconscious - the apparatus of cognition that internalises perceptual experiences and what we have been taught and becomes the reservoir of meaning and emotion. The proximity of the superego from the agents consciousness is strictly confined to limitations that often distort the content' meaning and requires the Ego to attempt to reconcile the instinctual drives of the id with the superego' feelings of guilt or fear etc.

The reality which you seem to be ignoring is the fact that the subconscious is necessary to support the conscious, but the conscious is not necessary to support the subconscious. So the subconscious can exist independently of the conscious, as we see in primitive animals and plants. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is not that I am ignoring and I am sorry that you feel that way, I am quite simply not sure where you obtained this idea from and though I am more than happy to discredit my own learning from the psychoanalytic and cognitive sciences - which is controversial in itself - just popping out with some random thoughts of your own vis-a-vis layers of psyche really does not suffice. Even Freud himself stated that Ego utilises programs such as defence mechanisms to regulate behaviour - that is, when our unknown experiences of emotions or tensions conflict with our experience in reality. So, you see someone you instinctually want to have sex with, for instance, or you have a sudden sensation of incredible anger over an experience you have but that you are unaware of why you feel so incredibly angry, the conscious mind attempts to regulate that experience, sometime even with delusional internalisations such as denial, fantasy, projection, disassociation etc. These expose the interconnectedness with the conscious and subconscious minds with the imagination that can be used both in positive and negative ways depending on the nature of the individual. I do agree that both the subconscious and the conscious faculties of the psyche can function distinctly but they are most certainly relational, one in the case of emotions and passions and the other commanding reality. Both are epistemological.

In my analysis, which I described in the last post, I have separated intention from conscious, so that the subconscious may still be directed by intention, but this is not a conscious intention. Consciousness is not necessary for intention, as we see that plants and primitive animals act with purpose, but not with consciousness. This allowed me to say that intention can direct the attention, at the subconscious level, without conscious interference. — Metaphysician Undercover

But, where does this intention come from? I think that it is clear here that you are referring to the Id - the unconscious instinctual drives - and not the superego - the subconscious - which is perhaps where our confusion lies.

I don't agree with the Freudian model, especially the distinction between ego and superego. I use "subconscious" in a way defined by philosophy rather than psychology. You appear to have identified my use of "subconscious" with a Freudian "unconscious", but that's not quite right because you also have a subconscious superego, which I have no respect for. If we continued to hash this out, it would become evident that you and I have completely different ways of looking at memory. This is important because memory is central to what we are discussing here.

But, where does this intention come from? — TimeLine

I think intention is inherent within life itself, as all living things tend to act with purpose.

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

Here again it seems you and I use some of the same words quite differently. It may take more careful work to sort out the meaning of our usages and assertions.

I say there is a subconscious aspect to both subjective and objective experience, as well as a conscious aspect.

I might recognize that the sky is blue, without knowing why it is blue. Likewise, I might recognize that I feel sad, without knowing why I feel sad. In each case, I say we have a subjective point of view on an objective matter of fact.

The objective aspect of the experience is indicated when we say, there is an objective "fact of the matter" that determines the truth of the statement "The sky is blue"; and another objective "fact of the matter" that determines the truth of the statement "I am sad".

Contrast those two cases with a third: Gazing at the blue sky, a feeling of sadness flushes through me, and it seems to me it was the sight of the blue sky that made me sad. Perhaps there is an objective fact of the matter that determines the correctness or incorrectness of my judgment that the sight of the blue sky "caused" my feeling of sadness.

Suppose after this one occasion, or after several others like it, I begin to associate blue skies and sadness, and find myself often sad in the face of blue skies. If I go on to infer, on the basis of this subjective association, that "blue skies make everyone sad", or that "blue skies are sad skies", then it seems I have projected the association of blue skies and sadness in my own experience into a misconception of an objective correlation of blue skies and sadness in general.

Experience suggests that subjective associations of that sort are not reliable bases for such generalizations about objective matters of fact.

The error here is not in my feeling of sadness, nor in my personal, subjective association of blue skies and sadness, but only in my confused projection of my subjective association into an incorrect objective generalization.

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). — TimeLine

Nevertheless, I say it's an objective matter of fact, that I experience feelings of aversion to pigeons on the relevant occasions. Accordingly, there would be an objective basis for my statement, "I'm afraid of pigeons" or "I feel uneasy around pigeons". Though I would be mistaken to suppose that everyone feels the same way that I do about pigeons.

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

In one sense, my aversion to pigeons is not a "flaw". My aversion is not, and does not entail, a judgment that "pigeons are scary" or that "everyone fears or ought to fear pigeons". It's just an aversion I have, like some people have an aversion to heights or to slimy food. There's nothing incorrect or imperfect about such aversions, considered in themselves and in general.

I might decide I don't like the aversion and want to be rid of it, especially if it disrupts my conduct too much or too often. In this case I might call the aversion a character flaw. I suppose we might even come to a sort of moral view, that in general it's preferable to be without character flaws of this sort -- it's preferable not to have significant, conduct-altering aversions to things about which we believe we ought to be indifferent, perhaps including pigeons, heights, and slimy food.

Should such considerations, about subjective associations, make us doubtful about our own judgments of taste, our own aesthetic preferences? I don't need a "good reason" to like a piece of music or a piece of food. If I like it, I like it. I might be able to say something about what I like about it, and to say something about why I like it; but these stories may be more doubtful than the experience itself, the enjoyment of and attraction to music like this or food like this.

It seems I gain some experience and insight by liking what I like, and another sort of experience and insight by thinking about why I like what I like. Two activities that contribute to the cultivation of personal taste over a lifetime.

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. — TimeLine

Extramusical factors play a powerful role in determining the course of development of musical taste. Lyrics arguably contribute an extramusical dimension to songs, often including features of narrative such as character and plot. Music videos and operas contribute visual and narrative dimensions, and opera in its intended context is a theatrical performance.

Relevant extramusical factors extend beyond such formal features of an artwork, to include a broader aesthetic and cultural context. Maybe I'm listening to a recording of Turandot, not watching a video recording, not attending a live performance; maybe I have no idea what utterances those voices are expressing, or what characters, setting and plot are involved; maybe I don't know anything about Puccini or Nizami. But I recognize this music as opera, and I have some conception of how opera and Western classical music fit into the world, and this is enough to color my experience of the music one way or another.

Beneath all such extramusical factors there's the music itself. The same piece of music doesn't stir the same emotions in each hearer. The emotions it stirs in each of us depends in part on extramusical features of the artwork and on our subjective associations with the music and its extramusical context.

It seems that hearers tend to respond to music with emotion one way or other, because musical expressions of pitch and rhythm are recognizable expressions of emotion, just like shouts and groans, laughter and weeping, slaps and caresses, are recognizable expressions of emotion.

Perhaps we should add that a recognizable expression of emotion tends to elicit emotional responses in observers; but the emotional response depends in part on the observer's psychosocial position relative to the observed act.

Depending on the caress observed, an observer might be appeased, amused, aroused, made jealous, enraged. Neither the caress itself, nor the intention of the caresser, can account for all the variety in responses among observers.

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 — TimeLine

Let's see if I've got this about right: You were speaking about a "phenomenological aspect" of your enquiry, "to try and ascertain the properties that enables a person to experience music and whether sound and perception help conceive of subjectivity."

I wasn't sure what you meant, and I made a first pass at sorting out our terms by speaking about some of the physical properties of soundclouds and the things in the world that produce soundclouds; by speaking about auditory perception as a sort of perception; by speaking about perceptual experience as part of human experience, with both subjective and objective features.

Now it seems you've added something about the way a great deal of information about physical context is "filtered out" of conscious perceptual experience. But again I'm confused by the way you seem to associate "objective" with "conscious" and "subjective" with "subconscious".

I might rephrase the thought about "filtering" along these lines: It seems our perceptual experience gives us a rough-grained glimpse of the world from a limited point of view within the world, and a lot of the facts are "filtered out", omitted in experience; though some of these are traceable through rigorous observation and analysis. Even what is manifest in perception is not completely understood or analyzable from the point of view of ordinary introspection. I hear the music, I feel the vibration, I respond to it emotionally and understand it one way or another, but this is only a partial view of a complex phenomenon.

Even so, I suppose whatever there is to my experience of the phenomenon, there is a subjective character to it as well as an objective character. I can use language to describe my experience, including the emotions I feel in response to the music; but no description is a substitute for the thing itself.

Likewise, an abstract set of instructions for a piece of music, like a score, is no substitute for a performance of the piece. It omits a great deal of information that must be supplied by the performer. No one knows, no one can express, the complete set of "rules" that determine a single performance in its perfect concreteness. We don't think or express such rules; we don't understand them clearly and distinctly. We enact them, guided in part by perception, emotion, and volition in the moment, and in part by an accumulation of habit.

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. — TimeLine

Lyrics are more important to some people than to others. They can add (or subtract) value from a piece of music, but should be distinguished from the underlying musical content of the piece, which could be repeated with different lyrics or with solfege syllables or phonetic nonsense.

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. — TimeLine

Does this sound right: You like his work as a songwriter, but not his work as a performer and recording artist, though you admire his moral and political principles and the way he brings them to bear in his work?

The error here is not in my feeling of sadness, nor in my personal, subjective association of blue skies and sadness, but only in my confused projection of my subjective association into an incorrect objective generalization. — Cabbage Farmer

Precisely, hence why I said that it is a network of perceptual experiences that we are unable to identify and we attempt to make sense of these feelings by utilising both matters of objective facts and experiences in order to articulate the reasons for having these feelings. Think of it like this; some people might feel unwell and so scour the internet searching for answers that could explain the symptoms they feel, yet somehow they assume they have cancer or diabetes because the explanations of these symptoms represent what they are physically feeling, but that is not the case. We do the same with subjective emotions and oftentimes the actual reasons for these emotions are blurred mostly because of our ignorance, which is why learning is everything and why philosophy is a language.

Nevertheless, I say it's an objective matter of fact, that I experience feelings of aversion to pigeons on the relevant occasions. Accordingly, there would be an objective basis for my statement, "I'm afraid of pigeons" or "I feel uneasy around pigeons". Though I would be mistaken to suppose that everyone feels the same way that I do about pigeons. — Cabbage Farmer

But this objective matter of fact can be overcome when you are able to articulate the reasons for the fear in the first place.

I once met a young man who I could see was struggling in intense confusion and through conversations with him I was able to locate the source of his difficulties. He was very immature that immediately exposed that he was 'caught' somewhere, stuck at a young age though he was far from being considered young. His mother left his ailing father and returned only near his father' death and he experienced this tragedy at a very young age. It forced the notion that he needed to 'man up' or to grow up, but he was still too young for that and thus the emotional war began within him; he attempted to show his strength physically by using steroids as though such appearances would exemplify this image of 'man', taking drugs and drinking and making himself unwell (insomniacs tend to become so because it brings about a 'daze' that stops thought) just so he could never face the heartache of losing his father and the anger he feels for the abandonment by his mother. His refusal to become a man, basically, compelled him to follow others and allow others to think on his behalf but he was torn between who he was within - the real him and someone who wants to do things differently - to what he had become. What he thinks is his reality now is all a product of his escape from himself and to break that reality would mean to face what he dreads. He is torn between the need for approval by others because he refuses to think for himself with his amazing, beautiful mind that I could see was crushed by the weight of his fears. So, the subjective war only developed a hatred within him and he tried to balance the emotions through new ageism that does nothing really but temporarily enables a management of his intense feelings.

I know of plenty more, another person whose partner cheated on him while she was interstate and he was in complete denial because he thought he was in control of her when it was the other way around. This was projected by his misattribution and by him committing sexually devious acts just so he could feel a sense of guilt that would maintain the relationship. Whenever he would cry out his frustrations about her to me and I would try to provide him with a way towards the real reasons for his frustrations (not just his crap about 'she does this' or 'she does that') he would almost always dissasociate from the conversation. I would be talking to a wall. The reasons were because he had a dominating mother and her controlling behaviour led to a subjective passivity and though he tries to be controlling of his girlfriend such as having access to her facebook and emails etc as well as lash out to irrelevant actions to vent his frustrations at her (but not for the real reasons he is frustrated), the real reason is because he has been trained to defend an abuser as he defends his mother' behaviour.

So, while your objective reality is a 'fear of pigeons' there is a root cause for why, you just need to articulate those reasons and when your (primitive) mind enables defences mechanisms to stop you from facing the subjective memories that is often the source of anxiety - which is the causal reason for the repression - along with our natural inclination to avoid anxiety, acknowledgement of why would dissipate those fears that has been projected to pigeons.

Should such considerations, about subjective associations, make us doubtful about our own judgments of taste, our own aesthetic preferences? I don't need a "good reason" to like a piece of music or a piece of food. — Cabbage Farmer

I think we should always be doubtful of our judgements. What you may 'like' may not be a product of what you authentically like and this is the key difference. Setting aside aesthetics for a moment, we may be compelled by choices to do our best to avoid feelings of anxiety, becoming comfortable in our ignorance that we soon become dependent on them. This 'fixed' state or habit makes us believe that it is somehow real. When it comes to our aesthetic preferences, perhaps our subjective feelings of intense anxiety compels us to death metal music and our attempt to balance those feelings to buddhist mantras. If we are ever able to find true wholeness and authenticity, our objective experiences would completely transform.

It seems that hearers tend to respond to music with emotion one way or other, because musical expressions of pitch and rhythm are recognizable expressions of emotion, just like shouts and groans, laughter and weeping, slaps and caresses, are recognizable expressions of emotion. Perhaps we should add that a recognizable expression of emotion tends to elicit emotional responses in observers; but the emotional response depends in part on the observer's psychosocial position relative to the observed act. — Cabbage Farmer

(Y)

I said earlier that musical experience becomes a 'gateway' so to speak to our subjective feelings, enabling us a passage through our imagination to realise and perhaps even acknowledge the emotions that soon provides us with the ideas that articulate those emotions. Hegel distinguishes the music as sounds - external, sensory etc - in itself [the objective] with music as representation; the former contributes through harmony and melody in the pythagorean sense to compel our imagination, which is triggered by the sensuous and symbolic 'movement' caused by the emotions it conveys. Hence:

Now it seems you've added something about the way a great deal of information about physical context is "filtered out" of conscious perceptual experience. But again I'm confused by the way you seem to associate "objective" with "conscious" and "subjective" with "subconscious". — Cabbage Farmer

It is like a paradigmatic form, whereby music as an objective or conscious experience is mathematical or pythagorean while the subjective or subconscious is symbolic and communicative and the apparent contradiction here is how closely tied they are to one another. I use the Freudian dualism of the psyche - between the Ego and Superego - as an example of Hegelian interpretation of the musical aesthetic.

Lyrics are more important to some people than to others. They can add (or subtract) value from a piece of music, but should be distinguished from the underlying musical content of the piece, which could be repeated with different lyrics or with solfege syllables or phonetic nonsense. — Cabbage Farmer

Lyrics are important to me only because it helps explain the meaning of the emotions that may be advantageous when trying to gain a better understanding of your feelings. For instance, I was a teen when the film The Crow came out and it is still one of my favourite soundtracks. The darkness, revenge, passion all resonated with me, but the lyrics to Dead Souls by Nine Inch Nails really resonated at the time with me because I was really angry back then because of being treated rather badly but I was a genuinely loving person, so torn between such powerful emotions.

Does this sound right: You like his work as a songwriter, but not his work as a performer and recording artist, though you admire his moral and political principles and the way he brings them to bear in his work? — Cabbage Farmer

Yes. It is the same reason why I stopped listening to Kings of Leon when I found out that they didn't write and create most of their songs.

That's a great point but not just yet; I feel that only once the water is rested I will be able to articulate that experience more creatively, as in, in a harmonious manner as I find the harmony within. My songs slowly start to make sense as I make sense of the world. — TimeLine

Whenever you feel ready.

Think of the way a toddler starts singing and dancing, and what kind of progress it can make in proportion to time on task, even without lessons. As we get older we get hung up on how it looks, how it sounds, is it right. We lose something in that bargain.

Whether we let loose or try to stay in the lines, there's going to be a lot of fumbling for a few years at least. There are different ways of aiming at harmony. Arguably all of them involve wading through relatively inharmonious action, one way or another. The harmony along the way is the fitness of activity to novice practitioner, not the fineness of product that flows from an accomplished craftsman.

We all begin by crying and cooing and flailing like insects, trying out voices and limbs.

You get it. (Y) You must be a real musician — TimeLine

I play a little.