Why see philosophy as a separate domain to those enquiries? — Benj96

Because Enlightenment philosophy through to current philosophy begins with an assumption about the nature of consciousness and an assumption about whether "spirituality" has any coherent meaning as a concept. They begin with answers arrived at through the wrong questions, and reform the answer as a question that leads to their answer. Trying to argue from a spiritual perspective against these assumptions has felt futile to me over the years because my interlocutors and I are essentially speaking different languages, or even using different forms of communication; it's hand signals versus morse code.

Anyway, the flame's been removed from underneath my bum regardless.

I came here for the same reasons as everyone else, but my interest in philosophy has waned. I'm more interested in consciousness and a spiritual path these days, so I tend to keep my mouth shut. I find most of the questions to be the wrong questions, so the answers tend to be pretty meaningless to me. Otherwise, I stick around for the company and the short stories...

But how to apply science’s epistemological method to religion? — Art48

Rudolf Steiner attempted to do something along these lines with his "spiritual science". Worth researching for the sake of interest if nothing more, if you haven't already.

Oh for sure, I wasn't trying to compare the two. I guess I had in my mind that you've posted other metal; I could be remembering that wrong.

What say you

One of the greatest progressive metal tracks of all time:

Spare yourself the mental energy.

Question for you; I'm posting this piece of music because I like it and find it to be good enough to share with other people; do you agree that this is a good piece of music and that it's worth sharing with other people?

I love that knifepoint between late romanticism and early modernism. I'd like to live there.

Yes yes yes.

Truly unhinged:

Cool, Scanner has been on the docket for too long for me. I liked VALIS, but it is bizarre. I don't think I understood it (not sure if it can be). But I want to re-read it. I actually felt that The Divine Invasion was excellent; I think it's overlooked. The atmosphere he creates in the last act reminds me of UBIK. The Transmigration of Timothy Archer I couldn't get through.

A Scanner Darkly is next on my list. Or maybe I should go back to his earlier period first. I haven’t read Dr. Bloodmoney...

:up:

It ends making you feel like the layers of reality can continue to be peeled back indefinitely. — Jamal

I think that was my impression. It was a bit cheeky. He was known to write a lot of these novels under deadlines and on a wide variety of drugs, so my guess is that very last bit wasn't very premeditated. I can understand the frustration. It didn't bother me so much, but my feelings on endings are apparent from my short story contest submissions...

there's something bordering on madness that's a bit alienating — Jamal

I get that, and yeah, I've always assumed that his own mental states influenced this aspect of his stories. I don't think it's correct to say he went mad, though. There's an interview with him on French television on youtube towards the end of his life that shows him as very cogent, to me at least.

Also I think he uncritically assumes a philosophical position that I don't get along with, namely the soul or mind as in principle independent of the body — Jamal

He was very deep into investigating spirituality, mysticism, religion, etc. It's a hallmark of his work, and it's more and more a part of it later in the chronology. So I suppose that automatically alienates some readers.

But why charge a fiction author with uncritically assuming a philosophical position? Isn't that a given? It's a story, not a treatise.

Ubik by Philip K. Dick. I think I'm finally beginning to appreciate his work. — Jamal

Excellent. Curious to hear your thoughts.

The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism - Karen Armstrong

Thank you. It's healing more quickly than last time.

My left ear is currently fucked up as it is every so often, so I'm taking a break from listening to music until it heals, as I'll otherwise lose my mind if the stereo field is off. There are some names I know but don't know the tunes, but the only ones I know well from this list are Owen Pallett and Makaya McCraven. Pallett is nice; I remember years ago having my music compared to his, which at the time I didn't take as a strong compliment. Makaya on the other hand is it. So much tension, so many thoughtful grooves, such an unstructured approach to what I can only call post-jazz.

Kelly Lee Owens, my discovery of 2022

As much as I philosophically oppose this thread, I've had this stuck in my head for the better part of two days.

The Stand - Stephen King :groan:

Thank you. But I didn’t intend the thread to specifically be about music; my threads just tend to go there because it’s what I know the best and I use music to try to illustrate my points. If you have any thoughts about these ideas in relation to another art form (or even something not specifically art) please feel free to bring it up.

I haven't seen it, no; I'll check it out later tonight when I'm off work. Looks and sounds interesting.

I get what you're saying and don't disagree, but I think there's just a semantic issue here; I don't need to use the terms "form and function", it's just how I tend to think about the thing I'm trying to describe. I can make another attempt with different language.

There is an inner content to an artwork and an outer content. What I'm calling "function" (the inner content) could be compared to the engine or the transmission of a car; it's the bones of the whole thing. But what I'm describing as "form" (the outer content) would be the type of car; are you into souped up sports cars, or are you more utilitarian? Do you need the space of a van? I'm sorry if this is an overly simple or kind of dumb analogy, but it's what comes to mind, and I'm at work at the moment.

They come together -- function and form. — L'éléphant

How so? What's an example?

(1) What is artistic function? — Dawnstorm

I think you explained what I mean to yourself in your further paragraphs. But I didn't spell it out in the OP, so I'll try to here.

Function is technique. Music is the most familiar art to me, so I'll use that; apologies. Function is key signatures, time signatures, transpositions, modes, composition forms, approaches to improvisation, proper physical technique (ways to play the piano, hold drum sticks, strum a guitar, etc). Form is more the sound of it; do you like a silky blues guitar tone or a jarring metal tone? Do you prefer Baroque music or Romantic era? Do you like the chill vibe of rock steady or the paranoia of industrial metal?

The tinkerer likes the process of creating. The communicator wants to have created. And the book-keeper wants success (praise and money both apply). I'd say all artists are a mix of the three. — Dawnstorm

I agree. I guess your "tinkerer" is the main player in this discussion, though, as they're the one playing with function vs. form.

And because too few people ask what to do with it, the discourse tends to assume regularity is a goal. — Dawnstorm

I worry this is a classic case of "these kids don't know what art is", which is a perennial perspective passed down from generation to generation, all while art manages to evolve despite the old codgers complaining about the kids.

We train our ears for music early in life, and if you train your ear on pitch-snapped music, will you hear expression, or will you hear mistakes? — Dawnstorm

An interesting take I haven't thought of. I grew up on mostly classical music, so this thought never occurred to me.

I do still seek out new music being released whereas many people don't.. — Jack Cummins

Props to you on that; that's something I'm very slow to keep up on. I find myself exploring older music from weird niche corners that I only know a little about.

Yeah that's what I meant..

I could not make sense of Soundgarden vs. Breaking Benjamin. — Bitter Crank

:sweat: that's quite ok BC.

Stravinsky said that Vivaldi wrote the same concerto 400 times. I'll take the worst of Vivaldi over the best of Soundgarden. — Bitter Crank

I grew up listening to Vivaldi. Even as a kid I thought it was nice but never felt much of a draw to it.

Gorecki, Pärt, Adams, etc. The first cut on this YouTube album is Spiegel in Spiegel -- Mirror in Mirror by Arvo Pärt. — Bitter Crank

Gorecki I'm aware of but don't know well, Part is very nice but a bit bland, and Adams I'm a very big fan of. Some other contempo favs are Nico Muhly, Marcos Balter and Andrew Norman (below:)

https://ymusicensemble.bandcamp.com/track/music-in-circles-part-2-andrew-norman

As to your counter point here that young composers are indeed carrying on without resorting to form fetishism...I don't know if I agree. Don't get me wrong, I clearly enjoy a lot of the music. But Part is arguably new age-y, and some others who I don't remember the names of (because I don't like their music) are essentially regurgitating atonality and serialism.

An exception to the rule for me is the emergence of minimalism. Glass, Reich and Riley essentially stripped music of the serialistic banality it had fallen into and started quite literally from square one. As much as I consider it a bland piece of music, Riley's "In C" personifies this ideal. So, to your point, I think the "post-minimalists", of which Adams is the forerunner, are still breaking new ground within that tradition.

Oh sure; brawny heros walking away from expositions in slow motion.

You ever listen to Scott Walker's solo stuff? It gets pretty intense. This is the easy listening side:

However, it does seem that with music one factor which may have affected quality is that a lot of it is made on computers. — Jack Cummins

I would gently counter that; current digital audio technology is pretty astounding. I mentioned it above, but the best software emulations of analog hardware are so good that professionals can't always tell the difference. Of course it wasn't like that in the 80's when digital recording was introduced. It's evolved leaps and bounds even in the past 5-10 years.

Haha, I used to listen to Breaking Benjamin. That was just a random example I came up with on the fly.

However, getting back to the original topic it does seem that we are entering the era of post post post post post post post possibilities, so what next...? — Jack Cummins

I hate to say this, as I do have some luddite instincts, but AI art might be what's next. Technology in general, beginning especially in the modern age, has been such a driving catalyst for how art evolves, that I don't see that changing.

Does this seemingly inevitable switch to or preoccupation with form indicate something like the emergence of decadence? — Tom Storm

I wasn't even consciously trying to lead the discussion that way, but I think this is possible. One issue with a preoccupation with form is it can lead to what Adorno described as fetishism. An obsession with form does feel like a type of decadence. In the audio production world, for instance, there is an obsession, a sort of fetish with audio software that emulates old tape machine technology; it's an obsession with making music with your computer that sounds old. I'm guilty of it as well. It almost feels like a harmless sort of addiction when you're in the middle of it. The fame and notoriety of music recorded to tape appears to influence this obsessive impulse to re-create those sounds (forms). It becomes a sort of private fantasy of sounding like the greats yourself. From a psychological perspective, it doesn't seem healthy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "thematic", but otherwise I think I would say yes. I wouldn't use the metaphor that innovation dries up, but rather innovation sparks the imagination of others who then imitate the innovation (new derivations of innovation are still possible, but the returns appear to diminish), and eventually the artistic movement dies a natural death once the imitations and derivations reach critical mass (at which point the audience stops paying attention). Why this is the case is self-evident to me, but I'll try to clarify. At its core, creativity is bound up with the possible and the new. Once the possible becomes real and the new becomes not new, those ideas are left behind. Creativity is a kind of viciously unquenchable appetite; it's never at rest. I know this is poetic language, but it makes the most sense to me to say it that way.

I have no problem with what you've written. I've made the case many times that the idea of objective reality is a convenience that allows us to talk about the world we live in. — T Clark

All well and good. The point of departure for me is, despite all I've said, that an objective reality does, most likely, exist. So it would appear I'm now disagreeing with myself. I'm fine with that. What's important is that whatever seems to be "real" to me is, again, a product of my own personal world. The possibility that something "more real" might exist outside of my perception is not only plausible, but probable, given my own failure (within my own limited framework) to perceive or derive any sort of plausible objective relativity. My own inability to derive the objective says nothing about the reality of the objective; and the sheer way in which we speak about philosophical problems presupposes the existence of the objectively real. Call it apophatic Theology if you like. We are dumb creatures of hubris.

I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle. — T Clark

I don't either, but I feel the need to make us aware of it.

Are you saying there is no external world outside human experience? — T Clark

Not quite? I don't like the binary question. I think individual human experience determines our perception of what we think is "reality"; why else would we all disagree so much and with so much brash confidence? Our personal algebra leads us to beliefs about reality that solidify over time to the point of being nearly unmovable. Whether these ossified perspectives have anything to do with some "objective" external world would, then, logically, be something we couldn't know about. Theoretically. Based on this given framework. So, within this view, how can I move to the point at which I have knowledge about some sort of external objectivity?

In discussions of the Tao Te Ching, I remember you commenting that any interpretation by a modern westerner would not be credible. — T Clark

I don't think I said that; just that a modern westerner, when reading it, is trying to interpret an ancient esoteric text, translated from an ancient and obsolete language, the content of which is arcane and mysterious to ears hearing it thousands of years later through an unknown amount of filters that have distilled it to what you're reading in the English in the year 2022. Anyway.

As far as I can tell forms analysis is more challenging of the two given what is likely mountains of data which we have to sift through. — Agent Smith

If I understand you correctly, I would counter that it's easier to analyze the evolution of form, not function. An analysis of function (i.e. in music: harmonic structure, key signatures, rhythmic structure) requires a more formal training, whereas comparing the sound of the snare drum in that Breaking Benjamin song vs. the sound of the snare drum in Come Together by the Beatles is surely much easier and doesn't require any real skill; just a pair of ears and one's attention. The latter being an example of form, to be clear.