Response to Keane’s Blog - Knowledge as process of experiential learning in Theaetetus

Keane said, “Plato seems to be saying that we know that we do not know but also that we must keep deliberating and discussing because stillness of the body and mind are detrimental to learning.” I am curious as to how you might relate this to Eastern meditation practices that actively seek stillness of the mind and body.
My understanding of these Eastern practices is that stillness of body and mind allows union with the Divine. In fact, stillness of mind is considered a prerequisite for experiencing the oneness between a human being and Everything. It is said that in a state of oneness, everything is known.

In a state of “oneness”, seeking is replaced by being. Might we consider this state of oneness (considered our true nature) where we remember all that we forget while operating under the illusion of our separateness, the opposite of “a shift from recollection to experiential learning?”

If all human beings were able to achieve and maintain a state of “oneness”, would the goal of this unity acknowledged become existence solely for the purpose of existence? Or is there an inherent evolutionary component in all existence? If so, is there a process other than seeking knowledge to record the evolution? Does observing/ acknowledging/ recording change replace the learning process, the seeking knowledge process? Would this state of existence eliminate a need for knowledge because knowledge can only exist in a perception dependent state of separateness? Would it be eternal like the Forms, but evolving instead of their changelessness?

Is the acceptance of separateness/difference/distinctiveness, a requirement for the existence of knowledge in Socrates’ and Plato’s world?
Is there a difference between knowledge and knowingness?
What is the goal of the distinct species known as humankind?
Would the former species of humankind existing perpetually in the state of oneness with the Everything have any goals? What might they be?

Your Blog elicits many questions from my separated mind. Am I chasing or following knowledge, or bouncing futilely against illusion?

Music as Language

Looking at musicality from an evolutionary perspective that includes natural selection, I would concur with Darwin and Levitin that an individual’s ability to make music played a role in sexual selection. However, I disagree with Darwin’s conclusion that music was originally acquired by the progenitors of humankind for charming the opposite sex. As Levitin presented, one can see a clear relationship between the mental and physical demands required in musicianship/danceship as desirable characteristics for a sexual mate in early humankind. The groupies of today offer potent testimony that musicality continues to be a biologically alluring trait. Following the argument of the peacock’s beautiful tail, there is sufficient evidence to support the theory of music as a sexual fitness display. It did and still does require a degree of skill, intelligence, memory, creativity, physical stamina, and material resources to attain proficiency in musicianship/danceship (pp252-254). Levitin presented studies of the relationship between certain mental illnesses and impaired rhythmic physical abilities; studies where women showed a preference of creativity over wealth in short-term mate selection or sexual encounter. The groupie syndrome also supports the latter. Levitin provides sufficient evidence to logically support the innate, evolutionarily derived preferences for musicality as a biological determinant in sexual selection.
Musicologist David Huron provided expert rationale as to the evolutionary basis of musicality in humankind (pp255-257). If musicianship/danceship were superfluous to survival, they should have ceased existing or mutated to a position of lesser value. They have done neither. The facts that music predates agricultural societies, with records of it everywhere human beings are, or have been are a testament to its importance to our species. Additionally, musicality is a high biological priority among multiple species.
I believe that music making preceded linguistic communication in prototype humankind as a means of signaling intent when encountering strangers. The tones, pitch, tempo, and repetition of sounds communicate intention and character with a depth and fullness lacking and unproduceable in word language. The vibrations of sounds emanating from one being/s cause a natural resonance-response in the being/s receiving the vocal communication. The natural resonance-response is language-independent, and therefore offers opportunity for a linguistally barrier-free understanding between strangers - and I believe, between species. It is logical that music, as organized sound, was the first form of communication in encounters between protohumans, and early humankind, as it continues to be for many nonhuman species. Music has a vital role in both solitary and social species, but I think humankind is using linguistic communication to limit the more expansive possibilities offered through organized sound communication.

My Questions:

1. Is possible to lie when communicating in sound? Can you disguise the Truth in sound vibration exchanges the way humankind does with linguistic exchanges?

2. Did humankind develop linguistic languages to enhance communication between individuals and societies, or as a tool to conceal hidden desires and agendas?

3. Is there a relationship between morality and linguistic languages? Did music precede morals?

4. If all beings only communicated sound-vibrationally, would concepts of morality become unnecessary?

5. Do linguistic languages function to circumvent innate morality?