In declaring 4’ 33” as a musical piece, I think Cage is attempting to redefine art as music. He says, “I think music should be free of the feelings and ideas of the composer” (p. 14). Yet isn’t music, in its primacy, an effort in communication? Music’s power to move all hearing beings, figuratively and literally, is universal and biological. Music’s emotive power has its origins in the feelings and ideas of the composer, its power resides in the shared experience between source and receiver. What Cage is proposing we regard as music, really is the reverse of what music is.
My Question:
“If true silence did not exist in nature, then the silences in a piece of music could be defined simply as as ‘sounds not intended’’ (p. 12). Is Cage claiming that everything and anything that is not “true silence” is music?
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Unique/quirky ways of categorizing things and music.
Response to Keane’s Question: What are some personally unique/quirky ways that you categorize things (including music)?
I wrote “Category and Chronological Challenges” because I am unable to discover how I categorize things beyond how something makes me feel. Every thing that is, vibrates at a particular frequency, which resonates in a particular pattern. I believe I categorize things according to my response to its vibration. I believe I am translating my response to the resonance as a feeling.
Those things I dislike cause a feeling of dis-ease, contraction, limitation within me. If I can’t change the station or remove myself from that environment I will close down, separate, shut myself off from the experience. I avoid music that provokes a feeling of extended disharmony within me.
Some things life exposes me to are only tolerable to me, but offer opportunities to acquire more knowledge of them, myself, or others with whom it becomes a shared experience. If I have the resources, I will stay and tolerate it as long as is socially required, or until I have gained as much from the experience as I believe is possible for me at that moment in time. Many pieces of music on the radio and television shows fall into this category for me.
Many other things tug at my previously accepted notions of reality of the thing, its purpose for existence, why I, or other beings, respond to it the way we do – again an opportunity to know more or more fully of the thing, myself, others, the world. These opportunities create a feeling of excitement within me and a recognition of enjoyment in the process of learning. Some things make me feel happy, some things provide a sense of expansion, growth. I like the feeling that occurs when I recognize a change in my perception, my point of view. I also enjoy the feeling that occurs from riding a current of expansion. Classical, meditation, rock and roll, and heavy metal, are a few of the genres of music that create that expansive-feeling ride for me.
I like being entertained. I like feeling energized. I find the involved stories within the lyrics of some folk music, ballads, ethnic music, jazz, musicals, operas, hip hop, and country music very entertaining. I find the melody and rhythm of a lot of rock and roll, heavy metal, some reggae, swing, jazz, concert, and big band music energizing. I enjoy the repetition in complex, extended music as found in In A Gadda Da Vida by Iron Butterfly and I Won’t Do That by Meatloaf. I find the combination of complexity, anticipation, and repetition stimulating, and therefore enjoyable.
My Question: Are there things that exist (other than mathematical or physics concepts) that we categorize, and to which we don't have some degree of emotional response?
I wrote “Category and Chronological Challenges” because I am unable to discover how I categorize things beyond how something makes me feel. Every thing that is, vibrates at a particular frequency, which resonates in a particular pattern. I believe I categorize things according to my response to its vibration. I believe I am translating my response to the resonance as a feeling.
Those things I dislike cause a feeling of dis-ease, contraction, limitation within me. If I can’t change the station or remove myself from that environment I will close down, separate, shut myself off from the experience. I avoid music that provokes a feeling of extended disharmony within me.
Some things life exposes me to are only tolerable to me, but offer opportunities to acquire more knowledge of them, myself, or others with whom it becomes a shared experience. If I have the resources, I will stay and tolerate it as long as is socially required, or until I have gained as much from the experience as I believe is possible for me at that moment in time. Many pieces of music on the radio and television shows fall into this category for me.
Many other things tug at my previously accepted notions of reality of the thing, its purpose for existence, why I, or other beings, respond to it the way we do – again an opportunity to know more or more fully of the thing, myself, others, the world. These opportunities create a feeling of excitement within me and a recognition of enjoyment in the process of learning. Some things make me feel happy, some things provide a sense of expansion, growth. I like the feeling that occurs when I recognize a change in my perception, my point of view. I also enjoy the feeling that occurs from riding a current of expansion. Classical, meditation, rock and roll, and heavy metal, are a few of the genres of music that create that expansive-feeling ride for me.
I like being entertained. I like feeling energized. I find the involved stories within the lyrics of some folk music, ballads, ethnic music, jazz, musicals, operas, hip hop, and country music very entertaining. I find the melody and rhythm of a lot of rock and roll, heavy metal, some reggae, swing, jazz, concert, and big band music energizing. I enjoy the repetition in complex, extended music as found in In A Gadda Da Vida by Iron Butterfly and I Won’t Do That by Meatloaf. I find the combination of complexity, anticipation, and repetition stimulating, and therefore enjoyable.
My Question: Are there things that exist (other than mathematical or physics concepts) that we categorize, and to which we don't have some degree of emotional response?
Saturday, March 14, 2009
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?
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?
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
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?
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?
Monday, February 23, 2009
Category and Chronological Challenges
In answering Q&A #4, I researched "Inna-Gadda-Da-Vida" by Iron Butterfly on Wikipedia. I was surprised to learn that some of my favorite bands (Iron Butterfly, Black Sabbath, Cream, Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, Steppenwolf, and Queen) are considered “heavy metal” bands.
Apparently, I have not categorized music that I like into the appropriate “musical genres”. I have filed them all into the single category of “music I like”. Does this make me a category-impaired person? Given what the cognitive psychological studies have shown, how would we predict category-deficiency would manifest globally in a person’s perceptual and cognitive systems integration?
Related to ease of integration of music we are exposed to in our younger years versus exposure in our “mature” years: I remember most of the names of bands and songs, and some albums that I enjoyed listening to during the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. These were my high-growth emotional years. Now I struggle, usually in vain, to recall music titles and artists of recent and current music that I like. When someone helpfully gives me some names to choose from, I often can then remember it.
One hypothesis to explain my difficulty remembering new songs and artists that I like post-1980s is:
The music that is alive during important emotional growth times in our lives becomes an inseparable part of the flow of our lives.
Therefore, greater degrees of emotional maturity are accompanied by greater limitations in facility with musical experience.
I think this is a restatement of Levitin’s work. However, I am uncomfortable with the consequential nature attending such a reality were it to be true.
A second, also unpleasant to contemplate hypothesis is:
Emotional maturity accumulates with biological maturity in a chronological fashion. The components of biological systems have been shown to become less flexible, deteriorate, and some even die out as we age chronogically.
Therefore, this rigidity, deterioration, or die off has impaired my brain and perceptual systems integration of new musical information into memory.
MY QUESTIONS ARE:
Do you know other people of chronological maturity who also have difficulty associating names with recent music and artists they enjoy? Do you find either or both of these hypotheses to be potentially valid explanations of this phenomenon?
Do you think it is possible for a person to be category-challenged? How would category-deficiency affect a person’s world view? How do you think it would affect interpersonal relationships?
Apparently, I have not categorized music that I like into the appropriate “musical genres”. I have filed them all into the single category of “music I like”. Does this make me a category-impaired person? Given what the cognitive psychological studies have shown, how would we predict category-deficiency would manifest globally in a person’s perceptual and cognitive systems integration?
Related to ease of integration of music we are exposed to in our younger years versus exposure in our “mature” years: I remember most of the names of bands and songs, and some albums that I enjoyed listening to during the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. These were my high-growth emotional years. Now I struggle, usually in vain, to recall music titles and artists of recent and current music that I like. When someone helpfully gives me some names to choose from, I often can then remember it.
One hypothesis to explain my difficulty remembering new songs and artists that I like post-1980s is:
The music that is alive during important emotional growth times in our lives becomes an inseparable part of the flow of our lives.
Therefore, greater degrees of emotional maturity are accompanied by greater limitations in facility with musical experience.
I think this is a restatement of Levitin’s work. However, I am uncomfortable with the consequential nature attending such a reality were it to be true.
A second, also unpleasant to contemplate hypothesis is:
Emotional maturity accumulates with biological maturity in a chronological fashion. The components of biological systems have been shown to become less flexible, deteriorate, and some even die out as we age chronogically.
Therefore, this rigidity, deterioration, or die off has impaired my brain and perceptual systems integration of new musical information into memory.
MY QUESTIONS ARE:
Do you know other people of chronological maturity who also have difficulty associating names with recent music and artists they enjoy? Do you find either or both of these hypotheses to be potentially valid explanations of this phenomenon?
Do you think it is possible for a person to be category-challenged? How would category-deficiency affect a person’s world view? How do you think it would affect interpersonal relationships?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)