# Do you need context?



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

I have to admit that unfortunately, my enjoyment of a piece is enhanced when I am aware of the historical, emotional, musical context within which it was written.
At the same time, I also believe this should not be the case. A piece should stand on it's own regardless of who wrote it and what the conditions of his life were at the time.

What's _your_ opinion on this?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

For me, the piece comes first. Then (if I like it) the context, which often adds to the understanding and enjoyment.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2013)

"Stand on its own" is largely illusory.

The pieces that "stand on their own," now, had to be propped up with words and with aggressive programming at first. Now that we've accepted them, it seems as if they are standing "on their own," but really what we're seeing is the end result of a long, social, cultural, and persuasive effort.

This is not to say that there weren't people who understood new pieces right away. There were. This is not to say that there weren't individual pieces that were immediately popular (whatever that may mean--for classical music that could mean that a hundred people thought it was cool). There were. But ever since Beethoven, at least, there has been a struggle for artists to get people to engage with new music. Now that much of that music is old, it seems self-evident that it's great. But that's now. At the end of a process.

If enjoyment is your goal, then anything that enhances your ability to reach that goal is a good thing, no? Dinna fash, I say.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

In practice it's a little of both, but with heavy leanings toward context. 

There are some pieces that reach out and grab me without knowing the context at all, or mistaking the context. For example, when I first heard a Mendelssohn string symphony, I thought it was a baroque piece because it sounded baroque, but lacking a harpsichord. I don't remember which one -- they almost all sound baroque. I enjoyed the piece very much thinking it was Boyce or Avison, someone like that. Then later when I found out it was written by a 12 year old 60 or 70 years after the baroque that seemed even more intriguing. But the piece grabbed me even with the wrong context. On the other hand, maybe these were exercises in an old fashioned style of music and in that twisted way I had the right context after all.

But this is probably the exception. Most of the time context if very important to my appreciation.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

vertigo said:


> I have to admit that unfortunately, my enjoyment of a piece is enhanced when I am aware of the historical, emotional, musical context within which it was written.
> At the same time, I also believe this should not be the case. A piece should stand on it's own regardless of who wrote it and what the conditions of his life were at the time.
> 
> What's _your_ opinion on this?


Well, I don't see what's so unfortunate about that. Maybe if your goal with music was just to have as purely subjective and personal of an experience that you could when listening, then that would be unfortunate. However, there are many music listeners such as myself who primarily derive their enjoyment of art from such considerations as "the historical, emotional, musical context". For me, the music and it's context are inseparable and contingent. But my way isn't for everyone. While others are in a magical world within their heads as they listen to music, I am just as stimulated by penetrating the music with cerebral and critical thought.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> Well, I don't see what's so unfortunate about that. Maybe if your goal with music was just to have as purely subjective and personal of an experience that you could when listening, then that would be unfortunate. However, there are many music listeners such as myself who primarily derive their enjoyment of art from such considerations as "the historical, emotional, musical context". For me, the music and it's context are inseparable and contingent. But my way isn't for everyone. While others are in a magical world within their heads as they listen to music, I am just as stimulated by penetrating the music with cerebral and critical thought.


A perfectly reasonable position, but I find it better suited to visual arts.
Great music, in my mind, has a pure, mathematical truth, independent from human perception. Conversely, visual arts are completely dependent on context and our perception, making them highly subjective.
Obviously I'm not saying that music isn't subjective, rather that due to it's highly mathematical nature (and mathematics hold true in every corner of the universe, i.e. they exist independently of us, we just merely stumbled upon them and gave them names and symbols), there is an objective beauty hidden there.
I hope this makes sense...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

vertigo said:


> A perfectly reasonable position, but I find it better suited to visual arts.
> Great music, in my mind, has a pure, mathematical truth, independent from human perception. Conversely, visual arts are completely dependent on context and our perception, making them highly subjective.
> Obviously I'm not saying that music isn't subjective, rather that due to it's highly mathematical nature (and mathematics hold true in every corner of the universe, i.e. they exist independently of us, we just merely stumbled upon them and gave them names and symbols), there is an objective beauty hidden there.
> I hope this makes sense...


It makes sense. What I would say is that our positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and we don't need to say to ourselves "ah, but it is I who really has the novel experience" in order to greatly enjoy music. With that aside, however, I am really interested to hear the reason(s) that you believe music is different from the visual arts in that it isn't "completely dependent on context and our perception". One would normally assume, or so I think, that if they had asked anyone about their experience of a piece of music, that that person's context and perception would be the two main areas of inquiry. What else is there to it? Your idea here resembles the Pythagorean "music of the spheres", or some other form of positivist aesthetics.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

vertigo said:


> I have to admit that unfortunately, my enjoyment of a piece is enhanced when I am aware of the historical, emotional, musical context within which it was written.
> At the same time, I also believe this should not be the case. A piece should stand on it's own regardless of who wrote it and what the conditions of his life were at the time.
> 
> What's _your_ opinion on this?


I enjoy and find it educational to read the sleeve notes of the CD recordings. It can help me to understand the music better, which is probably part of the notes' intentions anyway. Of course, it is not a prerequisite to have done so, but playing the music/attending a live performance of it should come naturally as well.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> It makes sense. What I would say is that our positions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and we don't need to say to ourselves "ah, but it is I who really has the novel experience" in order to greatly enjoy music. With that aside, however, I am really interested to hear the reason(s) that you believe music is different from the visual arts in that it isn't "completely dependent on context and our perception". One would normally assume, or so I think, that if they had asked anyone about their experience of a piece of music, that that person's context and perception would be the two main areas of inquiry.


I mean it in the following sense:
Suppose there is an alien civilization, of similar or higher intelligence to ours, 5 billion light years away. They somehow get a message from us. That message is "1+1=?". In that message, we also explain what the symbols 1,+,=,? mean. The answer they will come up with is 2. Mathematics hold true everywhere.
Due to it's close connection to mathematics, I feel that music is universal in that sense.
On the other hand, if we send a painting by, say, Renoir, it will not make sense as the figures and sceneries depicted make sense only to us, humans.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

vertigo said:


> I mean it in the following sense:
> Suppose there is an alien civilization, of similar or higher intelligence to ours, 5 billion light years away. They somehow get a message from us. That message is "1+1=?". In that message, we also explain what the symbols 1,+,=,? mean. The answer they will come up with is 2. Mathematics hold true everywhere.
> Due to it's close connection to mathematics, I feel that music is universal in that sense.
> On the other hand, if we send a painting by, say, Renoir, it will not make sense as the figures and sceneries depicted make sense only to us, humans.


Then why is it that my grandfather thought that Hindustani classical music sounded like gnats buzzing?

Suppose the aliens hear a human voice singing, or an instrument that we use to make music, and they just can't get past how startlingly different it sounds. Or suppose that within the registers we use for music, all of those pitches are either out of their range or highly irritating. But let's dig deeper into it. Let us suppose that they have a similar aural art of their own, yet they find ours highly repetitive and monotonous, because theirs is entirely more sophisticated and variegated. Digging even further, what if they are accustomed to discerning between quarter tones or smaller increments, so that our music sounds out of tune to them. What if they literally can't make sense of it?

But let's be a little more charitable to your idea and assume that they are accustomed to some similar music theory, and suppose that they are listening to an agitated and tortured sounding piece by Beethoven. What if the mood of it simply doesn't resonate with them? It might be that they prefer mellow music, and agree with each other that our music is generally a bunch of detestable racket.

I just wonder how universal music can be, when I see people from different backgrounds who are unable to appreciate each other's music because of their cultural conditioning, the music that they become accustomed to listening to. Lot's of times I'll observe that they can't come to terms with it on a basic level, or there are a bunch of misfires in the music, "misinterpreted gestures" if you catch my meaning.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> Then why is it that my grandfather thought that Hindustani classical music sounded like gnats buzzing?
> 
> Suppose the aliens hear a human voice singing, or an instrument that we use to make music, and they just can't get past how startlingly different it sounds. Or suppose that within the registers we use for music, all of those pitches are either out of their range or highly irritating. But let's dig deeper into it. Let us suppose that they have a similar aural art of their own, yet they find ours highly repetitive and monotonous, because theirs is entirely more sophisticated and variegated. Digging even further, what if they are accustomed to discerning between quarter tones or smaller increments, so that our music sounds out of tune to them. What if they literally can't make sense of it?
> 
> ...


I didn't say that they'll like it. I said that they'll probably understand it due to the mathematical basis.
Then again they might not even have ears


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I'm experiencing vertigo.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

vertigo said:


> I didn't say that they'll like it. I said that they'll probably understand it due to the mathematical basis.
> Then again they might not even have ears


But how much of our listening happens where a lot of the mathematical basis is obscure to us?


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> But how much of our listening happens where a lot of the mathematical basis is obscure to us?


To 99% of the people (including me), 100% of the mathematical basis is obscure to them.
If I understand correctly though, composers, maestros and most musicians have a mathematical understanding of music.
That's why I started learning the piano recently, so late in life. So, I may have a glimpse at the inner mathematical beauty of music.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Usually I do not need context. If I really like something, I'll really like it regardless of the context. That said, I've listened to so much new music that a piece may be forgotten if it doesn't hit me between the eyes right away, especially if not by my top composers. So there have been several times where knowing the context or hearing a story about a particular piece will help me check it out anew and sometimes I like it more the next time around.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I like context; I think it's just an example of I like knowing things in general. But I don't have context for a lot of stuff, and I like it well enough. Like just now I'm listening to Martinu's Field Mass. I have no idea of the context. But like KenOC said, I'm liking it so much that I want to find out the context.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

*Do you need context?*

None whatsoever. If anything, it diminishes the listening experience for me.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

vertigo said:


> ... Great music, in my mind, has a pure, mathematical truth, independent from human perception. Conversely, visual arts are completely dependent on context and our perception, making them highly subjective.
> Obviously I'm not saying that music isn't subjective, rather that due to it's highly mathematical nature (and mathematics hold true in every corner of the universe, i.e. they exist independently of us, we just merely stumbled upon them and gave them names and symbols), there is an objective beauty hidden there...


Don't take this personally, but I find the entire Music / Maths connection simplistically reductive, while both disciplines, in the fullest of 'what they are and can do' are far from simple or reductive.

Maths / Music is just another of those palest of analogies grasped for to explain music, as is that other analogous saw, "Music is a language." Trouble with both is many people hear them as being literal vs. analogy, so we get 'music is math,' and 'music tells a story' and similar.

There is a ruthlessly objective aspect to each -- much admired and acknowledged by admirers and practitioners of one or both, while those admirers can barely hope to be anything but objective about either discipline except to the slightest of degrees.

Music is not Math: Math is not Music. _If either one of them were that close to the other, one of the two would be utterly redundant._

The closest to 'true' which can be said is that perhaps a brain function required for either lies in a near or same spot within that organ.

All a roundabout, anyway: I wonder if on a maths forum someone came in and said something close to what you said, merely revising something like your statement but switched the order, inverting Math as subject and Music as the analogy, what the reaction of the Maths cognoscenti would be.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

I don't _need_ it, but I do like it. These pieces don't just materialize out of thin air, and I like to know some of the surrounding circumstances behind them.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"Mozart's mother had just died: His next piano sonata / symphony (whichever) was written in a minor key."

I fail -- completely -- to see how this gets any further to the pith of the minor key piece in question as composed by Mozart.

I think the more you attach to the various historic or biographic contexts to a piece, the farther removed you get from what the piece is, and instead get all tangled up with 'what it is about.'

*A lot of music is 'about nothing.'* For those who want or need context, literalism, images, this is more than confounding. *I think it a real pity so many people do not seem to trust their sense of hearing more directly.*

This quote, from a piano teacher who went off on a tangent about contextual conjectures of what Chopin was thinking, feeling, or trying to 'express' in his music, sums up what so many teachers of mine (piano; harmony; analysis / comp), have said about all 'context' and attempts to attach context to the 'pith' of any piece._
"Me, I don't care if he had a toothache when he wrote it."_


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Toscanini (although versions of the quote vary) on the Eroica: "To some it is Napoleon, to some it is a philosophical struggle, to me it is allegro con brio."


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I tend to listen to the music
If I like it? I will then go on to find out more about it
Then I will take in the "context"


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Tristan said:


> ...These pieces don't just materialize out of thin air....


Actually, many of them do... " 'Tis a mystery."


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Sometimes. The Albeniz tango quotation in Corgiliano's first symphony (Rage and remembrance) does not make much sense until you read that it was the favourite piece of one of his friends who died of AIDS.

Most of the time, I am happy to let the music speak to me without further context.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Don't take this personally, but I find the entire Music / Maths connection simplistically reductive, while both disciplines, in the fullest of 'what they are and can do' are far from simple or reductive.
> 
> Maths / Music is just another of those palest of analogies grasped for to explain music, as is that other analogous saw, "Music is a language." Trouble with both is many people hear them as being literal vs. analogy, so we get 'music is math,' and 'music tells a story' and similar.
> 
> ...


Don't take it personally, but what an uninformed post...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics


----------



## OboeKnight (Jan 25, 2013)

I don't really have a new feeling to offer. If a like a piece, context just makes it more exciting to me. I'm more of a listener, but if I like a piece enough I will seek out it's historical background.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

vertigo said:


> I have to admit that unfortunately, my enjoyment of a piece is enhanced when I am aware of the historical, emotional, musical context within which it was written.
> At the same time, I also believe this should not be the case. A piece should stand on it's own regardless of who wrote it and what the conditions of his life were at the time.
> 
> What's _your_ opinion on this?


Yes, I'm like you, but universals only go so far, then they become specifics. That works in reverse, too.


If I'm feeling insecure, I don't want context, because that "dirties" the work and makes it not exclusively mine; the 'herd' has taken it over. It belongs to history;yuck-o!
I like it when it's a totally narcissistic experience, as if I'm the only person in the world, and this composer is whispering in my ear (metaphorically) and wrote this just for me!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I prefer to know nothing about context on first listen(s), so I create my own associations with a piece.
If I like the piece, I may read about it later and I'll probably find it interesting, but usually it adds little or nothing to the listening experience.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

vertigo said:


> Don't take it personally, but what an uninformed post...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_and_mathematics


You're (and Wiki) are speaking of nuts, bolts, nature of the fundamental materials, acoustics, etc. and though that is all interesting, is about as close to telling you how a car works as giving a list of its parts and their measurements -- the 'fatal flaw' of all using primarily maths or science to explain (explain away?) a work of art. If not uninformed, you seem unaware of what goes on in the composer's head, oceans of process and intuition and conscious thought having nothing whatsoever to directly do with maths or science.

Sorry, it may be neat, tidy, and appeal to those who want a neat and tidy coverall 'answer' to a question which has no answer: it is just not 'that simply explained.'


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

Well, well, well. Another thread. Another undefined major term.

This time, it's context.

Don't define it, and you get exactly what we're seeing here. A bunch of people apparently disagreeing with each other but really not even close to being in a situation where agreeing or disagreeing makes any sense. What we do have is everyone supplying their own, unstated, and consequently inchoate, sense of what "context" means. And amazingly, there's been quite a lot of agreement about what "context" means, "biography" and "history." And quite a lot of silence about other contexts, like all the other music you've ever listened to before this piece right here, right now. Your knowledge, your experience, your prejudices. Does anyone seriously believe they can experience anything purely, for just itself. Why, without all your other experiences, you wouldn't have any context for understanding a new experience. If you could really, literally confront something without any context at all, you would quite literally not be able to experience it at all.

Remember your first hours in the hospital after being born? Ah. I thought so.

And, speaking of experiences, I am pretty surprised that the following remark has made it all the way to here without being questioned (or, apparently, even noticed). Why, this thing just leapt off the page and slapped me on the face:


vertigo said:


> Great music, in my mind, has a pure, mathematical truth, independent from human perception.


This is the extreme version of the "greatness" inheres in the work" philosophy, and is pretty fair nonsense. Just ask yourself, how do you know? Unless you or someone else has heard a piece, how do you know it's great? (How did the idea even get into your mind?) Someone has to have engaged with it, if only by reading the score, or you simply cannot know anything about it, whatever its putative objective qualities may be. Independent from human perception is pretty close to being a null set, even for mathematics, which is a human designed construct if I ever saw one. Even the things that make a piece great are only possible to think about and to exist if there's been some "human perception."


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

PetrB said:


> You're (and Wiki) are speaking of nuts, bolts, nature of the fundamental materials, acoustics, etc. and though that is all interesting, is about as close to telling you how a car works as giving a list of its parts and their measurements -- the 'fatal flaw' of all using primarily maths or science to explain (explain away?) a work of art. If not uninformed, you seem unaware of what goes on in the composer's head, oceans of process and intuition and conscious thought having nothing whatsoever to directly do with maths or science.
> 
> Sorry, it may be neat, tidy, and appeal to those who want a neat and tidy coverall 'answer' to a question which has no answer: it is just not 'that simply explained.'


You're right. A car doesn't need nuts, bolts and "fundamental materials" to work. lol


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

some guy said:


> Well, well, well. Another thread. Another undefined major term.
> 
> This time, it's context.
> 
> ...


Did you even read the OP? It was about the context within which _the piece_ was written.

Regarding the second part of your post, I can only laugh with the phrase "mathematics, which is a human designed construct".
Mathematics exist independently of mankind. They hold true outside of human experience, billions of years before we existed and billions of light years away from us.

Regarding your other premise, that someone must have read it in order for it to be great...well, I'm sorry but that's another laughable notion. Imagine Beethoven writing the 5th symphony and putting it in a secret drawer. He instantly has a heart attack and dies on the spot, the music remains undiscovered for 200 years until it is found in 2013. Was it a great piece of music or not? Does your (lack of) experiencing it change it's intrinsic qualities? I hardly think so.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

vertigo said:


> Regarding your other premise, that someone must have read it in order for it to be great...well, I'm sorry but that's another laughable notion. Imagine Beethoven writing the 5th symphony and putting it in a secret drawer. He instantly has a heart attack and dies on the spot, the music remains undiscovered for 200 years until it is found in 2013. Was it a great piece of music or not? Does your (lack of) experiencing it change it's intrinsic qualities? I hardly think so.


Okay then, I purport that John Cage's _*4'33"*_ is a great work of art. Does your (lack of) experiencing it change it's intrinsic qualities? I hardly think so.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay then, I purport that John Cage's _*4'33"*_ is a great work of art. Does your (lack of) experiencing it change it's intrinsic qualities? I hardly think so.


It has no intrinsic qualities. Isn't that the point?


----------



## mgj15 (Feb 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> For me, the piece comes first. Then (if I like it) the context, which often adds to the understanding and enjoyment.


Pretty much the same. If the music is good, then the back story is just extra to sink into. However, that isn't to say I haven't heard of pieces with a deeper story behind them and seeked them out and perhaps been persuaded by the context. But overall, the music simply has to speak to me, the context rarely if ever has improved that aspect.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

vertigo said:


> Did you even read the OP? It was about the context within which _the piece_ was written.


Wow, this is the first time I've seen the person who made the OP get the import of the OP wrong. Good job!



vertigo said:


> Mathematics exist independently of mankind. They hold true outside of human experience, billions of years before we existed and billions of light years away from us.


Mathematics is a human designed construct to help describe the phenomena we see, experience, and even speculate about. (Billions of years before we existed must require a certain amount of speculation, eh?)



vertigo said:


> Imagine Beethoven writing the 5th symphony and putting it in a secret drawer. He instantly has a heart attack and dies on the spot, the music remains undiscovered for 200 years until it is found in 2013. Was it a great piece of music or not? Does your (lack of) experiencing it change it's intrinsic qualities? I hardly think so.


No, but if it's not been part of the scene for 200 years, has not been in the minds and hearts of audiences and composers alike, then you might find that some of the qualities you might have thought were intrinsic are anything but, and it might even be that after the first excitement of an unknown piece by Beethoven has faded, that the 5th does not match up in anyone's mind with the 3rd or the 7th or the 9th.

But whatever. What would the excitement be a result of? That we have shared ideas about Beethoven, about his stature, his importance for music, about the quality of his music. Extrinsic qualities.

The whole "intrinsic qualities" argument diminishes the most important thing about the arts, engagement. The dynamic relationship between listener (or viewer) and the work of art. Without that dynamic engagement, none of your intrinsic qualities would be worth anything. Even in your example, the symphony has to be discovered, i.e., perceived, before those qualities can have any effect. Because, come on, it's all about the effect, eh?

The whole "exist independently" bidness seems very much like wishful thinking to me, a strong desire for humans to be absolutely negligible. Not sure I quite understand that desire. But then I don't think we're negligible at all.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

vertigo said:


> You're right. A car doesn't need nuts, bolts and "fundamental materials" to work. lol


It DOES, 'lol.' -- sigh. You do not need the measurements, a list of parts, an engineers drawing and a physics textbook with the formulas of the operating principles to enjoy a ride in one... point clear enough now?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

vertigo said:


> Did you even read the OP? It was about the context within which _the piece_ was written.


Most pieces are written at a desk, in a room, the composer seated at same desk with writing tools and manuscript paper in supply. That, friend, is the real context in which they are written. Now, getting into the head of the composer for the real context... especially with an end product which is 'just' notes on paper, well, good luck with that


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I don't usually go searching for a lot of biographical context for every piece I play, but in some instances it gives rise to an idea that wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise. Learning that Liszt was near the end of his life and experiencing memory loss when he wrote the Valse oubliee no. 1 helped me make sense of how the sweet nostalgic theme and the raging theme could relate to one another and then disappear so oddly at the end -- it is a lot like the swift plunges from memory into rage that people with dementia experience, as well as the contemplation of one's own limitations and death, in lucid moments. Now with a title like "oubliee" I'm sure I would have come up with something related to memory and forgetting in some way, but wouldn't have gotten this precise emotional shading. 

And of course, this is not the only possible interpretation of the piece.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It has no intrinsic qualities. Isn't that the point?


Isn't it intrinsically quiet? Its not just any silence. Its silence in a performance setting, so that the only sounds that occur are completely accidental, and very quiet ones that are typically not paid any attention to, but can be interesting and beautiful in their own right.


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

some guy said:


> Wow, this is the first time I've seen the person who made the OP get the import of the OP wrong. Good job!
> 
> Mathematics is a human designed construct to help describe the phenomena we see, experience, and even speculate about. (Billions of years before we existed must require a certain amount of speculation, eh?)
> 
> ...


If I understand correctly, you're saying that perception is reality. Let's just say I believe something else, i.e. that reality is reality, regardless of our perception of it.

And yes, I do believe that humans are absolutely negligible. We are but a tiny grain of sand in the vastness of time and space. We are not anybody's special child and our existence is accidental. The best we can hope to do is enjoy our short life, helping others on the way. In any case, in a billion years our existence will be forgotten. Of course, then, by your logic, we will not have existed at all.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I thought we were just chatting.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

I'm going to bet that you (vertigo) do not think that your ideas are negligible. Or even that you yourself are negligible.

If you did, you would not have started this thread, or any thread, and you would not have argued at length.

The idea that reality is something independent of perception is important and valuable to you, not negligible, not accidental. In fact, you think that your idea of humans as being negligible is so important that you (silently) exempt it from your vision of humanity in general, don't you?


----------



## rborganist (Jan 29, 2013)

Context is important. I heard an opera gala once where the conductor absolutely butchered "Va pensiero" from Verdi's Nabucco. He had no idea what was going on (the Israelites were in captivity in Babylon), so he danced through the music as if it were some happy little ditty. I wanted to go up and take his baton away and conduct the piece myself and then give him a crash course in opera history.


----------

