# What are the universal characteristics of 'sacred' music?



## millionrainbows

Every artwork, if it is effective, has universal qualities, because as human beings we all share certain universal qualities.

Every artwork also has specific contexts, which can only be fully understood by those familiar with that particular context, be it cultural, of social construct, or other particulars.

I'm interested in 'sacred' music which conveys the sense of the sacred in a universal manner, not dependent on particulars such as dogma, text, or religion.

For example, someone might respond in an emotional way to an old Baptist hymn, while another person might see it as normal, undistinguished music, with no 'sacred' effect.

This would be an example of particular context. A Baptist is more likely to sense the sacred than would a non-religious person, or someone outside this context. Even within this context, the person might be skeptical or have a 'raised eyebrow' sarcastic reaction, seeing the hymn as 'hokey' or old-fashioned.

But even such a skeptic might have a different reaction if the hymn were heard in the context of an Ives piece, or if accompanied by film footage of an actual church service.

So, the 'sacred' quality of music does not lie totally within the realm of either the music (the composer's intent, and the music's content) or with the listener. Music is a 'mapping' of experience from composer (represented by the music) to listener.

Thus, it is our task to identify or define those characteristics in the music itself,_ and_ those qualities and requirements within listeners, which are 'universal' enough to be defined as_ constants _of sacred music.

If one were to make such a shopping-list of 'universals,' what would those constant universals be?

Here is my list of general characteristics. Some of these qualities might be more effective in certain cultures than others, but still contain enough 'universal' quality to be approachable by any human.

The experience of the sacred is often tied to isolation and solitude, when the mind can be quieted and calmed, and reflective thought begins to kick in. Therefore, in this context, sacred music should ideally reinforce this quietude and reflection.

1. It could be even and smooth, and not be overly rhythmic or driving. Sustained notes could be more effective than short notes.

2. It would not have distracting harmonic movement. It might be more drone-like, and focus on a single tonic.

3. Since human voices are comforting, sacred music might be vocal more often than not.

4. As in rosary meditation and chanting, sacred music could be repetitious, as a way of focusing the mind. This repetition might take the form of rhythmic drumming, as in the Moroccan trance music of Joujouka. This repetition could be repeated pitch-figures, or repeated chanting.

This music would not disturb house-cats. (ha ha)


----------



## Taggart

As a quietist, you fail to make room for enthusiasm.

Puritans used to sing psalms to hornpipes. Gaelic psalm singing has some unusual harmonic movement. Sufism although very meditative also has its active side with whirling.


----------



## millionrainbows

Taggart said:


> As a quietist, you fail to make room for enthusiasm.
> 
> Puritans used to sing psalms to hornpipes. Gaelic psalm singing has some unusual harmonic movement. Sufism although very meditative also has its active side with whirling.


Let's explore that aspect, then. "Onward Christian Soldiers" anyone? Hmmm...I think I have a good point. "Enthusiasm" can often preclude thought, and before you know it, you're marching off a cliff, or blowing yourself up...


----------



## Blake

Taggart said:


> As a quietist, you fail to make room for enthusiasm.
> 
> Puritans used to sing psalms to hornpipes. Gaelic psalm singing has some unusual harmonic movement. Sufism although very meditative also has its active side with whirling.


Sufism has some really interesting reasons through their music and whirling. I was reading about it not too long ago. The quote I have below is from a very widely adored Sufi - Rumi. You don't have to be religious to find this quite beautiful.


----------



## Piwikiwi

Messiaen would disagree with a lot of points and he was a very devout catholic


----------



## Jobis

Personally I hate hypnotics, and music that sends one into a trance-like state is probably more related to shamanism than any monotheistic religion.


----------



## Blake

I'm quite the fan of Traditional Persian and Indian music. Much of it tends to have a very meditative foundation.


----------



## PetrB

Jobis said:


> Personally I hate hypnotics, and music that sends one into a trance-like state is probably more related to shamanism than any monotheistic religion.


It can be more than frightening for some to go into an Alpha state where all ego is left behind... loss of willful control and sense of self, I imagine, and if the fear is great enough, it might be as anathema as the thought of losing one's mind. (Giving ones self up though, and freely handing that over, is essential to about any faith group on the planet!)

But, then, I should advise: Don't ever sign up for singing Gregorian chants


----------



## Guest

Did I miss where you said what you mean by 'sacred'?


----------



## PetrB

For a piece of music to be effective as a 'religious' piece, it must have qualities all associate with a rite, a ritual. The rite or ritual certainly came from man's desire, or need, to address forces he acknowledged outside his control or jurisdiction, the earliest, the elements of weather or propitious conditions for the hunt.

In an animist perception, powers and things associated with those conditions were the animals, weather, some sense of seasonal time (the moon as calendar), seasonal phenomena, both flora and fauna, sun or moon depending upon which time of day was best to hunt a particular animal.

Certainly, too, vocal chanting and then singing, directed as a plea to those forces for their favor, and dancing (likely taking on the spirit of the animal and imitating its actions, and tribe members taking on roles of the animal and the hunters) all were incorporated.

As those forces perceived to be prudent to address were given other identities, turned into personified spirits of both flora, fauna, planetary bodies, they became gods and goddesses. If things went well, i.e. pleas supposedly listened to and granted, rites of gratitude and praise to those forces were born. Rites of passage for individuals within the tribe were also taken up, birth, puberty, mating rituals, death, etc.

This early history, built upon these foundations and continually morphed over millennia, is a constant unbroken semiotic thread which just about any person on the planet from any culture will readily recognize and to which they will intuitively respond. Such a response has little or nothing to do with what any of us currently associate with our contemporary meanings of community or society, while it has everything to do with being touched at that primal level, simply feeling we are 'part of the tribal family.'

Eventually, with the advent of farming and people no longer being nomadic, other animist assignments, other gods and goddesses, some more local 'permanent' residents of the place, came into being, while the atavistic instinct of the rites and rituals carried on in that unbroken line through to the present.

No matter what the latter newly dressed trappings of 'civilization' may be, any and all rituals share this universal commonality.

Musics toward that purpose must, somehow, evoke our responses which are rooted in that atavistic area of rite(s), which is /are still a semiotic recognized and strongly present in us.

The artist creating a religious work has to then meet those criteria of rite / ritual, none of which depend - at all - on the artist having a firm belief in the religion, the text, while the artist must be directly in touch with those elements which will be perceived as rite to successfully deliver a genuine sense of rite / ritual. [[Love and and abiding passion for music, or the religion, _is not enough_: what is required is apart from that; it is dependent upon a type of awareness and intelligence, the level of the composer's skill set, and it must be said, that _je ne sais quoi_ we call "genius."]] If the criteria for a rite is met, the listener, without their being in any way dependent upon adhering to a particular faith or being a part of the culture, and not at all affected because they are deist, agnostic, or atheist, _will have a very full 'religious' experience._


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm not requiring that sacred music induce a trance-like state, but it should induce quietude. Of course, this is just one way of looking at it. The reason I am discussing the quieter aspects is in keeping with the Western tradition of monks and cloisters, and meditation and prayer, and chant. It all fits a Western paradigm, without anyone having to be 'spooked' by trance states. You don't have to lose your ego, either, just tone it down a bit.

As far as 'enthusiastic' activity goes, I think this speaks more to the social aspects of spirituality and religion. I think any religion, regardless, should encourage introspection, and act as a mirror, in which to improve our own selves.

We can discuss more extroverted aspects, like snake-handling, if you'd like...there's nothing like a rattlesnake to keep one humble and focused.:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Jobis said:


> Personally I hate hypnotics, and music that sends one into a trance-like state is probably more related to shamanism than any monotheistic religion.


Wow, I was really talking more about Gregorian chant, and never mentioned 'trance.' I suppose Philip Glass is getting thrown out with the bathwater, too.


----------



## millionrainbows

Piwikiwi said:


> Messiaen would disagree with a lot of points and he was a very devout catholic


I doubt that, knowing what I know about Messiaen's music. He was a Catholic mystic, by the way.

Messiaen's music has no functional harmony or chord progressions, so he is to be listened to 'in the moment,' which is similar to a timeless state of being or meditation;

Messiaen was more interested in texture, timbre, and tone-color than he was in Western harmonic progression. He used rhythmic ideas from India, and Javanese gamelon sounds. So, even though he was a 'devout Catholic,' he had a lot of interest in non-Western musical cultures.


----------



## millionrainbows

In trying to stimulate an open-ended discussion, it seems that the defense of traditional Western religion seems to be an emerging agenda.

Apparently, the basic premise, which is that 'sacred' music, and the sense of the sacred that it can induce universally in all Men, is being questioned.

It was not the initial purpose of the thread to *debate* dogma or religion, but rather to engage a more open and inclusive discussion about sacred music.

It was not the initial purpose of this thread to define or debate what is meant by 'sacred.'

If it is thought that the West has an exclusive claim on 'sacred music,' then that premise is not productive to this thread, which is intended to discuss its_ 'universal' _qualities.

One has to at least agree with the basic premise of the thread for productive discussion, as debate on this point distracts from its basic premise.


----------



## Guest

You are either starting with a definition of what sacred music is, or you are working towards one by trying to get people to agree to your 'universals'. Without that, the default definition will attract ideas connected with religion, which is what you're trying to avoid.


----------



## Whistler Fred

millionrainbows said:


> In trying to stimulate an open-ended discussion, it seems that the defense of traditional Western religion seems to be an emerging agenda.
> 
> Apparently, the basic premise, which is that 'sacred' music, and the sense of the sacred that it can induce universally in all Men, is being questioned.
> 
> It was not the initial purpose of the thread to *debate* dogma or religion, but rather to engage a more open and inclusive discussion about sacred music.
> 
> It was not the initial purpose of this thread to define or debate what is meant by 'sacred.'
> 
> If it is thought that the West has an exclusive claim on 'sacred music,' then that premise is not productive to this thread, which is intended to discuss its_ 'universal' _qualities.
> 
> One has to at least agree with the basic premise of the thread for productive discussion, as debate on this point distracts from its basic premise.


In this respect, "sacred" would be a broader term than "religious," although, of course, the two can connect in a musical experience. I think of John Cage's statement that the purpose of music was "to quiet the mind thus making it susceptible to divine influences." It that respect, the tendency towards tranquility would be a common, perhaps universal, feature. Messaien strove for this in several of his works (the two slow movements from the "Quartet for the End of Time" come to mind), as did many composers, both Western and Eastern.

On the flip side, there are works like Bach's Passions or Verdi's Requiem, where drama is (in two different ways) is a part of the sacred expression. I don't know (or can't at the moment recall) any parallel example from Islamic, Buddhist or Hindi music, but I'm sure they exist.

And there is a place in music for both types of the sacred, not to mention all points in between.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jobis said:


> Personally I hate hypnotics, and music that sends one into a trance-like state is probably more related to shamanism than any monotheistic religion.


Well, the *Pentecostals* 'speaking in tongues' and rolling on the floor (hence the term 'holy rollers') could easily be equated to entering into some sort of a 'trance state' or state of possession.

The Sufis (mentioned earlier) are Islamic, which is a 'monotheistic religion.' They appear to be 'transported' by the dance they do.

Biofeedback is a medically beneficient technology, as is meditation. It seems that the implication is that a lowering of one's brain waves into an alpha state is somehow 'foreign' or creepy. That's the impression given.


----------



## Blake

Whistler Fred said:


> In this respect, "sacred" would be a broader term than "religious," although, of course, the two can connect in a musical experience. I think of John Cage's statement that the purpose of music was "to quiet the mind thus making it susceptible to divine influences." It that respect, the tendency towards tranquility would be a common, perhaps universal, feature. Messaien strove for this in several of his works (the two slow movements from the "Quartet for the End of Time" come to mind), as did many composers, both Western and Eastern.
> 
> *On the flip side, there are works like Bach's Passions or Verdi's Requiem, where drama is (in two different ways) is a part of the sacred expression. I don't know (or can't at the moment recall) any parallel example from Islamic, Buddhist or Hindi music, but I'm sure they exist.
> *
> And there is a place in music for both types of the sacred, not to mention all points in between.


Yes, sadly I can't think of any examples of pieces right now. But there are times when more dramatic movements in Hindu music are used to express the destructive and intense powers of Shiva.


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> In trying to stimulate an open-ended discussion, it seems that the defense of traditional Western religion seems to be an emerging agenda.


Too right! The category is _religious music,_ not _Judeo-Christian religion_ 

I think too many go for the religious part, with all the specificity relative to their faith in their approach to _Christian_ musical work -- and that exclusively of the Western religious sects sort -- when if the category is really about _religious music_.... that is a far broader topic.

Too, if discussion veers to the specificity of the text used in the religious piece, and the beliefs and dogma of only various Christian sects, the discussion quickly veers into discussing that only, and it is no longer really about religious _music,_ but about religion itself.

I got a strong feeling from another thread under this category that if one was not a committed believer (Christian) that maybe they had no business participating in any discussions in this category  I'm certain that was not anyone's intention.


----------



## Blake

PetrB said:


> Too right! The category is _religious music,_ not _Judeo-Christian religion_
> 
> I think too many go for the religious part, with all the specificity relative to their faith, or the faith base of only Christian musical work -- those exclusively of the Western religious sects sort -- when if the category is really about _religious music_.... that is a far broader topic.
> 
> Too, if discussion veers to the specificity of the text used in the religious piece, and the beliefs and dogma of only various Christian sects, the discussion is no longer really about religious _music,_ but on religion itself.
> 
> I got a strong feeling from another thread under this category, though I know it was not at all intended, that if one was not a believer (Christian) that maybe they had no business participating in any discussions in this category  I'm certain that was not anyone's intention.


Heavily religious people tend to have their whole life invested in their practice, so it's natural to be protective. However, it's certainly much more enjoyable of an interaction to be able to talk openly and genuinely about all religions around the world. You know, I thought the ideal of religion was to be unifying… not sectionalizing. But of course many have proved me wrong… still, there are some who prove me right.


----------



## Vaneyes

millionrainbows said:


> Let's explore that aspect, then.* "Onward Christian Soldiers" anyone? *Hmmm...I think I have a good point. "Enthusiasm" can often preclude thought, and before you know it, you're marching off a cliff, or blowing yourself up...


This works/enthuses to a degree...


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not requiring that sacred music induce a trance-like state, but it should induce quietude. Of course, this is just one way of looking at it. The reason I am discussing the quieter aspects is in keeping with the Western tradition of monks and cloisters, and meditation and prayer, and chant. It all fits a Western paradigm, without anyone having to be 'spooked' by trance states. You don't have to lose your ego, either, just tone it down a bit.
> 
> As far as 'enthusiastic' activity goes, I think this speaks more to the social aspects of spirituality and religion. I think any religion, regardless, should encourage introspection, and act as a mirror, in which to improve our own selves.
> 
> We can discuss more extroverted aspects, like snake-handling, if you'd like...there's nothing like a rattlesnake to keep one humble and focused.:lol:


Reminds me of the Stravinsky comment, likely triggered by his subdued Mass, written to function _as an actual church service_ (vs. expectations of grand, forte / fortissimo religious choral works

"Why do people think God is deaf?"


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> You are either starting with a definition of what sacred music is, or you are working towards one by trying to get people to agree to your 'universals'. Without that, the default definition will attract ideas connected with religion, which is what you're trying to avoid.


So the definition of 'sacred' is, by default, specifically religious!

You see, I'd be wasting my time to define it.

Is that because of the forum itself, with the title 'religious music' and its accompanying assumptions, or just general opinion, or both?

It sounds to me like a *'default status quo opinion' *is what is being pushed here.

_I invite contributors to start from a non-specific point, and take a fresh look at what kinds of music could be called 'sacred,' and for what reasons.
_
The 'default definition' seems to be attracting responses which are 'holding the fort' against a non-Western, more Humanistic, universal idea of the sacred.

It seems to me to be inflexible, and even *mean-spirited, *to refuse *'grace'* to the many cultures which exist in the world, and those individuals which constitute those cultures, and who have produced 'sacred' music of great worth: Thailand, Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Australia, etc.

The ethnocentric view of sacred music as 'religious' and as pertaining to, and exemplifying Western Christian orthodoxy, seems out-of place in today's multi-cultural world.

Especially in the arts, I thought people's "higher selves" would become more evident. *Apparently, I am a "stranger at this cocktail party."

*


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> So the definition of 'sacred' is, by default, specifically religious!
> 
> You see, I'd be wasting my time to define it.
> 
> Is that because of the forum itself, with the title 'religious music' and its accompanying assumptions, or just general opinion, or both?
> 
> It sounds to me like a *'default status quo opinion' *is what is being pushed here.
> 
> _I invite contributors to start from a non-specific point, and take a fresh look at what kinds of music could be called 'sacred,' and for what reasons.
> _
> The 'default definition' seems to be attracting responses which are 'holding the fort' against a non-Western, more Humanistic, universal idea of the sacred.
> 
> It seems to me to be inflexible, and even *mean-spirited, *to refuse *'grace'* to the many cultures which exist in the world, and those individuals which constitute those cultures, and who have produced 'sacred' music of great worth: Thailand, Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Australia, etc.
> 
> The ethnocentric view of sacred music as 'religious' and as pertaining to, and exemplifying Western Christian orthodoxy, seems out-of place in today's multi-cultural world.
> 
> Especially in the arts, I thought people's "higher selves" would become more evident. *Apparently, I am a "stranger at this cocktail party."
> 
> *


I was neither assuming, nor promoting a definition, but it's evident that others are making assumptions about what you mean: that is why I asked, since you are unhappy with some of the responses so far. My point was that if you don't provide one, others will fill the vacuum with a convenient default - whether you like it or not. Looking up a definition of 'sacred' gives you this (at least: I'm not going to look further for others)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sacred



> ADJECTIVE
> 
> 1Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration:


If this is not what you want to talk about, you need to be clearer what you are looking for. Until then, it would be, IMO, unreasonable of you to expect everyone to know that this is not about religion(s) but something else hitherto undefined.


----------



## Blake

So, sacred being both religious and spiritual… as you can be spiritual without following a religious doctrine.


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> So the definition of 'sacred' is, by default, specifically religious!
> 
> You see, I'd be wasting my time to define it.
> 
> Is that because of the forum itself, with the title 'religious music' and its accompanying assumptions, or just general opinion, or both?
> 
> It sounds to me like a *'default status quo opinion' *is what is being pushed here.
> 
> _I invite contributors to start from a non-specific point, and take a fresh look at what kinds of music could be called 'sacred,' and for what reasons.
> _
> The 'default definition' seems to be attracting responses which are 'holding the fort' against a non-Western, more Humanistic, universal idea of the sacred.
> 
> It seems to me to be inflexible, and even *mean-spirited, *to refuse *'grace'* to the many cultures which exist in the world, and those individuals which constitute those cultures, and who have produced 'sacred' music of great worth: Thailand, Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Africa, Australia, etc.
> 
> The ethnocentric view of sacred music as 'religious' and as pertaining to, and exemplifying Western Christian orthodoxy, seems out-of place in today's multi-cultural world.
> 
> Especially in the arts, I thought people's "higher selves" would become more evident. *Apparently, I am a "stranger at this cocktail party."
> 
> *


"Sanctity / to Sanctify?" I'm afraid whatever word is chosen, it is laden with freight for many, believers and non.

Tuning and elevating the human spirit is somewhat on the point, but then, where's the fun of that, i.e. it is not an official dogma around which institutions are built, with their dogma and adherents.


----------



## Animato

I'm really surprised about the elaborate replies. I thought the answer were quite clear.

I'm member of the choir of our protestant church (Germany). We are singing - as a matter of course - only religious music. The criteria to choose is easy: If the words we sing are taken from the Bible or have a christian context, it is sacred music. Mottete is a peace of sacred music, Madrigal is a peace of secular music. I learned that at school. 

as a consequence: instrumental music can not really be religious or secular. The words make the difference.

Sorry for this simple reply


----------



## millionrainbows

Animato said:


> I'm really surprised about the elaborate replies. I thought the answer were quite clear.
> 
> I'm member of the choir of our protestant church (Germany). We are singing - as a matter of course - only religious music. The criteria to choose is easy: If the words we sing are taken from the Bible or have a christian context, it is sacred music. Mottete is a peace of sacred music, Madrigal is a peace of secular music. I learned that at school.
> 
> as a consequence: instrumental music can not really be religious or secular. The words make the difference.
> 
> Sorry for this simple reply


Well, that's a good pat answer for you, plus you get to sing in the choir! But it is an academic response, good in your context, but too specific for the general, inclusive definition I am exposing.

I disagree, however, with the necessity of words or text (non-secular or secular texts) as completely defining the "sacred music" experience.

I've already gone a long way in defining what the general, inclusive definition of "sacred" music (not "religious") is.

For example, as an extreme of how far this definition can be taken, I consider John Cage's 4'33" to be a sacred work, as it celebrates the 'sacred moment' of our awareness, as a kind of prescribed meditation (like it or not).

In fact, generally speaking, I see the function of all Western "classical" music to originate, and stem from the original function it held as part of Church ritual and monastic chant. This function, now more spread out, is what distiguishes Western classical music from popular and 'secular' music, which concerns love, dancing, romance, and other concerns.

In another example, I listened to John Cage's "Seventy-Four" for orchestra, composed in March 1992, just four months before his death. It was dedicated to the performers on this disc, Dennis Russell Davies and the American Composers Orchestra. I definitely get a sense of "the sacred" in listening to this, and this is what I mean by the Western classical tradition generally being aimed towards 'higher' aspects of our nature, and in that sense, "sacred."


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I was neither assuming, nor promoting a definition, but it's evident that others are making assumptions about what you mean...
> If this is not what you want to talk about, you need to be clearer what you are looking for. Until then, it would be, IMO, unreasonable of you to expect everyone to know that this is not about religion(s) but something else hitherto undefined.


You do yourself a disservice! I have already been very specific. I am on to discussing specific examples of this, now. If that's too vague for anyone, they should go into the area of statistics or other measurable phenomena. Religion, the sacred, and art are all pretty much metaphysical in nature. Yiou won't see many pat answers or strict definitions from me.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not requiring that sacred music induce a trance-like state, but it should induce quietude. Of course, this is just one way of looking at it. The reason I am discussing the quieter aspects is in keeping with the Western tradition of monks and cloisters, and meditation and prayer, and chant. It all fits a Western paradigm, without anyone having to be 'spooked' by trance states. You don't have to lose your ego, either, just tone it down a bit.
> 
> As far as 'enthusiastic' activity goes, I think this speaks more to the social aspects of spirituality and religion. I think any religion, regardless, should encourage introspection, and act as a mirror, in which to improve our own selves.
> 
> We can discuss more extroverted aspects, like snake-handling, if you'd like...there's nothing like a rattlesnake to keep one humble and focused.:lol:


The cross is a central aspect of Luther's thinking. The nativity for lutherans is the birth of the sacrificial lamb, and baptism is an ordination for sacrifice. As a result, the religious music of Lutherans is often far from quiet when it's played correctly. On the contrary, it's full of reminders of a very painful and low death. I'm thinking especially of J S Bach.

Some venerable chanting traditions put an emphasis on peace and beauty. But not all. You may be interested to hear Ensemble Organum, in their record of Pérotin or the religious music from the Carmina Burana manuscript.

One aspect of this which interests me a lot at the moment is the Renaissance and Baroque Organ Mass, which is ritual music (I think. )And Frescobaldi's masses in Fiori Musicale do seem quiet, as does Andrea Gabrieli's. French organ masses - De Grigny's music, and Nivers' - less so. Same for French hymn settings - noone would call Titelouze quiet. But I'm not sure to what extent this music was ritualistic.

Another major piece which is spiritual, ritualistic and indeed transformative in intent is The Ring.


----------



## KenOC

"Universal characteristics of sacred music?" In a country where I lived for several years, you'd occasionally see open-backed trucks driving around filled with people dressed in white making a gawdawful cacophony with drums, trumpets, rattles, and so forth, while some chanted away in a monotone. Upon asking, I was told this was traditional at funerals -- the racket was traditional and not improvised (at least not totally) and the chanting was religious scriptures. The purpose was to frighten ghosts away from the deceased, the burial procession, and the actual funeral. I suspect it was effective.

In short, "sacred music" in this culture, but musically having no points or even purposes in common with what we recognize as such. So can we say sacred music has "universal characteristics"? Seems to me that it's all just culture-specific conventions.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I have already been very specific. I am on to discussing specific examples of this, now.


You have given examples of what the universals might be -



> 1. It could be even and smooth, and not be overly rhythmic or driving. Sustained notes could be more effective than short notes.
> 
> 2. It would not have distracting harmonic movement. It might be more drone-like, and focus on a single tonic.
> 
> 3. Since human voices are comforting, sacred music might be vocal more often than not.
> 
> 4. As in rosary meditation and chanting, sacred music could be repetitious,


and you have tried to make sure that the context of specific religions do not get in the way of your idea of the universal sacred.

However, if I were to invite everyone to consider what is universal to 'splod' music, even if I said that some of the most common features were that it involved harmonies produced by the banging and scraping of french toast, someone might ask me what I meant by 'splod'.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> The cross is a central aspect of Luther's thinking. The nativity for lutherans is the birth of the sacrificial lamb, and baptism is an ordination for sacrifice. As a result, the religious music of Lutherans is often far from quiet when it's played correctly. On the contrary, it's full of reminders of a very painful and low death. I'm thinking especially of J S Bach.


Well, don't get the idea that I think sacred music *has* to be quiet or monotonic. But to induce a meditative state, which is akin to Alpha sleep or trance with its slower brainwaves _(10-13 Hz), I_ think it's a physiological necessity.

*Bach's *magnificent organ music, by contrast, was designed for a waking state of 'awe,' to induce awe and convey the magnitude and power of God (via the Church). *In this sense, it is 'propaganda' music, designed to instill awe and humility, to impress, not induce quietude.* This is not a criticism, just an observation.

It is very possible that a listener is able to reach a state of spiritual ecstasy through such music, I'm not eliminating that. This would be similar to a female listener in 1967 going into ecstasy during a loud *Jimi Hendrix *solo.

Both are "sacred" in this sense.

Feel welcome to define your "loud and noisy" characteristics of sacred music. I think I could.


----------



## millionrainbows

KenOC said:


> "Universal characteristics of sacred music?" In a country where I lived for several years, you'd occasionally see open-backed trucks driving around filled with people dressed in white making a gawdawful cacophony with drums, trumpets, rattles, and so forth, while some chanted away in a monotone. Upon asking, I was told this was traditional at funerals -- the racket was traditional and not improvised (at least not totally) and the chanting was religious scriptures. The purpose was to frighten ghosts away from the deceased, the burial procession, and the actual funeral. I suspect it was effective.
> 
> In short, "sacred music" in this culture, but musically having no points or even purposes in common with what we recognize as such. So can we say sacred music has "universal characteristics"? Seems to me that it's all just culture-specific conventions.


So by default, this is saying that within different parts of humanity, that there is no 'universal' or shared experience of the sacred, which is naturally expressed in music. That's too bad.

That's okay with me, but I would rather rise above my misanthropic tendencies, and see the commonalities, just like *Beethoven* expressed in his Ninth Symphony. What a great, compassionate, loving man he was! I want to be more like that!


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> You have given examples of what the universals might be -
> 
> and you have tried to make sure that the context of specific religions do not get in the way of your idea of the universal sacred.
> 
> However, if I were to invite everyone to consider what is universal to 'splod' music, even if I said that some of the most common features were that it involved harmonies produced by the banging and scraping of french toast, someone might ask me what I meant by 'splod'.


This obsession with definitions is not what I had in mind, and I'm already off to other things. Good luck with that 'splod' thing.


----------



## Blake

You can make the argument that all music is sacred in essence. It's really a mystical form of communication. A sort of expression connecting the desire of experiencing in a more ethereal way, rather the grosser physical form that we give so much attention to.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> Well, don't get the idea that I think sacred music *has* to be quiet or monotonic. But to induce a meditative state, which is akin to Alpha sleep or trance with its slower brainwaves _(10-13 Hz), I_ think it's a physiological necessity.
> 
> *Bach's *magnificent organ music, by contrast, was designed for a waking state of 'awe,' to induce awe and convey the magnitude and power of God (via the Church). *In this sense, it is 'propaganda' music, designed to instill awe and humility, to impress, not induce quietude.* This is not a criticism, just an observation.
> 
> It is very possible that a listener is able to reach a state of spiritual ecstasy through such music, I'm not eliminating that. This would be similar to a female listener in 1967 going into ecstasy during a loud *Jimi Hendrix *solo.
> 
> Both are "sacred" in this sense.
> 
> Feel welcome to define your "loud and noisy" characteristics of sacred music. I think I could.


I think you make a very interesting point. And I wonder where the idea of music as a tool to make you go into altered states, higher states, comes from. It reminds me of some things I once read about Rothko's intentions behind the Seagram murals -- that he thought that just by looking at them in the right light you would be transported somewhere spiritual. My feeling is that this is a hippy idea in the western tradition, but I could be wrong.

Who was that 60s guy who thought that acid would take you closer to God?

Obviously music can make your adrenaline flow -- in that sense Hendrix induces ecstasy. It can also relax you, like when I listen to LaMonte Young. But these aren't necessarily higher states, more spiritual states.

For buddhists, as far as I know, the act of chanting is something that can take you into a higher state, not listening to chanting. Presumably it has something to do with focusing on the breath as you chant, increasingly narrowing down the focus. I know Buddhists who say that being focused on music can be like the very first stages of meditation --but doesn't go deeper. I don't know about other traditions.

And by the way, when I've heard Tantric Tibetan chanting it's been far from quiet -- quite scarily noisy in fact


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> "Universal characteristics of sacred music?" In a country where I lived for several years, you'd occasionally see open-backed trucks driving around filled with people dressed in white making a gawdawful cacophony with drums, trumpets, rattles, and so forth, while some chanted away in a monotone. Upon asking, I was told this was traditional at funerals -- the racket was traditional and not improvised (at least not totally) and the chanting was religious scriptures. The purpose was to frighten ghosts away from the deceased, the burial procession, and the actual funeral. I suspect it was effective.
> 
> In short, "sacred music" in this culture, but musically having no points or even purposes in common with what we recognize as such. So can we say sacred music has "universal characteristics"? Seems to me that it's all just culture-specific conventions.


Your conclusion is precisely mine. There is no reason to think that there are _any_ universal characteristics of music, characteristics which all human beings, everywhere and forever, will regard as expressing their sense of the sacred, regardless of how "sacred" is defined. I believe that we tend to regard as "sacred" the music we grow up hearing in the context of religious practice or thought (again, however "religious" is defined). We may develop out of this a more personal sense of the sacred, and of what music expresses this for us, but this only constitutes a further refutation of the idea of universal musical meanings.

If the topic question were intended, not to elicit a universal definition or prescription, but to provoke observations about what sorts of music humans in particular cultures (say, Western Europe in the late 18th century) _do_ associate with the sacred, it would be an answerable and interesting question. Or, it might be asked of individual respondents what music sounds "sacred" to them and what makes it do so. But without restricting the context in some such way we will all be floundering, as indeed we generally have been.

I would add that even if a particular culture, or historical period or geographical area, is chosen as a context, the range of musical characteristics which people might enlist for "sacred" purposes might be enormous and, on its face, internally contradictory. The religious-themed music of Bach, a single composer, utilizes practically every musical form and device known to him. And what are the common characteristics which mark all parts of the _B-minor Mass_, a single _work_, as "sacred music" - if that is what we choose to call it?


----------



## Piwikiwi

How do you guys feel about Brahsm or Berloiz their religious music. They were atheist, do you feel the same spiritual feeling if you compare those pieces to other composers who were religious? Serious question.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I think you make a very interesting point. And I wonder where the idea of music as a tool to make you go into altered states, higher states, comes from. It reminds me of some things I once read about Rothko's intentions behind the Seagram murals -- that he thought that just by looking at them in the right light you would be transported somewhere spiritual. My feeling is that this is a hippy idea in the western tradition, but I could be wrong.
> 
> Who was that 60s guy who thought that acid would take you closer to God?
> 
> Obviously music can make your adrenaline flow -- in that sense Hendrix induces ecstasy. It can also relax you, like when I listen to LaMonte Young. But these aren't necessarily higher states, more spiritual states.
> 
> For buddhists, as far as I know, the act of chanting is something that can take you into a higher state, not listening to chanting. Presumably it has something to do with focusing on the breath as you chant, increasingly narrowing down the focus. I know Buddhists who say that being focused on music can be like the very first stages of meditation --but doesn't go deeper. I don't know about other traditions.
> 
> And by the way, when I've heard Tantric Tibetan chanting it's been far from quiet -- quite scarily noisy in fact


Well, Mandryka, we could always dispense with metaphysics and just go with a good bio-feedback machine.

Also, Bryon Gysin's "Mind Machine" is available to make, and a simple 33-45 rpm turntable and a light bulb is all that's needed. Supposedly, it can induce waking hallucinations and visual patterns, with your eyes closed. If it gets too heavy, just open your eyes.

For those on a budget, get a ping-pong ball, cut it in half, and place one over each eye, while listening to static from a transistor radio and headphones.


----------



## millionrainbows

Piwikiwi said:


> How do you guys feel about Brahsm or Berloiz their religious music. They were atheist, do you feel the same spiritual feeling if you compare those pieces to other composers who were religious? Serious question.


Well, yes, I feel it, because I've already defined it as being a spritual state conveyed without dogma or doctrine. Almost all Western classical music, since it derived from a spritual/religious tradition, has some element of 'higher' spiritiual aspiration, unless it is pure entertainment only.

Does this generalization 'water it down?' I don't think so; I get off on Mahler just like I do Bach.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I've already defined it as being a spritual state conveyed without dogma or doctrine.


You did? I must have missed that post.

And a spiritual state is...?


----------



## Woodduck

Piwikiwi said:


> How do you guys feel about Brahsm or Berloiz their religious music. They were atheist, do you feel the same spiritual feeling if you compare those pieces to other composers who were religious? Serious question.


This is very interesting to me for several reasons. As a longtime atheist but former Christian, I have often asked myself what "spiritual" means to me and how music relates to that. Like most people, I grew up associating certain types of music with religion, and such music for me therefore felt "religious" and inspired in me feelings I identified as "spiritual." Over time I began to discriminate among the various styles of music with Christian associations and found that certain types seemed more meaningful and true to my own spiritual nature. For example, as my musical perceptiveness grew I found the richly harmonized chorales of Bach more "truly spiritual" than some of the sentimental hymns I sang in church. And, as I discovered the enormous range of classical music, and realized how varied and profound were the states of feeling music could express, my idea of what music was "spiritual" opened up to the point that the category no longer had much meaning. If music with no explicitly religious association or intent could induce powerful and ecstatic emotional states more than hymns and cantatas could, what was "sacred music" after all? This, for a young musician beginning to question his religious beliefs, was not a little troubling.

After a period, in my teen years, of feeling that music and God were in some kind of competition for my soul, I left religious belief behind (not primarily for that reason, though I can see how it played a part). But I still retained a sense, inculcated by years of association, that certain musical styles were more appropriate than others for expressing religious ideas and sentiments, apart from the personal meaning these ideas and sentiments, and these kinds of music, had for me. I could still feel, for example, that a Tallis motet was more "spiritual" than a Haydn mass; I could still feel a sense of the sublime in Bach's "St. Anne" Prelude and Fugue that I could not feel in a Widor organ symphony. On the other hand, works like the late quartets of Beethoven (of course there are no other works "like" those!) took me to realms of feeling which defied categorization - not "religious" music, but music that somehow transcends familiar categories of meaning and cries out to be called "spiritual." But although I think many people would agree with this, I am just as sure that others whose associations and sense of the "spiritual" or the "sacred" are different from mine would have no idea what I'm talking about.

I have had to conclude (as I've explained in a previous post under this thread) that there is nothing in any kind or work of music that would exemplify everyone's notion of "spirituality." But insofar as your question is "How do you _feel_ about Brahms' and Berlioz' religious music," I'm happy to speak for myself, out of my own experience. I'm quite fond of the requiems of both of these composers. They are wildly different; but one thing I think they have in common - and, as it happens, in common with me - is that neither exemplifies a religious faith premised on the central Christian dogmas from which the concept of "requiem" sprang. Brahms calls his work "A German Requiem," but it is not the traditional mass for the dead but rather a compilation of Old Testament scriptures which contemplate human mortality and are intended by the composer to "comfort the living." Berlioz does set the traditional requiem text but does so in so stylized and theatrical a manner that it's impossible (for me at least) to think that religious faith has much to do with it. Musically, both works use forms and techniques that relate to "traditionally" religious choral works, but the operative word is "use"; for every bit of strict fugal counterpoint in Brahms, or every evocation of medieval chant in Berlioz, there is plenty of free, fresh Romantic writing that expresses for me, in the context of the traditions of sacred music, a distinctly heterodox, if not actually a-theistic, point of view.

As a non- (but former) Christian, I feel I can relate to these works from both perspectives, as well as from a purely musical standpoint, and be moved and thrilled by both of them. But ultimately my own feeling is that they are not in any strict sense "religious" - and certainly not "Christian" - works, but simply works, utilizing themes drawn from religion, that express magnificently various aspects of our humanity. And I think there are many other works of music, and art in general, of which the same can be said.

Which is "spiritual" enough for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Well, yes, I feel it, because I've already defined it as being a spritual state conveyed without being totally defined by dogma or doctrine.



MacLeod said:


> You did? I must have missed that post.
> 
> And a spiritual state is...?


And so "The Inquisition" continues...:lol:

This spiritual state is a feeling of "sacredness," the holiness of existence. A state of 'just being' where you are connected with the healthiest, most growth-oriented part of your being, which is love-based, not fear-based.


----------



## millionrainbows

Sid James said:


> My view is that Modern music is one thing, the ideologies attached to it is another. The latter should be jettisoned, they have proved to fail. I think that whenever I read someone on this forum telling another to "open your ears" to modern music. It is patronising and implies that the speaker is superior to the person being spoken to. This kind of thinking has tarnished the cause of recent or more recent musics. What we need is bridge builders, not those who belittle people who are antagonistic to new/newer music. We all have our limitations, don't we?


 Yes! That's exactly the way I feel about "religious" music! I'm glad to see that Sid James recognizes that music, all music, has "universal" elements which transcend ideologies.



KenOC said:


> It seems to me that the finest music generally has ideologies "attached" to it. The *religious music *of the Renaissance, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, the Romantics -- all have their ideologies. All these ideologies, ultimately, fail and are replaced. Some are still in the process.


 I agree with KenOC as well! If I'm listening to a Bach cantata, or Gregorian chant, it doesn't matter if the specific ideology or text 'attached' to it is Christian or not; I can get the full 'sacred' effect from it, whether I subscribe to that dogma or not. What a wonderful, multi-cultural world we live in!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I have had to conclude (as I've explained in a previous post under this thread) that there is nothing in any kind or work of music that would exemplify everyone's notion of "spirituality."


*BUT, *



Woodduck said:


> As a non- (but former) Christian, I feel I can relate to these works from both perspectives, as well as from a purely musical standpoint, and be moved and thrilled by both of them. But *ultimately my own feeling is that they are not in any strict sense "religious"* - and certainly not "Christian" -* works, but simply works, utilizing themes drawn from religion, that express magnificently various aspects of our humanity.* And I think there are many other works of music, and art in general, of which the same can be said.
> 
> Which is "spiritual" enough for me.


Nice, thoughtful reply, and I agree with you totally.



Woodduck said:


> I have had to conclude (as I've explained in a previous post under this thread) that there is nothing in any kind or work of music that would exemplify everyone's notion of "spirituality."


Well, then, conversely, would you conclude that there is something in every person which would exemplify universal inherent essence of spirituality? I think there is great possibility that there *are *such characteristics, and that these qualities transcend mere opinion.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This spiritual state is a feeling of "sacredness," the holiness of existence. A state of 'just being' where you are connected with the healthiest, most growth-oriented part of your being, which is love-based, not fear-based.


This definition strikes me as being as good as any. I like the fact that it separates "spirituality" from any necessary connection with religion, which then appears as a sort of "technology" aimed (hopefully, but alas not often enough actually) at such connection. I think it also supports my contention that "sacred" music can be "whatever floats your boat," one man's musical meditation being another man's tedium, one's ecstasy another's frivolity. Personally, an evening with Kalman's _Grafin Mariza _connects me joyfully to the healthiest part of my being, while five minutes of Gregorian chant has me sprinting for the cathedral exit and out into the air and sun to smell the flowers.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> *BUT, *Well, then, conversely, would you conclude that there is something in every person which would exemplify universal inherent essence of spirituality? I think there is great possibility that there *are *such characteristics, and that these qualities transcend mere opinion.


I'd say "yes" to this. I merely doubt that this "something" has definite, universal musical correspondences. It's rather like a genetic endowment; the genes are in us, but whether and how they are expressed is highly contingent on our environment and experiences.


----------



## millionrainbows

...would you conclude that there is something in every person which would exemplify universal inherent essence of spirituality? I think there is great possibility that there *are *such characteristics, and that these qualities transcend mere opinion.



Woodduck said:


> I'd say "yes" to this. I merely doubt that this "something" has definite, universal musical correspondences. It's rather like a genetic endowment; the genes are in us, but whether and how they are expressed is highly contingent on our environment and experiences.


Huh! You recognize that universals exist in both man and his music, but refuse to acknowledge any correspondences? That's not what it sounded like when you said:


> "But ultimately my own feeling is that they are not in any strict sense "religious" - and certainly not "Christian" - works, but simply works, utilizing themes drawn from religion,* that express magnificently various aspects of our humanity. *And I think there are many other works of music, and art in general, of which the same can be said."Which is "spiritual" enough for me."


So you are saying that these various aspects of humanity are all externals, "highly contingent on our environment and experiences," and not internal to being human? Wow, that's a really divisive statement, and sees differences in environment and experiences rather than the commonalities in those.

Personally, I feel that our shared humanity should always take precedence over our perceived environmental and cultural differences.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> ...would you conclude that there is something in every person which would exemplify universal inherent essence of spirituality? I think there is great possibility that there *are *such characteristics, and that these qualities transcend mere opinion.
> 
> Huh! You recognize that universals exist in both man and his music, but refuse to acknowledge any correspondences? That's not what it sounded like when you said:
> 
> So you are saying that these various aspects of humanity are all externals, "highly contingent on our environment and experiences," and not internal to being human? Wow, that's a really divisive statement, and sees differences in environment and experiences rather than the commonalities in those.
> 
> Personally, I feel that our shared humanity should always take precedence over our perceived environmental and cultural differences.


I don't recall saying that "universals" exist in music. In fact I think I said that I don't believe they do. I could be wrong about that, but the extreme differences in mankind's musics, and in the musical effects people find expressive of their perceptions of the "sacred" (however defined), argue against it.

I said that the Brahms and Berlioz express aspects of our humanity in the context of saying what they mean _to me personally_. No suggestion there that they can or should mean that, or anything else, to everyone everywhere forever.


----------



## science

Jobis said:


> Personally I hate hypnotics, and music that sends one into a trance-like state is probably more related to shamanism than any monotheistic religion.


That would be drumming!

Venturing a simplification: chant is the music of monotheism, drumming of shamanism.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> So by default, this is saying that within different parts of humanity, that there is no 'universal' or shared experience of the sacred, which is naturally expressed in music. That's too bad.
> 
> That's okay with me, but I would rather rise above my misanthropic tendencies, and see the commonalities, just like *Beethoven* expressed in his Ninth Symphony. What a great, compassionate, loving man he was! I want to be more like that!


I take for granted here that we're not limiting ourselves to the monotheisms of the Mediterranean but including all of human religion.

The universal is music, and whatever is universal in music, such as rhythm. Melody and lyrics must be universal as well, even if some sacred music doesn't include them.

Beyond that, I don't think there could be much that is universal, given the variety of human cultures.

I'm sure this is too prosaic, since it seems like you are looking for a transcendental, romantic reflection, but that is not how my mind works, and that kind of airy discussion makes me uncomfortable (which is how I can put it kindly) so I can't contribute to it.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I take for granted here that we're not limiting ourselves to the monotheisms of the Mediterranean but including all of human religion.
> 
> The universal is music, and whatever is universal in music, such as rhythm. Melody and lyrics must be universal as well, even if some sacred music doesn't include them.
> 
> Beyond that, I don't think there could be much that is universal, given the variety of human cultures.
> 
> I'm sure this is too prosaic, since it seems like you are looking for a transcendental, romantic reflection, but that is not how my mind works, and that kind of airy discussion makes me uncomfortable (which is how I can put it kindly) so I can't contribute to it.


Transcendental? Romantic? Hmm...it sounds like you may be confusing my approach to sacred music with some sort of vague, general reference to "transcendental religion" of an Eastern variety. Not true.

It's easy to see that music is universal, and so is 'sacred' music, beyond all religion.

After all, _the forum header itself states this separation:
_
*Religious Music: Discussions about religious/sacred music. Discussions about the religious aspect of the music belong in the "Politics and Religion" sub-forum.

*So I am perfectly in synch with the intent of this forum, by pointing out universal, musical characteristics of 'sacred' music, without considering specifically religious functions or content, or textual content, or dogma.

Perhaps you should be in the "Politics and Religion" forum.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Transcendental? Romantic? Hmm...it sounds like you may be confusing my approach to sacred music with some sort of vague, general reference to "transcendental religion" of an Eastern variety. Not true.
> 
> It's easy to see that music is universal, and so is 'sacred' music, beyond all religion.
> 
> After all, _the forum header itself states this separation:
> _
> *Religious Music: Discussions about religious/sacred music. Discussions about the religious aspect of the music belong in the "Politics and Religion" sub-forum.
> 
> *So I am perfectly in synch with the intent of this forum, by pointing out universal, musical characteristics of 'sacred' music, without considering specifically religious functions or content, or textual content, or dogma.
> 
> Perhaps you should be in the "Politics and Religion" forum.


My post was about music, so I don't understand your response. (This is me being charitable.)


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> This spiritual state is a feeling of "sacredness," the holiness of existence. A state of 'just being' where you are connected with the healthiest, most growth-oriented part of your being, which is love-based, not fear-based.


Finally, some thing I can work with. Thank you.

But I disagree. There is no such thing as 'sacred' music, except that some people might treat it so. There _is _music that can, if the listener allows it, induce certain types of emotional (and/or possibly a cerebral) response, but I wouldn't use the term 'spiritual' to label it.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Finally, some thing I can work with. Thank you.
> 
> But I disagree. There is no such thing as 'sacred' music, except that some people might treat it so. There _is _music that can, if the listener allows it, induce certain types of emotional (and/or possibly a cerebral) response, but I wouldn't use the term 'spiritual' to label it.


But the Forum header itself separates "religious and sacred music" into a "music only" discussion. If you say "there is no such thing as 'sacred' music" then why does the forum header use the term, as follows:

*



Religious Music: Discussions about religious/sacred music. Discussions about the religious aspect of the music belong in the "Politics and Religion" sub-forum.

Click to expand...

*Also, why should we believe your position, which is looking like a refutation rather than a counter-argument?

If you wouldn't use the term 'spiritual' or 'sacred' to label it, then this is is beginning to sound like a refutation for refutation's sake.

Here is a piece I would deem 'sacred,' because of the mind-state it can induce, if one is receptive and attentive:


----------



## Guest

There's something wrong with a refutation?


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> There's something wrong with a refutation?


Well a refutation is simply that; a mere invalidation, without a counter-argument or dialectic being created. In this sense, it is simply a negation, and has no real substance. It is a "lack."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absence_of_good&oldid=598244261


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I take for granted here that we're not limiting ourselves to the monotheisms of the Mediterranean but including all of human religion.
> 
> The universal is music, and whatever is universal in music, such as rhythm. Melody and lyrics must be universal as well, even if some sacred music doesn't include them.
> 
> Beyond that, I don't think there could be much that is universal, given the variety of human cultures.
> 
> I'm sure this is too prosaic, since it seems like you are looking for a transcendental, romantic reflection, but that is not how my mind works, and that kind of airy discussion makes me uncomfortable (which is how I can put it kindly) so I can't contribute to it.


This post is not about music, as you said. It is about generally characterizing my approach. That makes _*me*_ uncomfortable.

Anyway, the Reich piece Four Organs, and its companion Phase Patterns, contain some of my specified characteristics of 'sacred' music: repetition, and a static tonal center.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> This post is not about music, as you said. It is about generally characterizing my approach. That makes _*me*_ uncomfortable.
> 
> Anyway, the Reich piece Four Organs, and its companion Phase Patterns, contain some of my specified characteristics of 'sacred' music: repetition, and a static tonal center.


Let me make it clear:

The only "universals" true of the world's "sacred music" (taking "sacred" in an ordinary sense as "related to religion") are the universals true of the world's music generally.

That is a statement about music, and it has nothing to do with _you_.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Well a refutation is simply that; a mere invalidation, without a counter-argument or dialectic being created. In this sense, it is simply a negation, and has no real substance. It is a "lack."
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Absence_of_good&oldid=598244261


Setting aside the irrelevance of your wiki link, I didn't merely refute or negate. I gave my own view. You don't have to "believe my position", as I'm not arguing a thesis, merely offering an opinion. I accept that there is music which may be labelled 'sacred', but this is usually because it has been written on explicitly religious themes or by religious people or in a particular style. You make quite clear that that is not what you want to talk about, rather you are looking for some underlying commonalities between those types of music and other types, such as the Reich (which I am listening to as I type) divorced from any overt religious content.

My argument is that if you take away the religious content, there is no 'sacred', as I don't believe that there is such a thing. The definition of 'sacred' is as I posted earlier - "_Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose"_
Without God or religion, 'sacred' music is just music.

Now, if you want to argue that there is a type of music that can induce certain states of mind, I already agreed with that.

(BTW, you keep referring to the Forum header/title as if that is a clincher: if there were a header about unicorns, and a discussion beneath, would you argue that they must exist?)


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I accept that there is music which may be labelled 'sacred', but this is usually because it has been written on explicitly religious themes or by *religious people *or in a particular style.....you are looking for some underlying commonalities between those types of music and other types *divorced* from any overt religious content.
> 
> My argument is that if you take away the religious content, there is no 'sacred'.
> 
> The definition of 'sacred' is as I posted earlier -* "*_*Connected with God or a god *or *dedicated to a religious purpose"*_
> 
> Without God or religion, 'sacred' music is just music.
> 
> Now, if you want to argue that there is a type of music that can induce certain states of mind, I already agreed with that.
> 
> (BTW, you keep referring to the Forum header/title as if that is a clincher...


You have finally admitted your position, instead of using mine as an invalidation.

There are several suspect assumptions in your statement. For instance, "religious people." Are they the only "sacred" people? That is the effect implied.

Existence itself is sacred, and Man's existence was sacred before religion came into existence. I think that all life is sacred, and that all men are sacred. Therefore, "sacred" music can exist with no connection to organized religion except Man's inherent spirituality. And, as an exception to your definition, this would be a "sacred" purpose, not necessarily a "religious" purpose. *So I disagree with the phrase "dedicated to a religious purpose" if this cannot mean Man's primary spiritual nature by itself.
*
The 'sacred state of mind' which is induced by certain 'sacred musics' is a primary state of being, common to all men, regardless of race, creed, or religion. If Bach's _Mass in B minor, _or Gregorian chant, or Philip Glass' _Music in Twelve Parts _induces this sacred state,_ it is music which does it, not the textual, religious, or cultural context. Also, if the music is produced with sacred intent, this shared mapping of experience between composer and listener can induce this sacred state of being.
_
Therefore, as usual, religion and dogma are irrelevant, to the degree that _they are after the sacred fact, _which came first, and is our primary birthright.

I won't let *'religious people' *or the religious right take that birthright away from anyone, if I can help it.

The only way "the spirit" can be "taken away" is if you _believe_ it can. And this is a false belief; the spirit is untouchable.

God bless you, my brother.


----------



## millionrainbows

Now, on to more inherently sacred music:


----------



## millionrainbows

Also, it seems almost ridiculous to exclude Philip Glass' music from the designation of "sacred," even when his subject matter is about nature, as in Itaipu and The Canyon, or human existence as in Koyannisqatsi. Is not nature sacred? Is not all existence sacred?

In bluegrass music, they say we are listening to the man as well as the music. And Philip Glass the man, is he not of the highest aspiration?


----------



## millionrainbows

Religious or sacred music: sorry, it's not an exclusive club. Pardon me while I light up this cigar.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You have finally admitted your position, instead of using mine as an invalidation.
> 
> There are several suspect assumptions in your statement. For instance, "religious people." Are they the only "sacred" people? That is the effect implied.
> 
> Existence itself is sacred, and Man's existence was sacred before religion came into existence. I think that all life is sacred, and that all men are sacred. Therefore, "sacred" music can exist with no connection to organized religion except Man's inherent spirituality. And, as an exception to your definition, this would be a "sacred" purpose, not necessarily a "religious" purpose. *So I disagree with the phrase "dedicated to a religious purpose" if this cannot mean Man's primary spiritual nature by.*


The definition is not mine, but a respectable dictionary's, though you must of course disagree if you will.

As for the idea that life is 'sacred', I disagree: you too are making challengeable assumptions.


----------



## Blake

Well, it's either all sacred or all nonsense. Either way works.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Well, it's either all sacred or all nonsense. Either way works.


It could be sacred nonsense, and/or irrational holiness. I'm all for that. A pantheism that embraces whatever lies beyond the boundaries of rationality.

However, I don't intend to surrender my rationality until I reach those boundaries! I'll keep it, that is, if I can. I'll try really hard. And meanwhile, if things feel holy, all the better.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> The definition is not mine, but a respectable dictionary's, though you must of course disagree if you will.
> 
> As for the idea that life is 'sacred', I disagree: you too are making challengeable assumptions.


Well then, we appear to disagree.

Let's run with your "life is not sacred" implication. War is necessary, right?

Here's another possibility, since nothing is 'provable' or 'axiomatic' in matters of 'sacred or religious music.'
What if there were 'religious' music which purported itself to be 'religious,' yet was actually promoting some sort of intent, or some sort of agenda which was religious, yet contrary to certain people's well-being or freedom?

For example, is the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" promoting militarism? Some say so. The hymn was omitted from the 1990 hymnal of the Presbyterian Church, as well as the _Australian __Hymn Book_ published in 1977, and its successor, _Together In Song, _published in 1999. So is this hymn really representative of "religion," or just a minority, and is its intent "sacred" or of a different agenda?


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Well then, we appear to disagree.
> 
> Let's run with your "life is not sacred" implication. War is necessary, right?


Just in case any reader is missing the distinction (and is wondering if I'm happy for life to be taken or abused any old how) I mean that if life is inviolable, this has nothing to do with religions or gods.



millionrainbows said:


> Here's another possibility, since nothing is 'provable' or 'axiomatic' in matters of 'sacred or religious music.'
> What if there were 'religious' music which purported itself to be 'religious,' yet was actually promoting some sort of intent, or some sort of agenda which was religious, yet contrary to certain people's well-being or freedom?
> 
> For example, is the hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" promoting militarism? Some say so. The hymn was omitted from the 1990 hymnal of the Presbyterian Church, as well as the _Australian __Hymn Book_ published in 1977, and its successor, _Together In Song, _published in 1999. So is this hymn really representative of "religion," or just a minority, and is its intent "sacred" or of a different agenda?


As I think I already said, there is no music that is 'sacred' except that someone believes it to be so: it is either inspired by, or created to worship a god or gods, or it is intended to evoke in the listener, some sense of one of his/her/their attributes or what being in the presence of god might be like. What you exemplify with _Onward Christian Soldiers_ is that throughout history, there have been composers who have expressed themselves in ways that some listeners find an unacceptable distortion of what their religion is about. _All Things Bright and Beautiful_ has similar problems.

But this is all about extra-musical content, and I didn't think you wanted to discuss that? In any case, the only point I wanted to make is that whilst music can be used to induce certain states of mind, it's down to the individual listener to decide whether the listening experience is putting them in touch with something 'sacred'.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> As I think I already said, there is no music that is 'sacred' except that someone believes it to be so...


That's not part of your given definition:



MacLeod said:


> The definition of 'sacred' is as I posted earlier - "_Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose"_
> Without God or religion, 'sacred' music is just music.


Nowhere did you specify belief; but if that is the case, then that includes what* I believe *to be sacred music is, without the qualification that it be connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose.



MacLeod said:


> ...it is either inspired by, or created to worship a god or gods, or it is intended to evoke in the listener, some sense of one of his/her/their attributes or what being in the presence of god might be like.


What happened to _'dedicated to a religious purpose?' _You left it out this time.



MacLeod said:


> What you exemplify with _Onward Christian Soldiers_ is that throughout history, there have been composers who have expressed themselves in ways that some listeners find an unacceptable distortion of what their religion is about. _All Things Bright and Beautiful_ has similar problems.


...but _Onward Christian Soldiers_ fits the definition you gave. It is a religious hymn, created with a religious purpose. Yet, it is a distortion. Your definition has failed; it is inadequate.

Perhaps it would be better to require that *sacred intent *be a part of our requirement for sacred music. Religious dogma is 'extra musical,' yet you include it in your definition.

Religious dogma or doctrine can be distorted, as we have seen. Just as suicide-bombers do not represent Islam, and certainly do not respect life, then the same has happened in Christianity. Scripture has been used to subjugate women, castigate gays, and justify slavery, war, and discrimination as late as the late 1960s, and beyond.



MacLeod said:


> ...But this is all about extra-musical content, and I didn't think you wanted to discuss that?


No, I did not, but your definition of religious/sacred music includes ideas of God, which is dogma, and specifies that 'religion' be part of its purpose, which implies specific belief systems and dogma.



MacLeod said:


> In any case, the only point I wanted to make is that whilst music can be used to induce certain states of mind, it's down to the individual listener to decide whether the listening experience is putting them in touch with something 'sacred'.


If the music puts us in a sacred state of mind, this is not a 'decision,' but a cultivation of our innate sprituality, which transcends religious beliefs.

Meanwhile, back in the music room, I listen to Bach, by my good man *Anthony Newman.










This does the job quite well for me.*


----------



## millionrainbows

There are no 'pat' definitions, people. If you think God gave Man free will, then I suggest you use it. If "religious" music has an agenda which is not sacred, then I reject it. Don't get so caught up in definitions that you lose the purpose of what you are seeking! Think about things.
Nobody can invalidate my spirit, unless I let them. Recognize that you are sacred! Realize that you are part of the holy creation of existence! No religion, or person, has exclusive domain over the sacred!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That's not part of your given definition:
> 
> I quoted the dictionary to give an independent definition, and in a slightly later post, I gave my own, in this post
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/31454-what-universal-characteristics-sacred-post640924.html#post640924
> 
> Nowhere did you specify belief; but if that is the case, then that includes what* I believe *to be sacred music is, without the qualification that it be connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose.
> 
> Why would I need to 'specify belief'? It comes automatically with religion!
> 
> What happened to _'dedicated to a religious purpose?' _You left it out this time.
> 
> So?
> 
> ...but _Onward Christian Soldiers_ fits the definition you gave. It is a religious hymn, created with a religious purpose. Yet, it is a distortion. Your definition has failed; it is inadequate.
> 
> Er, no, it fits both definitions. Music written with a religious purpose but which some have now deemed unsuitable for that purpose.
> 
> Perhaps it would be better to require that *sacred intent *be a part of our requirement for sacred music. Religious dogma is 'extra musical,' yet you include it in your definition.
> 
> You just seem keen to have a simpler but circular definition...sacred music is "music which is sacred"
> 
> Religious dogma or doctrine can be distorted, as we have seen. Just as suicide-bombers do not represent Islam, and certainly do not respect life, then the same has happened in Christianity. Scripture has been used to subjugate women, castigate gays, and justify slavery, war, and discrimination as late as the late 1960s, and beyond.
> 
> Yes. And...?
> 
> No, I did not, but your definition of religious/sacred music includes ideas of God, which is dogma, and specifies that 'religion' be part of its purpose, which implies specific belief systems and dogma.
> 
> Not 'my' definition.
> 
> If the music puts us in a sacred state of mind, this is not a 'decision,' but a cultivation of our innate sprituality, which transcends religious beliefs.
> 
> Well it may not be a 'decision' to you. But I make 'decisions' about my experiences all the time. Fun/not fun? Good/bad? Rewarding/boring?
> 
> Meanwhile, back in the music room, I listen to Bach, by my good man *Anthony Newman.
> 
> This does the job quite well for me.
> *
> Quite. This is a personal matter. Whether you regard music as having universal sacred qualities, separated from 'dogma' (as you would put it) is down to you.


(to satisfy the requirement for at least 15 characters.)


----------



## millionrainbows

Here is my opening invitation, in case it has been forgotten in favor of engaging in conflict (a sure sign of someone who is not satisfied within themselves).

I'm interested in 'sacred' music which conveys the sense of the sacred in a universal manner, *not dependent on particulars such as dogma, text, or religion.
*
I contend that the 'sacred' quality of music does not lie totally within the realm of either the music (the composer's intent, and the music's purpose or content) or with the listener. Music is a 'mapping' of experience from composer (represented by the music) to listener.

Thus, it is our task to identify or define those characteristics in the music itself,_ and_ those qualities and requirements within listeners, which are 'universal' enough to be defined as_ constants _of sacred music (without being distracted by tedious debate on definitions).

I'm interesting in identifying 'universals,' and what those constant universals would be.

The following works illustrate this universal sacred intent. They contain certain characteristics which I listed earlier: repetition, inducement of calm, resonance with brain waves, intent of the composer, the application of the term 'sacred' in its more flexible, general sense, to elements such as nature and the environment.
























Apparently, the basic premise, which is that 'sacred' music, and the sense of the sacred that it can induce universally in all Men, is being questioned.

It was not the initial purpose of the thread to *debate* dogma or religion, but rather to engage a more open and inclusive discussion about sacred music.

It was not the initial purpose of this thread to define or debate what is meant by 'sacred.'

If it is thought that the West has an exclusive claim on 'sacred music,' then that premise is not productive to this thread, which is intended to discuss its_ 'universal' _qualities.

_One has to at least agree with the basic premise of the thread for productive discussion, as debate on this point distracts from its basic premise. 
_


----------



## science

So, the thread itself presumes a definition of "sacred," and if we happen not to agree with that definition, we should just get lost? 

Ok, I guess I'll play by this rule. Anyway, I don't actually understand your definition of sacred - by your definition, what is the difference between ordinary repetitive, relaxing music and "sacred" music?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> So, the thread itself presumes a definition of "sacred," and if we happen not to agree with that definition, we should just get lost?


No, I never told anyone to 'get lost;' if I had, I probably would have gotten an infraction for getting nasty.



science said:


> Ok, I guess I'll play by this rule. Anyway, I don't actually understand your definition of sacred - by your definition, what is the difference between ordinary repetitive, relaxing music and "sacred" music?


By now, it should be obvious, and it has been explained in detail.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> No, I never told anyone to 'get lost;' if I had, I probably would have gotten an infraction for getting nasty.
> 
> By now, it should be obvious, and it has been explained in detail.


The tone might be more polite but the meaning is the same.

In short, you want us to engage in a certain theological project, in which you get to define the essence of religion according to your own religious beliefs, and then identify music that accords with your definition. Well, that might be very interesting for you, and we might feel very "satisfied within ourselves" as we engage in it, so though you go on and do your thing, I refuse to accede.

This means, I suppose, that I should depart according to your demand, but on my out I want you to understand some reasons for my protest.

First, your definition is semantically problematic: I don't even know what things like "a primary state of being" might mean. I get the _connotations_ (like, this is really deep, man), but in order to think anything _meaningful_ about those connotations I need more concrete language.

Second, your definition apparently ideologically motivated: Why do YOU get to say what is and isn't a distortion of traditions like Christianity and Islam? You gave several examples, but one of the more important ones: Why do YOU get to declare that (contrary to the overwhelming majority of adherents of those traditions, both now and throughout history) "the sacred" unites rather than divides us? But this discussion isn't much worth pursuing until we could know that, if these definitions or your authority to assert them _were_ established, we could then match them up to particular elements in music.

So, third, if we take "sacred" in anything like its normal meaning, then even the explicitly _musical_ part of your definition - "relaxing and repetitive" - is apparently a simple error of objective fact. There is a lot of religious music out there that is nothing like relaxing. I'm listening to an example right now, a Sufi ceremony recorded in Marrakesh. Lots of shouting, whooping, wailing, syncopation, accelerating and accelerating and accelerating, certainly nobody's drowsing off! And not very repetitive: the instrumentation changes, the beat changes, the melodies change and develop, the chants change. They're not just doing the same thing for all two hours; as with all music there is some repetition of motifs, but it's no more repetitive than any other music, and nothing like minimalism. This is the example I happen to be listening to right not, but it'd be trivially simple to pile up more examples of raucous music from sacred (in its ordinary, non-ideological sense) contexts - all kinds of "shamanistic" traditions, Pentecostal traditions, any other ritual that involves dancing - and I simply refuse to allow you to exclude all of them just because it doesn't fit your idea of "sacred." So you do what you want, but _I'm_ not going to start excluding this or that based on your declaration that "sacred" is "relaxing and repetitive." (That act of exclusion is paradoxical anyway since you also intend "universal." Referring back to the second point, just as a lot of religion apparently isn't what you want it to be, a lot of religious music also apparently isn't what you want it to be.)

The flip side of this third point is that the world is full of extremely relaxing, fairly repetitive music that is not in the least religious. Easy, relatively famous examples would be David Lanz or Yukhi Kuramoto. Perhaps the thing is that they're not classy enough to get these highfalutin' adjectives like "sacred," but if that's what you're thinking you should make it explicit; until then, I don't see anything we gain from describing their music as "sacred" rather than "relaxing," and I don't see any reason in your definition not to do so. Is Philip Glass even religious? Anyway, even if he is, he's not making a big deal of it. On the contrary, he's evidently _chosen_ not to deal with it explicitly at all. So I'm not sure why I should let you do that _to_ him. It's a sort of violence against his intentions.

So all these things considered, religion is much richer, more various and interesting, and also messier and more problematic than what you have in mind, and its music is correspondingly more various, and at least with respect to its variety, more interesting, than what you have in mind. I really like religion, it fascinates me even at its worst (and I really like the song "Onward Christian Soldiers"), and I don't want to let you reduce its amazing variety to anything, and especially not to some cozy feelings we get listening to minimalism. And on the other hand, secular music can be pretty relaxing - or interesting, or perhaps universal, or whatever - too.

But of course this is your thread; continue as you please.

Thank you for letting my say my piece on my way out.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Here is my opening invitation, in case it has been forgotten in favor of engaging in conflict (a sure sign of someone who is not satisfied within themselves).


Hmmm. I wonder who that 'someone' might be?

Never mind, I apologise to all those TC members who wanted to contribute but saw that 'conflict' was getting in the way and got bored waiting for their turn.


----------



## millionrainbows

My concern is with *music only*, and how it can induce or encourage certain 'sacred' states of being within the listener, and the conditions related to how this effect is produced. I've listed numerous characteristics, and examples.

I'm not interested in theology as such, or religion as such, or in defining what these terms mean when attached to music; or in debating or attacking anyone's religious beliefs.

It's my contention that 'sacred music' is a form of music which exists beyond any definition or religious qualification or purpose. Sacred music is a mapping of experience, from composer to listener, which embodies the universal sense of being which is best described as 'sacred.'

This is the same sense of being that religion strives to cultivate.

When approaching sacred music, however, it can be approached as music only, without religion, belief, dogma, or doctrine being required for its effect to occur.

This is my contention, and it is my invitation to all present to discuss what they see as universal elements of this music; and what music they see as being 'sacred,' even if it is not properly classified as being traditionally 'religious.'


----------



## Mandryka

That's clear. 

Look, I just listened to some Buddhist chanting and I got no special "sense of being" as a result. And then I listened to de Grigny's organ mass and . . . no special feeling either. 

What are the verification/falsification conditions of your hypothesis?


----------



## Blake

This is turning rather disingenuous.


----------



## millionrainbows

As in bluegrass music, it is said that we are listening to 'the man' as well as the tune. This is applicable to sacred music as well. A good example is *J.S. Bach;* although not everything he wrote is classified traditionally as 'religious' in nature or function, still there is a 'light shining through' the Brandenburgs, the WTC, etc. After all, he did say that the highest purpose of music was to glorify God.

Even in the WTC, I can hear Bach's joy, and emotion, and his natural 'homing instinct' for the tonic, and his excursions away from it into fantastic areas of chromaticism, yet always returning to 'home,' exemplifies for me a 'sacred' quality which permeates all his music. Music is the expression of being, and this is conveyed to us in our being; so a sacred communion is created, within the realm of music alone, without the need for definitions, beliefs, or any extra-musical trappings.

So, too, with *Terry Riley *and* Phil Glass.* Hey, it's no accident that Philip Glass chose to study, and collaborate, with* Ravi Shankar. *Surely there is no one here among these good people who would dispute the fact that Ravi Shankar, his music, his discipline, and his being itself, are not 'sacred' in nature and intent.

Thus, these composers, and most, if not all, of their work is sacred in nature and intent, and can produce this 'sacred' transmission to the listener. Thus, art fulfills its highest purpose: to interactively map a shared experience, from composer onto that of listener, via music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> That's clear.
> 
> Look, I just listened to some Buddhist chanting and I got no special "sense of being" as a result. And then I listened to de Grigny's organ mass and . . . no special feeling either.
> 
> What are the verification/falsification conditions of your hypothesis?


My criteria for sacred music includes that it be produced with *sacred intent. *That means that the composer created the music for a sacred intent, which is life-affirming and reflects a healthy, thriving being, not based in fear or negativity.

Of course, it's not my responsibility to get anyone to respond to music. As in all art, the viewer/listener must approach the art in a pro-active, receptive way. A non-response, or negative reaction to music does not define the music itself, but says more about the listener. We are responsible for our own reactions; we can't expect the music to do more than its part in the process of interaction with art/listener, nor can we expect our reaction to be the definition for everybody else of what a music form 'is' or is 'supposed to be.'

There are aspects of 'repetition' or 'focus of attention' which have not been considered here as well. Have you ever known someone who requires that a TV or radio be playing, in order for them to go to sleep? I have. I'm not one of them; I'd be listening all night instead of sleeping! But my brother-in law is one of these 'noise-mongers.' He would go to sleep listening to *Billy Idol, *the album with _*"White Wedding," *_played quite loudly. I was always amazed at this.

(BTW, don't try to stick me with saying Billy Idol is sacred music just because it induces sleep in my brother-in-law)

Thus, certain forms of sacred music can produce effects in listeners by the sheer volume, persistence, and continuous texture of the music, or even 'noise' like drumming and clattering cymbals (as in Buddhist chant, with its interruptions of metallic clanging).

But it's not absolutely necessary for 'sacred' music to induce a state of mind.* Its intent* can be enough, and if the intent of the listener is brought forward, almost any music could be considered sacred, albeit in a subjective way, which is not really my focus, as this is too general.



Mandryka said:


> What are the verification/falsification conditions of your hypothesis?


:lol: This is metaphysics, not science. We are dealing with subjective states of being, which are nonetheless universal in nature, and common to all people; but I don't expect anyone to have to prove anything.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> This is turning rather disingenuous.


Oh, I'm quite sincere. I'm talking about music and my honest reactions to it, as well as my ideas about sacred music. It has been quite revealing, as well. I'm thoroughly entertained by this interaction.


----------



## millionrainbows

"You can take music out of the sacred, but you can't take the sacred out of music." That seems to be the operant principle at work in this place.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> :lol: This is metaphysics, not science. We are dealing with subjective states of being, which are nonetheless universal in nature, and common to all people; but I don't expect anyone to have to prove anything.


It's not a question of proof, but a question of meaningfulness. Understanding the meaning.



millionrainbows said:


> My criteria for sacred music includes that it be produced with *sacred intent. *That means that the composer created the music for a sacred intent, which is life-affirming and reflects a healthy, thriving being, not based in fear or negativity.
> 
> Of course, it's not my responsibility to get anyone to respond to music. As in all art, the viewer/listener must approach the art in a pro-active, receptive way. A non-response, or negative reaction to music does not define the music itself, but says more about the listener. We are responsible for our own reactions; we can't expect the music to do more than its part in the process of interaction with art/listener, nor can we expect our reaction to be the definition for everybody else of what a music form 'is' or is 'supposed to be.'
> 
> There are aspects of 'repetition' or 'focus of attention' which have not been considered here as well. Have you ever known someone who requires that a TV or radio be playing, in order for them to go to sleep? I have. I'm not one of them; I'd be listening all night instead of sleeping! But my brother-in law is one of these 'noise-mongers.' He would go to sleep listening to *Billy Idol, *the album with _*"White Wedding," *_played quite loudly. I was always amazed at this.
> 
> (BTW, don't try to stick me with saying Billy Idol is sacred music just because it induces sleep in my brother-in-law)
> 
> Thus, certain forms of sacred music can produce effects in listeners by the sheer volume, persistence, and continuous texture of the music, or even 'noise' like drumming and clattering cymbals (as in Buddhist chant, with its interruptions of metallic clanging).
> 
> But it's not absolutely necessary for 'sacred' music to induce a state of mind.* Its intent* can be enough, and if the intent of the listener is brought forward, almost any music could be considered sacred, albeit in a subjective way, which is not really my focus, as this is too general.


I think I understand, thought I can't say it works like that for me. I have experienced altered "spiritual" states of mind, but not listening to or performing music.

It reminds me of a Buddhist I know who says that listening to music can be very much like the early stages of a concentration meditation like the Mindfulness of Breathing. But he's skeptical that it can ever lead on to more refined mental states. And as I said before, I think it's the act of making music (chanting) which is involved in Buddhist practices, not listening. Some of it may be to do with the content too -- mantras are a bit like spells. There's also all that stuff that Hindus do with "Om", I know less about that, end even less about Jewish (Chasidic - but they gyrate and dance I think, like dervishes, so the music may not be what's working. ) And less still about Christian and Muslim and Pagan ideas about music and spirituality.

I agree that the subject is interesting.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> ...listening to music can be very much like the early stages of a concentration meditation like the Mindfulness of Breathing. But...(I'm)...skeptical that it can ever lead on to more refined mental states. And as I said before, I think it's the act of making music (chanting) which is involved in Buddhist practices, not listening.


Ok. I don't; I think music can relax the mind and induce calm. And the Church has always known that it can be a valuable aid in worship, regardless if it is sung or listened to.



Mandryka said:


> ...Some of it may be to do with the content too -- mantras are a bit like spells.


Spells? You mean the occult, and magic. That Pentecostal lady spealing in tongues acted like she was in a spell. Remember that preacher in Oklahoma who used to heal people? They say Jesus did that too. God parted the Red Sea. Wow, all this stuff is pretty fantastic, isn't it.



Mandryka said:


> ...There's also all that stuff that Hindus do with "Om", I know less about that...


I think they do that to slow down the breathing, and to focus the mind on the act, and think less. You see, it's the active ticker-tape mind-chatter that is distracting from the higher meditative state. They think it's better to shut that mind-voice up.



Mandryka said:


> ....and even less about Jewish (Chasidic - but they gyrate and dance I think, like dervishes, so the music may not be what's working. )


I've heard some Sephardic Jewish chant, which reminds me of Indian music somewhat. There is a definite Spanish influence, and Moorish.












Mandryka said:


> ....And less still about Christian and Muslim and Pagan ideas about music and spirituality.
> I agree that the subject is interesting.


I'm more interested in discussing *sacred music* separated from any specifically religious, dogmatic, or textual connection; and exploring the commonalities in all such sacred music, which has sacred intent or can induce sacred states and empathy.

I don't want to chat about specifically religious ideas (Christian, Muslim, pagan, etc) of spirituality.


----------



## science

I've created a thread dedicated to raucous and wild sacred music. I did it in the non-classical sub-forum because I want it to be explicitly open to all kinds of music from all over the world rather than having it implicitly limited to the Western tradition, but I wanted to mention it here anyway because it was inspired by my objections to this thread's rather polemical definition of "sacred," and my desire to enjoy all the religious music out there that doesn't fit that definition.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I've created a thread dedicated to raucous and wild sacred music. I did it in the non-classical sub-forum because I want it to be explicitly open to all kinds of music from all over the world rather than having it implicitly limited to the Western tradition, but I wanted to mention it here anyway because it was inspired by my objections to this thread's rather polemical definition of "sacred," and my desire to enjoy all the religious music out there that doesn't fit that definition.


Ooo, that's a novel approach! Sneak up from behind, and defuse it from the other end. So, you're going to take your toys to another sandbox?

Uhh, you need to read the post where I talk about Billy Idol, and my brother in law. Sacred can be wild and noisy, too. Heard any good sacred bluegrass lately?

But really, my my 'polemical' definition probably has more to do with my age than anything else. As I get older, I need more peace and quiet.

And now, FORWARD! Into the SACRED NOW! Oh, boy, I can't wait until Friday!


----------



## millionrainbows

I just got through watching the *Steve Reich *DVD which contains the video collaborations _Hindenburg_ and_ Bikini _and _Dolly. _Unlike *Glass,* who has taken a decidedly Eastern path, Reich seems to have remained true to his Jewish heritage. All three of these videos concern Man's hubris, and what God might have to say about it, with scriptural verses frequently flashing down the screen which pertain to these incidents. This is definitely a 'sacred' statement, and it has specifically religious content and concern. This is because it was Reich's intent to create sacred art.

It's a very good offering, and the religious content is general enough, and relevantly inclusive enough, to be of value to all who see it.

Sacred music is happening right under the noses of us, right now, and in Reich's case, is a valuable commentary on current events. The critics who disparage the 'minimalist' composers are really blind, and missing out on some excellent art.


----------



## millionrainbows

And now, for one of my most controversial pronouncements:

_*John Cage's 4'33" is a sacred work, both for its artistic intention, which was sacred, and its artistic form, which meets all the requirements which I have proscribed. The experience of this work, as well, can induce a state of silent awareness which can be called 'sacred awareness.'
*_
All fundamentalist Christians and Seventh Day Adventists are invited to participate in performances of this work, and sit in silence, listening to the sacred sounds of being.

Don't worry, if people think you doing Eastern meditation, just say that you are experiencing an artwork instead.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> And now, for one of my most controversial pronouncements:
> 
> _*John Cage's 4'33" is a sacred work, both for its artistic intention, which was sacred, and its artistic form, which meets all the requirements which I have proscribed. The experience of this work, as well, can induce a state of silent awareness which can be called 'sacred awareness.'
> *_
> All fundamentalist Christians and Seventh Day Adventists are invited to participate in performances of this work, and sit in silence, listening to the sacred sounds of being.
> 
> Don't worry, if people think you doing Eastern meditation, just say that you are experiencing an artwork instead.


Not controversial at all. Just wrong!


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Not controversial at all. Just wrong!


*Ba-da-bing!! 
*


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> And now, for one of my most controversial pronouncements:
> 
> _*John Cage's 4'33" is a sacred work, both for its artistic intention, which was sacred, and its artistic form, which meets all the requirements which I have proscribed. The experience of this work, as well, can induce a state of silent awareness which can be called 'sacred awareness.'
> *_
> All fundamentalist Christians and Seventh Day Adventists are invited to participate in performances of this work, and sit in silence, listening to the sacred sounds of being.
> 
> Don't worry, if people think you doing Eastern meditation, just say that you are experiencing an artwork instead.


You might want to check the meaning of 'proscribed'.


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> Not controversial at all. Just wrong!


Oh, come on man. From your post I'm guessing you're a catholic/christian. And of course, nothing wrong with that. I think Jesus was an extremely wise and beautiful being. But when you start to sectionalize things in the name of your own faith, you're not doing much but showing the limitations of your own intellect. Jesus wasn't a christian…


----------



## Cosmos

It sounds like your criteria best describes "holy minimalism" (I put that in quotes because it isn't an organized school of writing and isn't localized in a single region, culture, or faith), and doesn't allow room for most sacred music


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, come on man. From your post I'm guessing you're a catholic/christian. And of course, nothing wrong with that. I think Jesus was an extremely wise and beautiful being. But when you start to sectionalize things in the name of your own faith, you're not doing much but showing the limitations of your own intellect. Jesus wasn't a christian…


How on earth can what I said be 'sectionalising things'? Whatever that might mean? Just think about what you're writing.
But you are right in saying a Jesus wasn't a Christian, of course. A Christian is a follower of a Jesus! So you did get that bit right!


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> How on earth can what I said be 'sectionalising things'? Whatever that might mean? Just think about what you're writing.
> But you are right in saying a Jesus wasn't a Christian, of course. A Christian is a follower of a Jesus! So you did get that bit right!


By saying something is 'wrong' you're implying that only what you believe is right… it's pretty straight forward.

What I'm saying is, Jesus didn't follow any doctrine - he was truly open to all existence. If you really want to follow him, then do the same.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> All fundamentalist Christians and Seventh Day Adventists


Is that as arbitrary as it seems?


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> By saying something is 'wrong' you're implying that only what you believe is right… it's pretty straight forward.
> 
> What I'm saying is, Jesus didn't follow any doctrine - he was truly open to all existence. If you really want to follow him, then do the same.


Sorry. Just read what Jesus taught and you'll see how wrong that statement is!


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> Sorry. Just read what Jesus taught and you'll see how wrong that statement is!


Reading doesn't equate to understanding.


----------



## millionrainbows

The essence of the truest experience of sacred music has to do entirely with our innate sense of the sacred, and absolutely nothing to do with religious ideology, belief, or scripture. It is a purely universal experience, which is the basis for all sacred music forms.

That religious music represents specific religions, beliefs, ethnicities, or ideologies, is essentially irrelevant in penetrating to the essence of the sacred music experience.

Like all art, if it is good, it conveys a universal message which is accessible to any receptive person, because it is the manifestation of universal human qualities.


----------



## Mandryka

I do not have a sense of the sacred. I think those who say they experience it have just learned to respond in that way to certain things, the teaching of religious ideologies.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> I do not have a sense of the sacred. I think those who say they experience it have just learned to respond in that way to certain things, the teaching of religious ideologies.


If you are human, you have an innate sense of the sacred.

It is unfortunate that religion has ruined that innate experience for many.


----------



## Celloman

Vesuvius said:


> By saying something is 'wrong' you're implying that only what you believe is right… it's pretty straight forward.


Many world religions are "exclusive" - meaning, "we are right and everyone else is wrong." It's not necessarily a bad thing. Billions of people do it.


----------



## Blake

Celloman said:


> Many world religions are "exclusive" - meaning, "we are right and everyone else is wrong." It's not necessarily a bad thing. Billions of people do it.


Actually, I'd say exclusivity is the main cause of wickedness and suffering in the world. We're all part of the same Life, but we sectionalize each other in billions of different ways causing a great distortion in the harmony of our species. We really think that nation, religion, culture are such a big deal that we'll kill each other for it. It's absurd.


----------



## Celloman

Vesuvius said:


> We really think that nation, religion, culture are such a big deal that we'll kill each other for it. It's absurd.


Exclusivity is not the problem. A tendency to think of your own needs before the needs of others is the real problem. Human nature is selfish. That's why we need the positive influence of 'sacred' music, among other things - to get back to the OP.


----------



## Blake

Celloman said:


> Exclusivity is not the problem. *A tendency to think of your own needs before the needs of others is the real problem*. Human nature is selfish. That's why we need the positive influence of 'sacred' music, among other things - to get back to the OP.


Well, sounds like exclusivity to me….


----------



## Celloman

Vesuvius said:


> Well, sounds like exclusivity to me….


Usually, one does not accept an 'exclusive' dogma for selfish reasons, but because he/she sincerely believes that the God or gods of that religion deserves their devotion and praise. They are focused upward, not inward.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Actually, I'd say exclusivity is the main cause of wickedness and suffering in the world. We're all part of the same Life, but we sectionalize each other in billions of different ways causing a great distortion in the harmony of our species. We really think that nation, religion, culture are such a big deal that we'll kill each other for it. It's absurd.





Vesuvius said:


> Well, sounds like exclusivity to me….


Exclusivity is an *exclusion,* which is different than an artwork or music which *expresses the individuality *of a culture or ethnicity, which is usually the domain of religion.

If we are talking about a Lexus, and the ads represent luxury, wealth and class, then that is exclusive, if only for financial reasons. But the sacred realm should be available to all.

If the art or music represents an exclusive belief system, then it is not universal in that regard. If a religious work of music is *so saturated *with the forms of its specific ethnicity, religious ideology, or other trappings, then in those senses it is not 'universal,' which is perfectly OK. It is an expression of that belief system or religion or ethnicity, which is totally natural.

But if an artwork is truly universal in its appeal, this gives it an 'extra special' power which a very specific-heavy music would not have. Art is more effective if it has* universal *elements which make it effective.

Yes, many forms of music and expressions of culture are 'advertisments' for that particular ethnicity or belief system. This is perfectly normal. I'm not sayong that everything, and everybody, has to be the same.

But we must look beyond the surface trappings if we are to penetrate to the universal essence of sacred music.

Admittedly, this might look awkward to some people, just like a 'white boy' singing the blues might look, or a yuppie doing a whirling dervish dance while holding a cup of Starbuck's coffee in each hand.

But if the 'form' of the music is flexible enough to have us ignore, or separate those surface elements into new, workable vehicles of expression, then we have a universal form, or at least a form which is flexible enough to undergo a 'morphing' process.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Exclusivity is an *exclusion,* which is different than an artwork or music which *expresses the individuality *of a culture or ethnicity, which is usually the domain of religion.
> 
> If we are talking about a Lexus, and the ads represent luxury or class, then that is exclusive, if only for financial reasons. But the sacred realm should be available to all. If the art or music represents an exclusive belief system, then it is not universal in that regard.


Roger that. Exclusivity for material/insentient things aren't the problem. This watch is a Rolex Daytona - that one is a Breitling Blackbird… no big deal. It's when we let this habit of exclusion function on the realm of sentient beings that it causes a problem.


----------



## millionrainbows

Celloman said:


> Many world religions are "exclusive" - meaning,"we are right and everyone else is wrong." It's not necessarily a bad thing. Billions of people do it.


True, that's perfectly OK. But in this thread, we are looking for and discussing *universal *elements, not exclusive ones.

By doing this, we are not saying specific exclusive elements are 'bad,' just that they must be set aside in order to penetrate to the universal essence of sacred music, if it is there.

I suppose it is possible to have a situation where the negatives outweighed the positives, although this is usually not the case.

Here is a hypothetical example:

I am listening to a religious song, and the text is _*"You are going to Hell unless you believe this dogma...You are going to Hell unless you believe this dogma...You are going to Hell unless you believe this dogma...",* _then_* this ideological content might be so distracting that it creates an inability to penetrate into the universal sacred essence of the music.
*_
In this sense, however, I would consider the ideological and dogmatic content of the music to have outweighed and overwhelmed any universal appeal which might have existed. In this sense, I would consider it to have failed as sacred art in the universal sense.

Likewise, if someone 'hijacks' a religious or sacred form to further a specific political agenda, like "Onward Christian Soldiers," which was written to drum-up military sentiment during WWI, or "God Bless America" for WWII, or perhaps an Islamic fundamentalist song which glorifies suicide bombers, then I would feel compelled to consider it to have* failed in the purity of its intent as being "sacred" in nature*, and a failure as art.

Likewise, if a religious work conveyed the idea that "we are right and everyone else is wrong," and this message is so dominant that it overwhelms the non-verbal nature of the music, then this ideological content must be set aside or ignored, if we are to appreciate its universal sacred essence of the art, if it contains any.

This is why instrumental music has an inherently broader, more flexible appeal than music with text. In the case of Bach's Cantatas, the music is not outshined by the text, so it works on a universal sacred level for me.


----------



## millionrainbows

It's possible to construe that the system of tonality itself, based on an hierarchy of sonance in relation to a single tonic note, as the harmonics of a fundamental note relate, is a "sacred" concept, since it relates every diverse harmonic function to a tonic, which becomes the "great note,' metaphorically representing God, "the one." These harmonic functions of Western tonality are based on the division of the octave into 12 notes, which was derived from Pythagoras' (imperfect) cycling of the 2:3 perfect fifth, with its inverted counterpart, the 4:5 perfect fourth.

Fifths are a value of 7 semitones, and fourths are 5 semitones. These are the only two intervals which do not coincide _within_ the octave or divide it evenly until many cycles of projection are completed; in the case of fifths, 12 x 7 = 84, and for fourths this is 12 x 5 = 60. These are the main harmonic stations of traditional tonality, which is based on root movement by fifths as being most closely related.

12 is not divisible by either of these intervals, so an 'outside the octave' common denominator must be used. This makes these intervals "outgoing" by nature.

The other basic intervals (of the 6 possible basic intervals, not counting inversional counterparts0) can be divided into 12:
1 (m2)
2 (M2)
3 (m3)
4 (M3)
6 (tritone)

These are intervals which coincide in their cycles or projections _within_ the octave, and divide it symmetrically, so I call these "inward-going" intervals.

Conversely, systems which are not tonal (based on harmonic models), but use local tone-centers and small divisions of the octave (geometric systems), like Bartok and most modern systems which diverge from harmonic-based hierarchies, are "inner-directed."

These two different systems represent what I have earlier called *"Western"* (outward-directed, objective), and *"Eastern"* (inward-directed, subjective).

If we continue to stretch this metaphor, we can see that each system represents a different way of conceiving a religious system, or approach to the sacred.

The Western represents an objective, outer system which must be approached in a receptive (and many times literal) belief in a God 'out there' which is part of the objective scheme of things. If anything, we are merely small extensions of this great oneness, if that. Until we establish a connection, we are separated.

The Eastern represents a 'going within,' a diametric reversal, where we are connected internally with the sacred. For me, this is a more inclusive model, as every being is assumed to have an inner connection with the sacred, with no recognition of external symbols necessary. For me, this precludes the establishment of 'objective' belief systems of religion.

On a number line, these two approaches, the inner and outer, can be seen as two directions to infinity: The Western going to the right, in ever-increasing numbers, from 1 into infinity; The Eastern going to the left, from 1 towards zero, in ever-decreasing degrees of fractions.

Both are based on the starting point of "1," the big note, or the octave.

*La Mont Young *is well-aware of this musical idea, and he fastidiously avoids 7-based and 5-based intervals.


----------



## millionrainbows

So, whaddaya think? If my metaphors are just wild speculation, at least I've got the numbers to back them up. Of course, nobody can prove any of this, but my point is that these things represent different ways of thinking about music, and how it is organized. Somebody, somewhere else, was trying to discount the "East/West" idea by referring back to Ravel & Debussy's "orientalism." I had to laugh; no, this is a little more involved than that, and besides, this is art, not science, so I think some artistic/metaphoric license is allowable here. 

After the laughter, I lamented the literalness of thought-style that most people seem to be stuck in. Not their fault entirely, they just seem to be stuck in a world that values literalness and mundane function more than metaphor, and see life as just a 'getting on with the business' of doing whatever it is we do. I often wonder what happened to art, to creativity, to humanity, to the discovery of individuals. Religion seems just an empty gesture. None of it is going to put groceries on the table, is it.

Yet, creativity and the individual expression, through art and music, of our humanity, seems to me to have be less valued today than ever before. Is there an "app" for that?


----------



## Cosmos

I'm not sure I agree with your definition of sacred, because (as others have mentioned) it excludes a large amount of religious and sacred works. However, it seems to include secular works. What comes to mind is the Silentium of Arvo Part's Tabula Rasa and the first two movements of Wojciech Kilar's Piano Concerto













I'm guessing (from other examples you posted, million) that you'd accept most works that falls under the so-called "holy minimalist" movement?


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Yet, creativity and the individual expression, through art and music, of our humanity, seems to me to have be less valued today than ever before. Is there an "app" for that?


The longing for a time were everything is then again looked at as a beautiful wonder, and not always requiring some college research ready to jam descriptions on every aspect of nature. All that stuff is great in doses, but good grief are we taking it too seriously or what? Let it be… let it be….

In comparison to the Cosmos, our brain isn't even the size of a microscopic bacterium on the face of the Earth, yet we truly believe we're going to solve the universe, haha.


----------



## millionrainbows

Cosmos said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your definition of sacred, because (as others have mentioned) it excludes a large amount of religious and sacred works. However, it seems to include secular works. What comes to mind is the Silentium of Arvo Part's Tabula Rasa and the first two movements of Wojciech Kilar's Piano Concerto.
> 
> I'm guessing (from other examples you posted, million) that you'd accept most works that falls under the so-called "holy minimalist" movement?


Well yes, I'm trying to make a more inclusive definition of sacred and sacred music. This is definitely Eastern in nature, since it ignores ideology, belief systems, text, or anything else that might get in the way of "us and God."

So which part of that do you disagree with? It's very open-ended, and a work in progress. Feel free to add a definition or example.


----------



## Cosmos

millionrainbows said:


> Well yes, I'm trying to make a more inclusive definition of sacred and sacred music. This is definitely Eastern in nature, since it ignores ideology, belief systems, text, or anything else that might get in the way of "us and God."
> 
> So which part of that do you disagree with? It's very open-ended, and a work in progress. Feel free to add a definition or example.


My personal definition for sacred/religious music is music that invokes religion. I disagree when you say that Verdi and Bach's works are more "propaganda" and that religious music should follow the basic framework of "drone quality, little rhythmic variation, monotonal, and repetitive." I think that excludes a lot of sacred works, like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Poulenc's Gloria, any Bach cantata, etc.


----------



## Blake

Cosmos said:


> *My personal definition for sacred/religious music is music that invokes religion*. I disagree when you say that Verdi and Bach's works are more "propaganda" and that religious music should follow the basic framework of "drone quality, little rhythmic variation, monotonal, and repetitive." I think that excludes a lot of sacred works, like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Poulenc's Gloria, any Bach cantata, etc.


You're actually closing off plenty of potentials with confining sacred/spiritual music to religion. Million's view is actually pretty wide-open in comparison. I don't know why you all keep complaining about his definition, it makes perfect sense. It's not completely disregarding religion, but understanding that the 'sacred' happens everyday whether it's deemed appropriate by religion or not.


----------



## Cosmos

Vesuvius said:


> You're actually closing off plenty of potentials with confining sacred/spiritual music to religion. Million's view is actually pretty wide-open in comparison. I don't know why you all keep complaining about his definition, it makes perfect sense. It's not completely disregarding religion, but understanding that the 'sacred' happens everyday whether it's deemed appropriate by religion or not.


I see what you mean. My definition of sacred is pretty restricted. Mainly because I'm atheist, so I don't believe that the sacred is something outside of religion.


----------



## Blake

Cosmos said:


> I see what you mean. My definition of sacred is pretty restricted. Mainly because I'm atheist, so I don't believe that the sacred is something outside of religion.


'Sacred' is sort of a controversial term. I'm not religious, but there is a beautiful 'pulse' of life running through every moment that I'm referring to as "sacred."


----------



## millionrainbows

Cosmos said:


> My personal definition for sacred/religious music is music that invokes religion. I disagree when you say that Verdi and Bach's works are more "propaganda" and that religious music should follow the basic framework of "drone quality, little rhythmic variation, monotonal, and repetitive." I think that excludes a lot of sacred works, like Beethoven's Missa Solemnis, Poulenc's Gloria, any Bach cantata, etc.


I'm not trying to establish a rigid, exclusive, inflexible definition of sacred music. In my opening post, I merely suggested that we try to compile a list of those qualities and requirements within listeners, which are 'universal' enough to be defined as_ constants _of sacred music.

If music invokes religion, that is more restrictive than my open-ended approach. If, on the other hand, that same religious music is able to bypass the ideological specifics of its cultural form, and possess a 'universal' quality, then those specific qualities are what I'm interested in exploring. I think it is 'imminently do-able,' even with the works you mentioned.

A work like Missa Solemnis is by nature a 'religious drama,' or a *narrative* story involving a monumental struggle between "doubt and belief", and at 90 minutes is a very long work. He was determined to "do justice to the fundamental truth of the text", so in a very real sense, this music is serving a narrative, textual purpose rather than a fully musical one. It 'respects' the text.

So in a major way, this work is serving an extra-musical function, and is very specifically designed to amplify specific religious beliefs and purposes; so, in this sense, it is very definitely 'propaganda' for a specific religious purpose.

In my approach, we would examine the various elements, and focus on those overall elements or parts which exhibit the most *universal *sense of the sacred which "transcend" specific religious ideology.

In *Missa Solemnis,* this would be the _*Benedictus,*_ with its slower harmonic movement, 'floating' quality, beautiful violin solo, and calm-inducing mood.

In my ongoing, open-ended definition of sacred music, this is most ideally expressed as a purely musical form. 
Scripture-based religions, like Islam, Judaism, and Christianity seem to consider the written word to have a great significance, and thus will be prone to place great importance on the textual aspect, even to the point of music serving, enhancing, or amplifying the text.

This is all well & good, but it makes the work more specific to that religious text, and therefore less flexible as a universal form.

Since I'm really more interested in music and the sensual experience of art, rather than religious ideology or music which serves to reinforce any particular religious belief I might hold, then my approach to sacred music requires that it free itself from ideological and textual purposes, and be successful as 'pure music' in this universal, flexible sense which lies beyond thought expressed as words or narrative text.


----------



## Cosmos

Ok I see what you're getting at


----------



## Wood

Millions, I've just read 9 pages of this stuff, and I still don't know what you mean by sacred. 

Do you?

Please define it for us. Please.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> Millions, I've just read 9 pages of this stuff, and I still don't know what you mean by sacred.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Please define it for us. Please.


Haha, I've found that when it comes to guys like mill and science that it's beneficial to simply read between the lines because they have the tendency to get very wordy while rambling down the twisty avenues of their mind.

Simply put, he was trying to look beyond the superficialities of discriminative thought to see if there's a collective essence that relates to all sacred experiences.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, I've found that when it comes to guys like mill and science that it's beneficial to simply read between the lines because *they have the tendency to get very wordy while rambling down the twisty avenues of their mind. *
> 
> Simply put, he was trying to look beyond the superficialities of discriminative thought to see if there's a collective essence that relates to all sacred experiences.


What a brilliant and concise way to sum up these two Members' postings. 

Okay, but what is this sacred experience?


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> What a brilliant and concise way to sum up these two Members postings.
> 
> Okay, but what is this sacred experience?


I'd suppose a certain clarity of perspective. The personal delusions subside and our natural connectivity with the rest of life shows itself.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> I'd suppose a certain clarity of perspective. The personal delusions subside and our natural connectivity with the rest of life shows itself.


I'm starting to get it. He may mean that.

So sacred in the sense of some inviolable truth or truths which have nothing to do with religion.

Yes, that's it! Religions have their sacred texts, but they are only sacred for the believers. Millions is postulating that there are universal truths, regardless of religion, and these truths can be accessed through music.

What is the nature of these universals? Please tell me, in case I've missed it in the last 9 pages. I don't want to read them over again, to find out whether or not these gems have already been shared with us.


----------



## Blake

I certainly won't spoil all the fun for you. :tiphat:


----------



## science

Wood said:


> I'm starting to get it. He may mean that.
> 
> So sacred in the sense of some inviolable truth or truths which have nothing to do with religion.
> 
> Yes, that's it! Religions have their sacred texts, but they are only sacred for the believers. Millions is postulating that there are universal truths, regardless of religion, and these truths can be accessed through music.
> 
> What is the nature of these universals? Please tell me, in case I've missed it in the last 9 pages. I don't want to read them over again, to find out whether or not these gems have already been shared with us.


We're in the realm of the unanswerable here. If I say, "X, Y, and Z are the universal sacred values" or whatever, it's clearly a theological statement (and an autobiographical one) rather than a revelation about "the universal sacred" whatever.

We don't need the likes of Huston Smith or Mircea Eliade or Aldous Huxley or Frithjof Schuon or whoever to tell us things that are actually universal among humans. Those dudes and millionrainbows in his way among them are engaged in a theological project rather than a social scientific one.


----------



## Wood

science said:


> We're in the realm of the unanswerable here. If I say, "X, Y, and Z are the universal sacred values" or whatever, it's clearly a theological statement (and an autobiographical one) rather than a revelation about "the universal sacred" whatever.
> 
> We don't need the likes of Huston Smith or Mircea Eliade or Aldous Huxley or Frithjof Schuon or whoever to tell us things that are actually universal among humans. Those dudes and millionrainbows in his way among them are engaged in a theological project rather than a social scientific one.


Yup. Re-reading the OP it seems that he is postulating another form of religious practice, like Buddhism or something.


----------



## science

Wood said:


> Yup. Re-reading the OP it seems that he is postulating another form of religious practice, like Buddhism or something.


Which could be a very good thing, especially recognized as what it is rather than presumed to be everything it aspires to be.


----------



## Wood

science said:


> Which could be a very good thing, especially recognized as what it is rather than presumed to be everything it aspires to be.


Yes.

Alternatively, it could be tweaked into something therapeutic, like a music equivalent of Mindfulness for example.


----------



## science

Wood said:


> Yes.
> 
> Alternatively, it could be tweaked into something therapeutic, like a music equivalent of Mindfulness for example.


He seems to have something like trance in mind, but maybe they're more closely related than we usually realize!


----------



## Blake

science said:


> We're in the realm of the unanswerable here. If I say, "X, Y, and Z are the universal sacred values" or whatever, it's clearly a theological statement (and an autobiographical one) rather than a revelation about "the universal sacred" whatever.
> 
> We don't need the likes of Huston Smith or Mircea Eliade or Aldous Huxley or Frithjof Schuon or whoever to tell us things that are actually universal among humans. Those dudes and millionrainbows in his way among them are engaged in a theological project rather than a social scientific one.


Maybe, but I just don't see how looking for universal characteristics of what people deem 'sacred' is not a type of science. He's been very scientific in his approach. No, there isn't the "hard-facts" that so many get stuck on, even though hard-facts usually aren't that hard at all… as they're the first to go. This type of investigation is one of intuition, and we are all beings on a similar level of manifestation here, so we should be able to relate each other our experiences and see if they're finding the same thing… diving in oneself and discovering layers of connective intuition have been done for thousands of years. We just can't measure it in the traditional sense of science, but that's a fault of science and not a short-coming of the exploration.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Maybe, but I just don't see how looking for universal characteristics of what people deem 'sacred' is not a type of science. He's been very scientific in his approach. No, there isn't the "hard-facts" that so many get stuck on, even though hard-facts usually aren't that hard at all… as they're the first to go. This type of investigation is one of intuition, and we are all beings on a similar level of manifestation here, so we should be able to relate each other our experiences and see if they're finding the same thing… diving in oneself and discovering layers of connective intuition have been done for thousands of years. We just can't measure it in the traditional sense of science, but that's a fault of science and not a short-coming of the exploration.


I'm still having trouble with these universals. Better than bunions I suppose.

I think you are looking for quantifiable experiences, achieved during these sacred states, ie something that can be described such as a feeling of inner calm for example, whereas Millions is on a higher metaphysical plane, seeking a universal spiritually which cannot be described other than with platitudes about gods and holy ones etc?


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> I'm still having trouble with these universals. Better than bunions I suppose.
> 
> I think you are looking for quantifiable experiences, achieved during these sacred states, ie something that can be described such as a feeling of inner calm for example, whereas Millions is on a higher metaphysical plane, seeking a universal spiritually which cannot be described other than with platitudes about gods and holy ones etc?


Any experience is going to be of the mind. No one has ever tasted anything outside of the mind. Gods, demons, angels, and Satan are all simply manifestations of the mind. However, there seems to be this 'solid state' of awareness that the mind and all it's manifestations plays in. This original and unmovable state of being is what I'm referring to.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Millions, I've just read 9 pages of this stuff, and I still don't know what you mean by sacred.
> 
> Do you?
> 
> Please define it for us. Please.


Sometimes an 'inquiry' is too short, too pithy, and too general to be a genuine inquiry. Sometimes these types of 'inquiries' are just statements designed to express disdain. Do you meditate?


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Any experience is going to be of the mind. No one has ever tasted anything outside of the mind. Gods, demons, angels, and Satan are all simply manifestations of the mind. However, there seems to be this 'solid state' of awareness that the mind and all it's manifestations plays in. This original and unmovable state of being is what I'm referring to.


Yes, that is so accurate. For me, it's like going two directions in a spiral. The further out from the center you get, the more "mind" oriented and external things become. To me, this is the great failure of scriptural-based religions. Too literal, more concerned with meanings and definitions than with 'being.'


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> I'm still having trouble with these universals. *Better than bunions I suppose.
> *
> I think you are looking for quantifiable experiences, achieved during these sacred states, ie something that can be described such as a feeling of inner calm for example,* whereas Millions is on a higher metaphysical plane, seeking a universal spiritually which cannot be described other than with platitudes about gods and holy ones etc*?


...............?


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> I'm still having trouble with these universals.


Universal to all human beings. This is our sacred birthright; we are part of the sacred. We are connected. As soon as you realize this, you will know.

Furthermore, this universal connectedness with the sacred is not defined by religion, ideology, or culture; these are externals.

If you wish to deny this universal quality of the sacred, and replace it with a specific religious ideology or belief system, and then try to convince other people that this is the 'true way,' then go right ahead, and good luck with that.

For myself, religion is only a tool, a means, which came after the sacred fact of being. I don't see any problem with that. At least it doesn't insecurely and desperately try to defend a religious belief system, which many here seem to have attached their entire world-view paradigm to. All you have to do to experience my version of the sacred is simply 'be.'


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> Any experience is going to be of the mind. No one has ever tasted anything outside of the mind. Gods, demons, angels, and Satan are all simply manifestations of the mind. However, there seems to be this 'solid state' of awareness that the mind and all it's manifestations plays in. This original and unmovable state of being is what I'm referring to.


So the breakfast I tasted this morning wasn't really there? A manifestation of my mind?
Everything we experience comes through our minds. But it doesn't mean it is 'all in the mind'!


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> So the breakfast I tasted this morning wasn't really there? A manifestation of my mind?
> Everything we experience comes through our minds. But it doesn't mean it is 'all in the mind'!


How would you know? You've never experienced anything outside of your mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> So the breakfast I tasted this morning wasn't really there? A manifestation of my mind?
> Everything we experience comes through our minds. But it doesn't mean it is 'all in the mind'!


I think you need a good metaphor. When the wind blows through the tall grass, we see a ripple of movement, of the grass moving, reacting, which is the 'effect' of the wind. But the wind is invisible, we only see its effect. 
So, the mind is like that grass. It moves and produces all kinds of phenomena, but essentially it is a manifestation of something deeper and invisible.

It might be that, because we are predators who need to survive that the mind developed in this way.

Then again, our spirits might have been captured by Thetans in a great space battle many centuries ago.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Any experience is going to be of the mind. No one has ever tasted anything outside of the mind. Gods, demons, angels, and Satan are all simply manifestations of the mind. However, there seems to be this 'solid state' of awareness that the mind and all it's manifestations plays in. This original and unmovable state of being is what I'm referring to.


Is that a fancy way of describing existence?


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> Sometimes an 'inquiry' is too short, too pithy, and too general to be a genuine inquiry. Sometimes these types of 'inquiries' are just statements designed to express disdain. Do you meditate?


It was a genuine enquiry borne of forum fatigue and frustration. Relax, there was no disdain aimed at yourself chum.

No, I do not meditate. Why?


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> ...............?


Its better to be confused by metaphysics than suffer from bunions, that's all.

I was mistaken in any case, Vesuvius seems to be up with you.


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> Universal to all human beings. This is our sacred birthright; we are part of the sacred. We are connected. As soon as you realize this, you will know.
> 
> Furthermore, this universal connectedness with the sacred is not defined by religion, ideology, or culture; these are externals.
> 
> If you wish to deny this universal quality of the sacred, and replace it with a specific religious ideology or belief system, and then try to convince other people that this is the 'true way,' then go right ahead, and good luck with that.
> 
> For myself, religion is only a tool, a means, which came after the sacred fact of being. I don't see any problem with that. At least it doesn't insecurely and desperately try to defend a religious belief system, which many here seem to have attached their entire world-view paradigm to. All you have to do to experience my version of the sacred is simply 'be.'


Does this mean anything more than that we all exist?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Maybe, but I just don't see how looking for universal characteristics of what people deem 'sacred' is not a type of science. He's been very scientific in his approach. No, there isn't the "hard-facts" that so many get stuck on, even though hard-facts usually aren't that hard at all… as they're the first to go. This type of investigation is one of intuition, and we are all beings on a similar level of manifestation here, so we should be able to relate each other our experiences and see if they're finding the same thing… diving in oneself and discovering layers of connective intuition have been done for thousands of years. We just can't measure it in the traditional sense of science, but that's a fault of science and not a short-coming of the exploration.


Well, even if we're only investigating our own psychology, I'm not sure intuition is a reliable guide to it.

If we stick strictly to a phenomenological approach, that's fine - that's wonderful actually - but I don't see that happening here.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> Is that a fancy way of describing existence?


Could be, haha. But really, I was trying to be as cut and dry as possible. It really shouldn't be complicated, but so many seem to be confused.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Well, even if we're only investigating our own psychology, I'm not sure intuition is a reliable guide to it.
> 
> *If we stick strictly to a phenomenological approach, that's fine - that's wonderful actually - but I don't see that happening here*.


Yep, we're too busy fussing about the basics to really get anywhere….


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Wood said:


> Its better to be confused by metaphysics than suffer from bunions, that's all.
> 
> I was mistaken in any case, Vesuvius seems to be up with you.


Really?

_"[The] metaphysician is one who, when you remark that twice two makes four, demands to know what you mean by twice, what you by two, and what by makes, and what by four. For asking such questions metaphysicians are supported in oriental luxury in the universities, and respected as educated and intelligent men."_

- H.L. Mencken

Just subsitute the word "post-modernist" for "metaphysician" and you have the truth of the matter for our times.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Yep, we're too busy fussing about the basics to really get anywhere….


Actually I don't think anybody is stopping us from doing it.

I'll read up a little if we're actually going to do this!


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Actually I don't think anybody is stopping us from doing it.
> 
> I'll read up a little if we're actually going to do this!


The entire time I've been mentioning experiences or states that can be achieved by anyone if really looked into. I've done nothing else. Just look within yourself and stop letting your attention drift off with your thoughts. The answers will come to you. I'm not in this for the 'thrill' of the academics, and having a properly cited research paper. That type of dance just doesn't interest me.

But I can see this type of approach is too abstract, and lacking the cement your mind wants to play on.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> The entire time I've been mentioning experiences or states that can be achieved by anyone if really looked into. I've done nothing else. Just look within yourself and stop letting your attention drift off with your thoughts. The answers will come to you. I'm not in this for the 'thrill' of the academics, and having a properly cited research paper. That type of dance just doesn't interest me.
> 
> But I can see this type of approach is too abstract, and lacking the cement your mind wants to play on.


Too abstract? There's no need to be insulting.

Also, I'm not proposing a research paper or anything. That's sort of an exaggeration, right? But I do care about my intellectual projects having some validity beyond solipsistic introspection. I can introspect my entire life and the only thing I'll know about is my own introspections. I want to know what other people have found in their explorations as well.

And just for the sake of full disclosure, there is no way I'm actually going to limit myself to phenomenological self-exploration. That can be a tool, but it is not going to be my only tool!


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Too abstract? There's no need to be insulting.
> 
> Also, I'm not proposing a research paper or anything. That's sort of an exaggeration, right? But I do care about my intellectual projects having some validity beyond solipsistic introspection. I can introspect my entire life and the only thing I'll know about is my own introspections. I want to know what other people have found in their explorations as well.
> 
> And just for the sake of full disclosure, there is no way I'm actually going to limit myself to phenomenological self-exploration. That can be a tool, but it is not going to be my only tool!


Nah, I'm not trying to insult. I like you. I'm just trying to say that the textbook answers you're looking for aren't there. And if you do find them, it will just be a temporary projection of your mind.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Nah, I'm not trying to insult. I like you. I'm just trying to say that the textbook answers you're looking for aren't there. And if you do find them, it will just be a temporary projection of your mind.


What do you mean by "textbook answers?"


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> How would you know? You've never experienced anything outside of your mind.


Maybe it just is. Like this post I am writing. The I-pad isn't really here - just a product of my mind. Like your theories!


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think you need a good metaphor. When the wind blows through the tall grass, we see a ripple of movement, of the grass moving, reacting, which is the 'effect' of the wind. But the wind is invisible, we only see its effect.
> So, the mind is like that grass. It moves and produces all kinds of phenomena, but essentially it is a manifestation of something deeper and invisible.
> 
> It might be that, because we are predators who need to survive that the mind developed in this way.
> 
> Then again, our spirits might have been captured by Thetans in a great space battle many centuries ago.


Actually, Jesus used the same metaphor!

No, it's not the metaphor I used that is the problem at all. When people talk about experiences just being in the mind they simply do not realise the argument can be applied across-the-board to every experience as every experience goes through the mind to be registered.


----------



## DavidA

science said:


> Well, even if we're only investigating our own psychology, I'm not sure intuition is a reliable guide to it.
> 
> If we stick strictly to a phenomenological approach, that's fine - that's wonderful actually - but I don't see that happening here.


Your problem comes with what you count as phenomenological.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> What do you mean by "textbook answers?"


Deducing purely based on concrete reasonings. Using these intellectual tools are great, but everything concrete deteriorates, and most of the Universe is fundamentally inexplicable when you get down to the origins of what mind and matter really are.



DavidA said:


> Maybe it just is. Like this post I am writing. The I-pad isn't really here - just a product of my mind. Like your theories!


And you are a product of your own imagination. :tiphat:


----------



## Wood

Marschallin Blair said:


> Really?
> 
> _"[The] metaphysician is one who, when you remark that twice two makes four, demands to know what you mean by twice, what you by two, and what by makes, and what by four. For asking such questions metaphysicians are supported in oriental luxury in the universities, and respected as educated and intelligent men."_
> 
> - H.L. Mencken
> 
> Just subsitute the word "post-modernist" for "metaphysician" and you have the truth of the matter for our times.


Oh, you really don't like those post-moderns do you?

Music or general?


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Could be, haha. But really, I was trying to be as cut and dry as possible. It really shouldn't be complicated, but so many seem to be confused.


I think Millions has lost nearly everyone here, just you and Science keeping up, and me hanging on to his coat tails.

It can be confusing for those of us who haven't read the same books to follow when you guys are summarising, in just a few paragraphs, philosophy that you have read and thought deeply about. For example, when Millions uses terms like 'sacred' and 'universal', we think of these words in terms of how they are used day to day, not how a philosopher or school of thought may have analysed or discussed them.

So all we can do, as laymen, is read what you all write, and try to make sense of the words in front of us without having the advantage of this specific background.

I'm still unsure whether there is some implication coming from Millions that if we meditate with the right music, Reich's Drumming or something, we will 'see the light' or some such thing. Is that what he is getting at, or is it more banal, that we will just empty our thoughts and feel calm?

I'm happy to give it a shot, if none of you are looking, and report back, but like many, I'm still not sure what we really have to do and what we are looking for.

Nevertheless, it is entertaining, and I'm happy to persist.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Deducing purely based on concrete reasonings. Using these intellectual tools are great, but everything concrete deteriorates, and most of the Universe is fundamentally inexplicable when you get down to the origins of what mind and matter really are.
> 
> And you are a product of your own imagination. :tiphat:


I suppose when someone dies we can consider that a failure of their imagination?

Well, I'm glad you put these together. We are simply not going to agree. It's not because I'm closed-minded or afraid of abstraction or trying to publish an academic paper. Perhaps we can't agree about that either. But I'll go on with what I take to be the reason.

Epistemologically, I am a pragmatist (as I think we all are to some degree) and the idea that everything is just a product of my imagination (or any other part of my mind) is useless to me. I'm going to go on trying to match up my personal ideas about the world to what appears to be an actual world out there that existed before me and will exist after me and exists independently of me.

And while perhaps at some deeeeeeep "fundamental" level we can't explain what mind and matter really are, introspection is probably just an exploration of our illusions, and it isn't going to get us even nearly close to figuring that stuff out. What will get us closer and closer are activities like neurobiology and physics.


----------



## science

Wood said:


> I'm still unsure whether there is some implication coming from Millions that if we meditate with the right music, Reich's Drumming or something, we will 'see the light' or some such thing. Is that what he is getting at, or is it more banal, that we will just empty our thoughts and feel calm?


That's a great question!



Wood said:


> I'm happy to give it a shot, if none of you are looking, and report back, but like many, I'm still not sure what we really have to do and what we are looking for.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is entertaining, and I'm happy to persist.


One thing to be sure of is that if you don't have the experience you're supposed to have, you will be blamed rather than the theory. That isn't just true of millionrainbows; that's how everything of this sort works!


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I suppose when someone dies we can consider that a failure of their imagination?
> 
> Well, I'm glad you put these together. We are simply not going to agree. It's not because I'm closed-minded or afraid of abstraction or trying to publish an academic paper. Perhaps we can't agree about that either. But I'll go on with what I take to be the reason.
> 
> Epistemologically, I am a pragmatist (as I think we all are to some degree) and the idea that everything is just a product of my imagination (or any other part of my mind) is useless to me. I'm going to go on trying to match up my personal ideas about the world to what appears to be an actual world out there that existed before me and will exist after me and exists independently of me.
> 
> And while perhaps at some deeeeeeep "fundamental" level we can't explain what mind and matter really are, introspection is probably just an exploration of our illusions, and it isn't going to get us even nearly close to figuring that stuff out. What will get us closer and closer are activities like neurobiology and physics.


Nothing will ever get you closer to yourself than you already are. Like I said, you're constantly imagining your reality…. You are experiencing nothing outside of your own mind. And you cannot truthfully say it came from somewhere else, because that somewhere else is also in your mind...


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Nothing will ever get you closer to yourself than you already are. Like I said, you're constantly imagining your reality…. You are experiencing nothing outside of your own mind. And you cannot truthfully say it came from somewhere else, because that somewhere else is also in your mind...


The words you write literally mean our senses (sight, touch, etc.) are nothing but projections of our imaginations. Do you really believe that?


----------



## Blake

science said:


> The words you write literally mean our senses (sight, touch, etc.) are nothing but projections of our imaginations. Do you really believe that?


I don't believe it. But I don't disbelieve it. Do you guys really believe that you all are experiencing things outside of your mind? How can anyone make such a claim that anything exist outside of their mind?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I don't believe it. But I don't disbelieve it. Do you guys really believe that you all are experiencing things outside of your mind? How can anyone make such a claim that anything exist outside of their mind?


I concede immediately the point that we have no knowledge (excepting pure math) in the philosophical sense of "knowledge." Nothing can be proven to an imaginative, intelligent skeptic. So what do we do? I think what we do is pragmatism (epistemologically). Proceeding as if the world is a figment of my imagination doesn't work nearly as well as proceeding as if it is something in which I exist. So I operate on the latter hypothesis as long as it continues to work better.

Pragmatism (for me) is synonymous with the drive to minimize faith, to accept things as they appear to be (given the data so far), rather than trying to assert some worldview onto them.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I concede immediately the point that we have no knowledge (excepting pure math) in the philosophical sense of "knowledge." Nothing can be proven to an imaginative, intelligent skeptic. So what do we do? I think what we do is pragmatism (epistemologically). Proceeding as if the world is a figment of my imagination doesn't work nearly as well as proceeding as if it is something in which I exist. So I operate on the latter hypothesis as long as it continues to work better.
> 
> Pragmatism (for me) is synonymous with the drive to minimize faith, to accept things as they appear to be (given the data so far), rather than trying to assert some worldview onto them.


Sounds reasonable enough... But, you would first have to find out for certain what you really are. Most are running their entire life based on a mental image they have of themselves, and are constantly serving that image based on social conditioning and instinct. Are you the body with an individual consciousness, or were you the consciousness first that picked up an individual body? Can any of this really be proven with hard science?


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> I think Millions has lost nearly everyone here, just you and Science keeping up, and me hanging on to his coat tails.
> 
> It can be confusing for those of us who haven't read the same books to follow when you guys are summarising, in just a few paragraphs, philosophy that you have read and thought deeply about. For example, when Millions uses terms like 'sacred' and 'universal', we think of these words in terms of how they are used day to day, not how a philosopher or school of thought may have analysed or discussed them.
> 
> So all we can do, as laymen, is read what you all write, and try to make sense of the words in front of us without having the advantage of this specific background.
> 
> I'm still unsure whether there is some implication coming from Millions that if we meditate with the right music, Reich's Drumming or something, we will 'see the light' or some such thing. Is that what he is getting at, or is it more banal, that we will just empty our thoughts and feel calm?
> 
> I'm happy to give it a shot, if none of you are looking, and report back, but like many, I'm still not sure what we really have to do and what we are looking for.
> 
> Nevertheless, it is entertaining, and I'm happy to persist.


 New Conceptions of Musical Time*Linear time:* Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
*Nonlinear time:* Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.

Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.

*Moment Form:* broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.

*Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
*Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.

In this sense, a work such as* Beethoven's Missa Solemnis *is not a good candidate for "universal' sacred music, except maybe the _*Benedictus.*_ Nobody seems to have gotten this distinction, as no one commented on it in any depth.

A "narrative" work like *Missa Solemnis *is more like a 'proclamation of faith' rather than an attempt to induce a sacred state. This exemplifies the difference in approach between East and West.

My approach to the sacred is more to the East, because I seek in such music to "tune in" and_ resonate with the sacred nature of being,_ rather than following a 'narrative' or proclamation (yawn, this preaching is making me sleepy) which serves to reinforce my belief system by sheer assertion. I find that to be more of a literary thing than a musical one.

I think the contrast between "vertical" and "linear" (horizontal) is often confused. Is *vertical time *even possible? Yes, if you give consciousness itself first priority, and consider the "horizontal, linear passage of time" to be illusory. In this vertical sense, all we have is "now," and conscious experience becomes a "moving point." Anyone with "Pro Tools" has seen this moving point.

Of course, to get to this vertical point, one must give up the_ objectification _of time into a linear passage. This illustrates quite clearly the difference between Eastern (subjective) thinking and Western (objective) thinking.
​


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Sounds reasonable enough... But, *you would first have to find out for certain what you really are. *Most are running their entire life based on a mental image they have of themselves, and are constantly serving that image based on social conditioning and instinct. Are you the body with an individual consciousness, or were you the consciousness first that picked up an individual body? Can any of this really be proven with hard science?


The part in bold is not apparent to me. Why do we have to find that out "for certain" and "first?"


----------



## Blake

science said:


> The part in bold is not apparent to me. Why do we have to find that out "for certain" and "first?"


Because if you don't know yourself then you will never truly know what anything else is. How can you understand the world when your very seat of perception is that of ignorance? You look with confusion, you see confusion.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Because if you don't know yourself then you will never truly know what anything else is. How can you understand the world when your very seat of perception is that of ignorance? You look with confusion, you see confusion.


"Truly know?" I don't know about that. It sounds like maybe "truly know" is meant to be something more special somehow than just "know," and in that case, I'll have to take your word for it. And if you meant "truly know" in the glorious philosophical sense of knowledge, I'll tell you can never know yourself or anything else.

But as for just ordinary "know," I'm not counting on myself to figure things out.

I figure I'll just quote something I wrote for DavidA in the other thread:



science said:


> You don't have to convince _me_. I'm not an expert in the field. You have to convince the experts. What they agree to, I accept as most likely the best theory at the moment.
> 
> Fortunately, the enterprise of science doesn't depend on scientists being unbiased. Nothing that depends on that is going to work well. It depends on aligning their incentives in (for the most part) the right way, so that the community as a whole can counteract its members biases. It's not the kind of thing that is going to consistently deliver perfect answers in a timely fashion - it's messy, it's complicated, it's contentious - but as long as the community continues to enforce the rules (no private revelation, repeatable results, an irrevocable end of your career if you're caught cheating) that get the incentives right, the community will stumble inevitably to better and better theories - closer and closer to "the truth" insofar as it can be known without private revelation.


What that is here for right now is that I'm not approaching anything solipsistically. If I were alone in my search for knowledge, I'd never find much. Fortunately, I'm part of a massive community that has existed for thousands of years, and collectively we've figured out quite a few things.

So, although I would have absolutely no idea what "I really am" without the help of biology and cognitive psychology and so on, and even with them right now we're just beginning to begin to begin to figure that out, it's not necessary for me to cleanse my doors of perception or whatever for us to figure it out.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> "Truly know?" I don't know about that. It sounds like maybe "truly know" is meant to be something more special somehow than just "know," and in that case, I'll have to take your word for it. And if you meant "truly know" in the glorious philosophical sense of knowledge, I'll tell you can never know yourself or anything else.
> 
> But as for just ordinary "know," I'm not counting on myself to figure things out.
> 
> I figure I'll just quote something I wrote for DavidA in the other thread:
> 
> What that is here for right now is that I'm not approaching anything solipsistically. If I were alone in my search for knowledge, I'd never find much. Fortunately, I'm part of a massive community that has existed for thousands of years, and collectively we've figured out quite a few things.
> 
> So, although I would have absolutely no idea what "I really am" without the help of biology and cognitive psychology and so on, and even with them right now we're just beginning to begin to begin to figure that out, it's not necessary for me to cleanse my doors of perception or whatever for us to figure it out.


Sure, do what you want and follow your path. The overtly intellectual road is a frustrating and unfruitful one; just a friendly warning. That's why most of these "experts" are completely restless… If they really found something worthwhile it would bring them to silence and contentment, but it's done the opposite for many.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Sure, do what you want and follow your path. The overtly intellectual road is a frustrating and unfruitful one; just a friendly warning. That's why most of these "experts" are completely restless… If they really found something worthwhile it would bring them to silence and contentment, but it's done the opposite for many.


That's just your imagination!

Anyway, I'm more interested in knowledge than in contentment. Fortunately so, since I doubt any worldview or intellectual path is going to bring me contentment. The process of learning is probably more satisfying to me than any set of conclusions could be; but even if it did turn out that some particular worldview could offer me contentment provided that I drop my skepticism, I just would never be able to get there. That's who I am!

So I'll seek contentment (to the degree that it is possible) in personal relationships, learning, music, nature, etc.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Sure, do what you want and follow your path. The overtly intellectual road is a frustrating and unfruitful one; just a friendly warning. That's why most of these "experts" are completely restless… If they really found something worthwhile it would bring them to silence and contentment, but it's done the opposite for many.


That's just your imagination!

Anyway, I'm more interested in knowledge than in contentment. Fortunately so, since I doubt any worldview or intellectual path is going to bring me contentment. The process of learning is probably more satisfying to me than any set of conclusions could be; but even if it did turn out that some particular worldview could offer me contentment provided that I drop my skepticism, I just would never be able to get there. That's who I am!

So I'll seek contentment (to the degree that it is possible) in personal relationships, learning, music, nature, etc.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> New Conceptions of Musical Time*Linear time:* Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
> *Nonlinear time:* Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.
> 
> Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.
> 
> *Moment Form:* broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.
> 
> *Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
> *Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.
> 
> In this sense, a work such as* Beethoven's Missa Solemnis *is not a good candidate for "universal' sacred music, except maybe the _*Benedictus.*_ Nobody seems to have gotten this distinction, as no one commented on it in any depth.
> 
> A "narrative" work like *Missa Solemnis *is more like a 'proclamation of faith' rather than an attempt to induce a sacred state. This exemplifies the difference in approach between East and West.
> 
> My approach to the sacred is more to the East, because I seek in such music to "tune in" and_ resonate with the sacred nature of being,_ rather than following a 'narrative' or proclamation (yawn, this preaching is making me sleepy) which serves to reinforce my belief system by sheer assertion. I find that to be more of a literary thing than a musical one.
> 
> I think the contrast between "vertical" and "linear" (horizontal) is often confused. Is *vertical time *even possible? Yes, if you give consciousness itself first priority, and consider the "horizontal, linear passage of time" to be illusory. In this vertical sense, all we have is "now," and conscious experience becomes a "moving point." Anyone with "Pro Tools" has seen this moving point.
> 
> Of course, to get to this vertical point, one must give up the_ objectification _of time into a linear passage. This illustrates quite clearly the difference between Eastern (subjective) thinking and Western (objective) thinking.
> ​


Given that you're unwilling to empirically justify your use of "Eastern" and "Western," why don't you just use "subjective" and "objective" or "inward" and "outward" or something like that rather than perpetuating the old dehumanizing colonialist projections on half the people in the world?

(I should've said "unwilling to attempt." I don't believe anyone can justify these stereotypes.)


----------



## Blake

science said:


> That's just your imagination!
> 
> Anyway, I'm more interested in knowledge than in contentment. Fortunately so, since I doubt any worldview or intellectual path is going to bring me contentment. The process of learning is probably more satisfying to me than any set of conclusions could be; but even if it did turn out that some particular worldview could offer me contentment provided that I drop my skepticism, I just would never be able to get there. That's who I am!
> 
> So I'll seek contentment (to the degree that it is possible) in personal relationships, learning, music, nature, etc.


I'm a bit confused by this. You don't want contentment, yet your main goal is the search for knowledge? You do understand that knowledge is a conclusion right? Maybe you just like the journey, and you really don't want the knowledge.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Given that you're unwilling to empirically justify your use of "Eastern" and "Western," why don't you just use "subjective" and "objective" or "inward" and "outward" or something like that rather than perpetuating the old dehumanizing colonialist projections on half the people in the world?
> 
> (I should've said "unwilling to attempt." I don't believe anyone can justify these stereotypes.)


I like the terms, and I associate those qualities of each with their cultures. Western classical music is the basis of this forum, and the ideas which are diametrically different to this tradition are Eastern in origin.

Additionally, I assert that early Christian chant had more _Eastern_ influence, but as harmony developed and more voices were added, became more_ Western _as we now know it.


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> New Conceptions of Musical Time*Linear time:* Music that imparts a sense of linear time seems to move towards goals. This quality permeates virtually all of Western music from the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic eras. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
> *Nonlinear time:* Music that evokes a sense of nonlinear time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly.
> 
> Western musicians first became aware of nonlinear time during the late 19th century. Debussy's encounter with Javanese gamelan music at the 1889 Paris Exhibition was a seminal event.
> 
> *Moment Form:* broken down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Certain works of Stravinsky, Webern, Messiaen, and Stockhausen exemplify this approach.
> 
> *Vertical Time: *At the other extreme of the nonlinear continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases.
> *Minimalism* exemplifies vertical time, but instead of absolute stasis, it generates constant motion. The sense of movement is so evenly paced, and the goals are so vague, that we usually lose our sense of perspective.
> 
> In this sense, a work such as* Beethoven's Missa Solemnis *is not a good candidate for "universal' sacred music, except maybe the _*Benedictus.*_ Nobody seems to have gotten this distinction, as no one commented on it in any depth.
> 
> A "narrative" work like *Missa Solemnis *is more like a 'proclamation of faith' rather than an attempt to induce a sacred state. This exemplifies the difference in approach between East and West.
> 
> My approach to the sacred is more to the East, because I seek in such music to "tune in" and_ resonate with the sacred nature of being,_ rather than following a 'narrative' or proclamation (yawn, this preaching is making me sleepy) which serves to reinforce my belief system by sheer assertion. I find that to be more of a literary thing than a musical one.
> 
> I think the contrast between "vertical" and "linear" (horizontal) is often confused. Is *vertical time *even possible? Yes, if you give consciousness itself first priority, and consider the "horizontal, linear passage of time" to be illusory. In this vertical sense, all we have is "now," and conscious experience becomes a "moving point." Anyone with "Pro Tools" has seen this moving point.
> 
> Of course, to get to this vertical point, one must give up the_ objectification _of time into a linear passage. This illustrates quite clearly the difference between Eastern (subjective) thinking and Western (objective) thinking.
> ​


Okay, I reckon I get your distinction between vertical and horizontal. Indeed, I listen to ragas from time to time. I presume you agree that they tend toward the vertical?

I focus on the sounds and enjoy them. I attach little agenda to this music, save for some nostalgia for the Subcontinent.

So I'm doing what you say. What is next?


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Are you the body with an individual consciousness, or were you the consciousness first that picked up an individual body?


Chicken and egg, or do you know the answer?


----------



## Blancrocher

Wood said:


> Chicken and egg, or do you know the answer?


Egg, I believe.

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/an...wered-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> Chicken and egg, or do you know the answer?


Haha, I can't imagine that anyone who is really contemplating this question can take this response seriously. Clever doesn't satisfy. It's cute for a while, though….


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, I can't imagine that anyone who is really contemplating this question can take this response seriously. Clever doesn't satisfy. It's cute for a while, though….


Oh! It was a genuine question, I wasn't trying to be clever.

So my post was stupid or offensive, either way, I apologise.

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the sometimes confusing ideas being expressed on this thread.


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> Deducing purely based on concrete reasonings. Using these intellectual tools are great, but everything concrete deteriorates, and most of the Universe is fundamentally inexplicable when you get down to the origins of what mind and matter really are.
> 
> And you are a product of your own imagination. :tiphat:


Of course. And so is your post. And the people I work with.

One thing - I'm glad the people who pay me at the end of the month aren't imaginary!


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> I don't believe it. But I don't disbelieve it. Do you guys really believe that you all are experiencing things outside of your mind? How can anyone make such a claim that anything exist outside of their mind?


Yes but your whose theory is a product of your imagination So how do you know it is true.


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, I can't imagine that anyone who is really contemplating this question can take this response seriously. Clever doesn't satisfy. It's cute for a while, though….


Why should anybody take anything seriously as they are just products of the imagination. I mean that guy who broke into your house and stole your computer was just a product of your imagination. So get over it!


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, I can't imagine that anyone who is really contemplating this question can take this response seriously. Clever doesn't satisfy. It's cute for a while, though….


To me this means that anyone who contemplates the question seriously, particularly in the year 2014, must reach the conclusion that the body (brain) came first.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

This is deep and philosophical for a lunchtime.

The universal characteristics of sacred music would be praise wouldn't they?


----------



## science

RudyKens said:


> This is deep and philosophical for a lunchtime.
> 
> The universal characteristics of sacred music would be praise wouldn't they?


That's a good line of thought to pursue.

I'd propose that "praise" is a form of offering, which would be the more general thing. Offering usually comes with a request on the other side as well: here is a goat, please protect our family from sickness; here is praise, please help us achieve middle-class respectability; here are our lives, please give us your inner peace....

That sort of exchange with supernatural agents probably is a universal characteristic of sacred music.

I'd say we could probably also find that rituals in general (which would usually be the context of the music) tend to implicitly delineate an insider/outsider boundary, reinforcing the participants' sense of group membership. Actually I wouldn't expect to find this as universal, because there maybe quite a few religious traditions in homogenous agricultural village societies with no great need to establish such boundaries. But I'd expect it to be nearly universal. An example could be the Credo in the Catholic mass, which is intended to separate believers from nonbelievers.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Okay, I reckon I get your distinction between vertical and horizontal. Indeed, I listen to ragas from time to time. I presume you agree that they tend toward the vertical?
> 
> I focus on the sounds and enjoy them. I attach little agenda to this music, save for some nostalgia for the Subcontinent.
> 
> So I'm doing what you say. What is next?


That's between you and God.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Chicken and egg, or do you know the answer?


According to McLuhan, the chicken was the egg's idea of getting more eggs.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Oh! It was a genuine question, I wasn't trying to be clever.
> 
> So my post was stupid or offensive, either way, I apologise.
> 
> I'm just trying to get to the bottom of the sometimes confusing ideas being expressed on this thread.


These ideas are not confusing, IMHO. You just seem to be like that reporter in the Bob Dylan song: "Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?"


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> Why should anybody take anything seriously as they are just products of the imagination. I mean that guy who broke into your house and stole your computer was just a product of your imagination. So get over it!


That's up to you. You don't have to take anything seriously. You're going to die, and everything you hold dear will be taken by time… Just enjoy the lovely temporariness of manifestation.



science said:


> To me this means that anyone who contemplates the question seriously, particularly in the year 2014, must reach the conclusion that the body (brain) came first.


The mind gives reality to the body.


----------



## millionrainbows

Okay, have we solved all the mysteries of Man and the universe through philosophical reasoning? Good! Then, let's take a break and listen to some Messiaen.

Messiaen was a French Catholic mystic, and so his music is 'religious' in its ideology and subject matter, in the traditional Christian Western sense. I don't think any reasonable traditionalist would argue with those 'givens.' The Resurrection, the Ascension, the Crucifixion, it's all there.

Yet, Messiaen was influenced by Eastern musical cultures: the Gamelon scales of Bali, the rhythmic devices of North India, etc.

Messiaen's music has no harmonic development. It is vertical in concept, concerned with color, timbre, and a series of 'events' rather than a 'development to a goal through time.'

If anyone doubts this, they can read a book on Messiaen:










So, Messiaen wanted to create a sense of 'timelessness' with his music, which is especially appropriate for his subject matter.

I hope that Messiaen serves as an example; an example which shows that "not all Eastern-influenced music" has to be about trance-like states or Buddhism; it can also be about Christian concepts.

This is what I'm trying to illuminate: that the sense of the sacred can be induced in the listener, and that this 'real' effect should ideally be the goal of all religious or sacred music.

Otherwise, religious music which is simply a setting of text, or is designed to proclaim a belief system, is in actuality really more concerned with "pushing an agenda" than it is with actually getting us in touch with our sacred nature and being. In this sense, it is 'propaganda' which is serving an ideological power-based agenda.

Sacred music of the present day is more apt to free itself from this ideological trap, since the power of the church has been replaced with other power-based systems of control.

Also, since the subjective 'sacred' state I speak of is individual, not a group-think, then it is more likely to escape the influence of power-based propaganda.


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> That's between you and God.


If I'd known that was what you were up to I'd have opted out at post #1.


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> Nothing is happening here, now you know that Mr. Wood


Sorted that for you Sir.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Sorted that for you Sir.


Now, Mr. Wood, don't be putting words in my mouth. And anyone with a photo of Thelonious Monk as their avatar has to be an interesting person.


----------



## Blake

It is a great avatar.


----------



## millionrainbows

BTW, Vesuvius, your signature quote reminds me of an old zen saying: "The way out is via the door. Why is it that more people do not use this method?"

:lol:


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> It is a great avatar.


Cool music, cool look, cool name, cool hats and a posh bird. He had it all.


----------



## DavidA

Vesuvius said:


> That's up to you. You don't have to take anything seriously. You're going to die, and everything you hold dear will be taken by time… Just enjoy the lovely temporariness of manifestation.
> .


I do. But I know that death is the beginning not the end!


----------



## Blake

DavidA said:


> I do. But I know that death is the beginning not the end!


I'm not arguing with that. It's certainly a more beautiful outlook.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Beginnings and endings with endings of beginnings beginning to sound like purgatory ahead of a new beginning for me


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> The mind gives reality to the body.


Let's think of a way to test this: I'll show you a body without a mind, and you show me a mind without a body.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Cool music, cool look, cool name, cool hats and a posh bird. He had it all.


Let's consider John Coltrane. Now there was a man who was defined in two ways: as a musician, and as a religious man. His music was absolutely permeated by his thoughts on religion, the most basic being the African idea that music was a magic tool.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Let's think of a way to test this: I'll show you a body without a mind, and you show me a mind without a body.


I'd like that. You first.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I'd like that. You first.


I don't want to be too macabre, but here are a few:

View attachment 41991


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> Let's consider John Coltrane. Now there was a man who was defined in two ways: as a musician, and as a religious man. His music was absolutely permeated by his thoughts on religion, the most basic being the African idea that music was a magic tool.


Agreed, also you could maybe find a lot of what you are arguing for in the Free Jazz of the 1960s. Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp etc.






Wonderful stuff.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I don't want to be too macabre, but here are a few:
> 
> View attachment 41991


Very nice. Here's the mind without a body.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Very nice. Here's the mind without a body.
> 
> View attachment 42033


Turn the lights on!


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I would but can't find the switch


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Agreed, also you could maybe find a lot of what you are arguing for in the Free Jazz of the 1960s. Albert Ayler, Archie Shepp etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wonderful stuff.


Actually, I hear a lot of anger in that music, although I do like it. I have some Archie Shepp, Cecil Taylor, Ornette Coleman, Eric Dolphy, and late Coltrane...


----------



## Celloman

Perhaps, any music can be "sacred" on one level or another, if you treat it as such...


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

If it has a religious element and offers praise to the focal point of whatever religion then it's sacred.


----------



## Wood

PoisonIV said:


> If it has a religious element and offers praise to the focal point of whatever religion then it's sacred.


You have not read this thread, have you?


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm disengaging from this thread as well; too much potential for infraction. My original intent was noble, I swear to God. :lol:


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> I'm disengaging from this thread as well; too much potential for infraction. My original intent was noble, I swear to God. :lol:


Why are you not able to debate this without getting an infraction?

It is strange that you and Vesuvius are having problems with your posts when your ideology requires you to be detached from everything outside your existence. I would have expected you both to be more at peace than other members.

Notwithstanding the above, I hope you are able to preserve your equanimity and that my enquiries into and reflections on your beliefs have caused no lasting bad feeling. As MacLeod said, each to their own.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> Why are you not able to debate this without getting an infraction?
> 
> It is strange that you and Vesuvius are having problems with your posts when your religion requires you to be detached from everything outside your existence. I would have expected you both to be more at peace than other members.


I don't have a religion. I wish you would stop saying that. I was simply referring to an ideology that I've found enlightening. I don't follow any dogmas or rituals, nor am I against people who do. However, I am highly engaged in finding out what exactly I am. That's all.

My post were continuously deleted in the other thread... maybe I was being too direct, or what they call 'personal.' But that's what I felt needed to be done to get the point across. I'm also becoming highly uninterested in this type of discussion here, as it's more of an ego-battle than anything else.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> I don't have a religion. I wish you would stop saying that. I was simply referring to an ideology that I've found enlightening. I don't follow any dogmas or rituals, nor am I against people who do. However, I am highly engaged in finding out what exactly I am. That's all.
> 
> My post were continuously deleted in the other thread... maybe I was being too direct, or what they call 'personal.' But that's what I felt needed to be done to get the point across. I'm also becoming highly uninterested in this type of discussion here, as it's more of an ego-battle than anything else.


Okay, I've changed the word from 'religion' to 'ideology' now, no problem.

I'm sorry you think that the debate is an ego-battle. That is a shame. It should be possible to discuss these ideas without commenting on the members attitudes etc but on the other hand I can also see how one can become emotionally attached to one's beliefs and not enjoy it when disinterested parties are subjecting them to cold analyses.

It takes a certain amount of detachment to be able to debate the big questions without excessive angst coming to the fore.

Sometimes it can be less than beneficial to think too much about existential issues; hard work and exhaustion can be more effective in driving away the gremlins.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> Okay, I've changed the word from 'religion' to 'ideology' now, no problem.
> 
> I'm sorry you think that the debate is an ego-battle. That is a shame. It should be possible to discuss these ideas without commenting on the members attitudes etc but on the other hand I can also see how one can become emotionally attached to one's beliefs and not enjoy it when disinterested parties are subjecting them to cold analyses.
> 
> It takes a certain amount of detachment to be able to debate the big questions without excessive angst coming to the fore.
> 
> Sometimes it can be less than beneficial to think too much about existential issues; hard work and exhaustion can be more effective in driving away the gremlins.


Again, I also don't 'believe' in the ideas I was presenting. I simply find them to be useful tools for introspection and contemplating subjectivity instead of constantly talking about 'objective' knowledge. But now I'm labeled as a "defender of the faith." It's hilarious. It's completely fine by me if no one enjoys or finds useful the ideas I brought to the table. That's life... it rolls on.

It's very much a bore to have a dialogue with those who are so quick to scrutinize something they obviously have very little knowledge about. That goes for anything, and not just the ideas I've portrayed... or what you like to call 'my religion.'

Really, there's no hard feelings. But, like I said, I'm really not interesting in further discussion. I have an idea where everyone stands, and I don't see any enjoyment in continuing.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> It's very much a bore to have a dialogue with those who are so quick to scrutinize something they obviously have very little knowledge about. That goes for anything, and not just the ideas I've portrayed... or what you like to call 'my religion.'
> 
> Really, there's no hard feelings. But, like I said, I'm really not interesting in further discussion. I have an idea where everyone stands, and I don't see any enjoyment in continuing.


By 'scrutinize', I think you mean 'reject' and it is interesting how negative the responses were to the ideas presented. If you've got nothing else from the debate, at least you have that.

Perhaps you should visit Science at the Religious Discussion Group. He is widely read on theology and philosophy and is quite clearly interested in your guru. You are likely to be successful in developing your ideas if you engage with him, so at least you won't feel isolated at TC.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> By 'scrutinize', I think you mean 'reject' and it is interesting how negative the responses were to the ideas presented. If you've got nothing else from the debate, at least you have that.
> 
> Perhaps you should visit Science at the Religious Discussion Group. He is widely read on theology and philosophy and is quite clearly interested in your guru. You are likely to be successful in developing your ideas if you engage with him, so at least you won't feel isolated at TC.


I don't feel isolated, my friend. Do you happen to be a life counselor? You're quite good at patronizing and throwing people into pretty little boxes.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> I don't feel isolated, my friend. Do you happen to be a life counselor? You're quite good at patronizing and throwing people into pretty little boxes.


Good. No, I am not a life counselor. Actually I do not know what they are, so I could be. Is it an American thing?

I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps you are being vague?

In any case, I wish you well with your further study of 'I am That'.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> Good. No, I am not a life counselor. Actually I do not know what they are, so I could be. Is it an American thing?
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean, perhaps you are being vague?
> 
> In any case, I wish you well with your further study of 'I am That'.


Certainly. Wish you well with whatever it is you do well. :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

I'm with you, Vesuvius, and I appreciate your input on this thread attempt. Disregard the things that critics have said here, and continue on your noble path. Best wishes, millions!


----------



## millionrainbows

How odd it is to see this era of historical revisionism in classical music; how these accomplishments of Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Terry Riley are often relegated by people who should know better as being 'not classical' or as 'modernism' (possibly the single most ignorant and damaging term ever invented to describe (discount) an important and vital branch of the classical music tree). The minimalists, at their best, define what the word classical really means. They used their own experiences, filtered through an almost unbelievable originality informed by a musicianship as audacious as it was expansive, to manifest into sound through a musical reality that illuminated their individuality. 

So what can we gather from this statement? 

(1) I seem to be 'anti-history,' meaning by the word 'history' the way that anything which has lasted long enough seems to accrue a 'history' at the end, which looks back on and tries to define (or in some cases re-define) what has happened. If a car accident happens, and there are ten witnesses, you will get ten different versions of what happened; this is history, not an exact science by any stretch.

(2) I see other terms, such as 'modernism,' as devisive and damaging.

(3) I see classical music as a 'tree' with diverse and diverging branches, yet all connected to the roots of the form.

(4) I see classical music as a personal expression of one's personality and being, using composition and performance (talking about your ideas through your works and instrument) as the vehicle.

So, the 'unstable' and ever-changing factor here, which will always continue to threaten rigid 'historical' notions of what classical music is, or is supposed to be, seems to be the human factor. 

As each new generation comes along, living in whatever new reality that has developed, they will express their experiences of the ever-changing 'now' into the reality of the musical forms which they have learned to use, in their lifetimes, in their 'now.'

This seems diametrically opposed to any idea of a 'history' which is rigidly fixed and defined. 

So, we can say, classical music is about 'time and changes,' and the time is now; and time is always changing.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> How odd it is to see this era of historical revisionism in classical music; how these accomplishments of Steve Reich, Philip Glass, and Terry Riley are often relegated by people who should know better as being 'not classical' or as 'modernism' (possibly the single most ignorant and damaging term ever invented to describe (discount) an important and vital branch of the classical music tree). The minimalists, at their best, define what the word classical really means. They used their own experiences, filtered through an almost unbelievable originality informed by a musicianship as audacious as it was expansive, to manifest into sound through a musical reality that illuminated their individuality.
> 
> So what can we gather from this statement?
> 
> (1) I seem to be 'anti-history,' meaning by the word 'history' the way that anything which has lasted long enough seems to accrue a 'history' at the end, which looks back on and tries to define (or in some cases re-define) what has happened. If a car accident happens, and there are ten witnesses, you will get ten different versions of what happened; this is history, not an exact science by any stretch.
> 
> (2) I see other terms, such as 'modernism,' as devisive and damaging.
> 
> (3) I see classical music as a 'tree' with diverse and diverging branches, yet all connected to the roots of the form.
> 
> (4) I see classical music as a personal expression of one's personality and being, using composition and performance (talking about your ideas through your works and instrument) as the vehicle.
> 
> So, the 'unstable' and ever-changing factor here, which will always continue to threaten rigid 'historical' notions of what classical music is, or is supposed to be, seems to be the human factor.
> 
> As each new generation comes along, living in whatever new reality that has developed, they will express their experiences of the ever-changing 'now' into the reality of the musical forms which they have learned to use, in their lifetimes, in their 'now.'
> 
> This seems diametrically opposed to any idea of a 'history' which is rigidly fixed and defined.
> 
> So, we can say, classical music is about 'time and changes,' and the time is now; and time is always changing.


Throughout that post, what do we gain from using the term "classical music" rather than the term "music?"

As far as I can see, your ideas about classical music apply to music in general.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Throughout that post, what do we gain from using the term "classical music" rather than the term "music?"
> 
> As far as I can see, your ideas about classical music apply to music in general.


Minimalism was being excluded from the tree of "Western classical art music," so I addressed that specific genre.

I don't think all music aspires to achieve high artistic aims, but is often made for more social, identity-based, functional lifestyle purposes and uses. It could be used to cover jazz, or any good music with high aspirations, but not for everything. I won't go into specifics.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Minimalism was being excluded from the tree of "Western classical art music," so I addressed that specific genre.
> 
> I don't think all music aspires to achieve high artistic aims, but is often made for more social, identity-based, functional lifestyle purposes and uses. It could be used to cover jazz, or any good music with high aspirations, but not for everything. I won't go into specifics.


I suspect I don't agree with the distinction between high art and social, identity-based music. Can you help me see that it's a valid distinction?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I suspect I don't agree with the distinction between high art and social, identity-based music. Can you help me see that it's a valid distinction?


Youth music serves the ideology and concerns of youth; black blues and jazz reflects the experience of the African -American; classical music exemplifies the ideology of the bourgeois power class. With capitalism, all music can be commodified and appropriated; in other words, music's function can be used as a commodity, as all popular music is used. But music's true original purpose, which brings it into existence, cannot be commodified, if it is the *true expression *and reflection of humanity's struggle, experience, joy & suffering.

It's still up to us to tell the difference. Yes, a Coke tastes good, but like cigarettes and candy, are ultimately used compulsively by alienated consumers.

The most blatant attempts I've seen is the new corporate country out of Nashville, which extolls the 'country lifestyle' and small-town concerns and experiences of the working-class, turning their 'experience' as a class into a fabricated fiction for consumption and profit.

True art will transcend whatever commodity context it is placed in, if it is vital and honest. Certain popular music does this.

This might involve retreating from the consumer swamp of 'now,' into *historical forms *which more reliably can be said to have sprung out of a more honest origin, before media, recording, and the pervasive world-wide nature of capitalism began to assert itself. Bluegrass, old blues, acoustic music, historic folk forms (Silk Road Ensemble), etcetera: Human music, designed by humans, for human purposes.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Youth music serves the ideology and concerns of youth; black blues and jazz reflects the experience of the African -American; classical music exemplifies the ideology of the bourgeois power class. With capitalism, all music can be commodified and appropriated; in other words, music's function can be used as a commodity, as all popular music is used. But music's true original purpose, which brings it into existence, cannot be commodified, if it is the *true expression *and reflection of humanity's struggle, experience, joy & suffering.
> 
> It's still up to us to tell the difference. Yes, a Coke tastes good, but like cigarettes and candy, are ultimately used compulsively by alienated consumers.
> 
> The most blatant attempts I've seen is the new corporate country out of Nashville, which extolls the 'country lifestyle' and small-town concerns and experiences of the working-class, turning their 'experience' as a class into a fabricated fiction for consumption and profit.
> 
> True art will transcend whatever commodity context it is placed in, if it is vital and honest. Certain popular music does this.
> 
> This might involve retreating from the consumer swamp of 'now,' into *historical forms *which more reliably can be said to have sprung out of a more honest origin, before media, recording, and the pervasive world-wide nature of capitalism began to assert itself. Bluegrass, old blues, acoustic music, historic folk forms (Silk Road Ensemble), etcetera: Human music, designed by humans, for human purposes.


Actually, I still don't get it. As far as I can tell, you've got something against musicians getting paid to make music, or against the marketers, but you're willing to forgive all that in a few cases that you consider good enough to be "transcendent."

But I don't see why money is a bad thing or what sort of situations would make it a bad thing, nor what makes some music "transcendent." I don't think I can imagine any kind of music except "human music, designed by humans, for human purposes."

Maybe you're looking for something like a love/prostitution metaphor. "Love" is pure and totally noncommercial; "prostitution" is inauthentic "love" for sale. Perhaps there is some pure and totally noncommercial music, when people just do it because they want to; and anytime someone gets paid to do it, it's analogous to prostitution. But it seems fine to me for people to be paid for making music.

If I think of the difference between "high art" and something like "ordinary art," I'd probably classify the free stuff as "ordinary." Only social stratification can make some of it "high" and the rest "low," and in that situation the "high art" is going to be costly because it has to be kept out of reach of the low people.


----------



## Blake

As cliche' as this sounds, I feel the highest art to be without price. And normally it's something I find in a natural setting. A spontaneous interaction with other life that turns out to be nearly undefinable, but intuitively creative. It's recognized by any of the parties that what's going on is quite magnificent, and it's left at that. Never to return again, but it has forever changed you.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> As cliche' as this sounds, I feel the highest art to be without price. And normally it's something I find in a natural setting. A spontaneous interaction with other life that turns out to be nearly undefinable, but intuitively creative. It's recognized by any of the parties that what's going on is quite magnificent, and it's left at that. Never to return again, but it has forever changed you.


In the past, "high art" precisely implied that these experiences are only possible via the art of wealthy people.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> In the past, "high art" precisely implied that these experiences are only possible via the art of wealthy people.


That'll teach them peasants. I guess it depends on who you talk with to determine if these terms still carry an air of smuggery or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Actually, I still don't get it. As far as I can tell, you've got something against musicians getting paid to make music, or against the marketers, but you're willing to forgive all that in a few cases that you consider good enough to be "transcendent."


Wow, I went to all that trouble to articulate it, in what I felt was a quite elegant way, and all you can say is "I don't get it?"

The short version: There are 'commercial' pressures put on art, and there always has been. It could be pressure from the church, the royals, or the capitalist marketplace; but whatever the pressure happens to be, and whatever form it takes, the work must transcend those limits in order to achieve 'art' consideration, and to whatever degree it does this will determine how 'artful' it is, independent of the circumstances under which it was created. Whew...



science said:


> But I don't see why money is a bad thing or what sort of situations would make it a bad thing, nor what makes some music "transcendent." I don't think I can imagine any kind of music except "human music, designed by humans, for human purposes."


When I say_ "human music, designed by humans, for human purposes," _I am appealing to your higher nature, not your popcorn-munching desire to be entertained by _The Monkees Greatest Hits _while you chug a jug of Sunny-Dee and eat a microwave pizza.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Wow, I went to all that trouble to articulate it, in what I felt was a quite elegant way, and all you can say is "I don't get it?"
> 
> The short version: There are 'commercial' pressures put on art, and there always has been. It could be pressure from the church, the royals, or the capitalist marketplace; but whatever the pressure happens to be, and whatever form it takes, the work must transcend those limits in order to achieve 'art' consideration, and to whatever degree it does this will determine how 'artful' it is, independent of the circumstances under which it was created. Whew...
> 
> When I say_ "human music, designed by humans, for human purposes," _I am appealing to your higher nature, not your popcorn-munching desire to be entertained by _The Monkees Greatest Hits _while you chug a jug of Sunny-Dee and eat a microwave pizza.


What is sticking me is that I can't see but that this is a fancy way of saying, "I like this music; I don't like that." As far as I can see, if you like it, you will say it transcends the commercial or whatever, and if you don't, you will say it's commercial or whatever. The talk about Sunny-Dee seems to confirm that, as if you disapprove of certain kinds of lifestyle and the music that goes along with those lifestyles. But is that all you mean? Do you just mean that people ought to be classier than the Monkees and greatest hits albums and microwave pizzas?

I suspect you're conscious of this, and that you wouldn't want to dress up your own personal preferences and prejudices in that kind of absolutist language, so I must be missing something. I know that could sound sarcastic or something, but I really do think there is something missing. What I need to understand is, how is this "transcends" stuff different from ordinary language describing "good" or "classy" music?

Other than consulting the people who appoint themselves regulators of the canon, how can we find out what transcends the commercial whatever?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> What is sticking me is that I can't see but that this is a fancy way of saying, "I like this music; I don't like that." As far as I can see, if you like it, you will say it transcends the commercial or whatever, and if you don't, you will say it's commercial or whatever. The talk about Sunny-Dee seems to confirm that, as if you disapprove of certain kinds of lifestyle and the music that goes along with those lifestyles. But is that all you mean? Do you just mean that people ought to be classier than the Monkees and greatest hits albums and microwave pizzas?


People in this forum use that approach all the time, when they say "I like this music and that's all the justification I need."

I had to use the *Sunny-D/Totino's Frozen Pizza *reference to try to 'push you over the edge' into admitting that there are some general objective standards involved in our music choices.

In today's capitalist marketplace, home of the 'alienated consumer' who is constantly bombarded by thousands upon thousands of CDs, or feels compelled to compulsively smoke Newport cigarets, or drink Coca-Cola, or buy Jennifer Lopez' new album, or Beyonce, we need to be discerning in our listening. This does not mean rejecting whole genres of music or lifestyles, especially if that music is directed at that particular youth demographic, of which I am too old and creepy to participate in. I think "Pleasant Valley Sunday" by the Monkees is an excellent pop song.



science said:


> I suspect you're conscious of this, and that you wouldn't want to dress up your own personal preferences and prejudices in that kind of absolutist language, so I must be missing something. I know that could sound sarcastic or something, but I really do think there is something missing. What I need to understand is, how is this "transcends" stuff different from ordinary language describing "good" or "classy" music?


It's not any different, essentially, but the reason I make sure to include the "transcends its own limits" in all music, because all music has been commodified, and so much music of different kinds is now available to us. So it's important that listeners realize that great music, great art, can come from anywhere, in any genre. It all depends on what your criteria is, and how flexible you are in approach music from diverse sources. Frank Sinatra should not be judged by the same criteria as Beethoven until some 'givens' are established which correspond logically to the types of music we are assessing. One size does not fit all, and as diverse as the world of music is, we need to be mindful of this, in accepting or in rejecting music, and realize that our choices are not inflexible, objective truths; ansd at the same time, be searching for true quality. Your earlier response seems rather flip to me:



science said:


> Actually, I still don't get it. As far as I can tell, you've got something against musicians getting paid to make music, or against the marketers, but you're willing to forgive all that in a few cases that you consider good enough to be "transcendent."


Yes, if a Monkees song is good, I don't care if it was created for commercial purposes; I see a "transcendent" quality in it which indicates true human sincerity, despite the fact that it is 'product.'



science said:


> But I don't see why money is a bad thing or what sort of situations would make it a bad thing, nor what makes some music "transcendent."


You need to use your own discrimination to make those calls.



science said:


> I don't think I can imagine any kind of music except "human music, designed by humans, for human purposes."


I can. The single "Disco Duck" is just a novelty, not great art. As far as novelty songs go, it was very effective. Yet, I keep a distance from it. Yes, greed is a human quality, but when music and its highest, original purpose is "appropriated" by a corporate entity, to serve its own purpose, then I see that as "dehumanizing" in the sense that it is no longer "human music, designed by humans, for human purposes," but "corporate product, designed by market research groups, for profit purposes." See the difference. or do you want to belabor the point for another page or two?



science said:


> Maybe you're looking for something like a love/prostitution metaphor. "Love" is pure and totally noncommercial; "prostitution" is inauthentic "love" for sale. Perhaps there is some pure and totally noncommercial music, when people just do it because they want to; and anytime someone gets paid to do it, it's analogous to prostitution. But it seems fine to me for people to be paid for making music.


No, you're making me sound like a black-and-white thinker, and I'm not. There are many shades of gray.

Bob Dylan's song "Blowing In the Wind" was a hit, but it's still 'the truth' to many people; nothing can dehumanize its original intent, regardless of how it is commodified, marketed, or sold. This is art, and it transcends its utilitarian boundaries.



science said:


> If I think of the difference between "high art" and something like "ordinary art," I'd probably classify the free stuff as "ordinary." Only social stratification can make some of it "high" and the rest "low," and in that situation the "high art" is going to be costly because it has to be kept out of reach of the low people.


For centuries, it was that way; "high'" art was the exclusive domain of the upper class. But now it's not.



science said:


> Other than consulting the people who appoint themselves regulators of the canon, how can we find out what transcends the commercial whatever?


You could always listen to experienced listeners, and take their advice, or reject it. You might save yourself some time if you take the suggestions. I do it all the time.

For classical music, I am developing my own criteria based on historical information. For me, 'commercial' pressure from kings or church is not essentially any different from the types of commercial pressure that popular artists are now under. So I can "write off" Mozart for being a hack, if I wish, or decide that his work 'transcended its boundaries' to the degree that i find it to be 'fullfilling' as art for my consumption.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> People in this forum use that approach all the time, when they say "I like this music and that's all the justification I need."


Ok, then. Still, in my ideal world we'd be content with saying, "I like this" when we mean, "I like this."


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Ok, then. Still, in my ideal world we'd be content with saying, "I like this" when we mean, "I like this."


Well, the world is too diverse for me to simply jump in and dog-paddle my way through it. I want specific criteria suited for each type of music that I encounter, so that I can encounter many different kinds. I think many people have just chosen one certain kind of music, without much striving to find out why, as long as it works for them. That's fine for them, but long ago I set my sights higher, in an effort to understand every kind of music I encounter. After years of striving, I have reached that goal, and can articulate it.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Well, the world is too diverse for me to simply jump in and dog-paddle my way through it. I want specific criteria suited for each type of music that I encounter, so that I can encounter many different kinds. I think many people have just chosen one certain kind of music, without much striving to find out why, as long as it works for them. That's fine for them, but long ago I set my sights higher, in an effort to understand every kind of music I encounter. After years of striving, I have reached that goal, and can articulate it.


You should write speeches for a politician. What does this actually _mean_?

How do specific criteria help you encounter different kinds of music? What specific criteria are you talking about?


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> You should write speeches for a politician. What does this actually _mean_?
> 
> How do specific criteria help you encounter different kinds of music? What specific criteria are you talking about?


Oh, just about any set of criteria that you can develop when listening and learniong about diverse forms of music.

You wouldn't use the same criteria to judge a collection of delta blues songs as you would a Beethoven symphony recording.

Bill Monroe once said that when you listen to bluegrass, you are listening to the man as well as the music. This criteria wouldn't work with most classical music, because it is not the direct spiritual embodiment of the person playing it, as they did not compose it; so there is a separation from the human element in this regard. We can judge the accuracy and effectiveness of the performance, but we are not really peering into the soul of the performer. The connection to the composer has already been removed from us by one degree.

Whereas, when we listen to a recording of some old man from North Carolina playing his regional variant of an old fiddle tune, we are "listening to the man" as well.

With Morton Feldman, I've found that my knowledge of John Cage and of Existentialism, Samuel Beckett, Sartre, and even the art of Diego Giacometti, has helped me in understanding his music. That's knowledge and criteria I would not need in listening to old blues recordings.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, just about any set of criteria that you can develop when listening and learniong about diverse forms of music.
> 
> You wouldn't use the same criteria to judge a collection of delta blues songs as you would a Beethoven symphony recording.
> 
> Bill Monroe once said that when you listen to bluegrass, you are listening to the man as well as the music. This criteria wouldn't work with most classical music, because it is not the direct spiritual embodiment of the person playing it, as they did not compose it; so there is a separation from the human element in this regard. We can judge the accuracy and effectiveness of the performance, but we are not really peering into the soul of the performer. The connection to the composer has already been removed from us by one degree.
> 
> Whereas, when we listen to a recording of some old man from North Carolina playing his regional variant of an old fiddle tune, we are "listening to the man" as well.
> 
> With Morton Feldman, I've found that my knowledge of John Cage and of Existentialism, Samuel Beckett, Sartre, and even the art of Diego Giacometti, has helped me in understanding his music. That's knowledge and criteria I would not need in listening to old blues recordings.


You've got a solid point here - different kinds of music ought to be judged on their own terms.

It doesn't legitimize equating "I like this" with "this transcends commercialism," but it is a good point.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> You've got a solid point here - different kinds of music ought to be judged on their own terms.
> 
> It doesn't legitimize equating "I like this" with "this transcends commercialism," but it is a good point.


Well, sooner or later, all good art will have to "transcend commercialism" (whether it be the church or royalty) and stand on its own as "art."

Actually, it might be easier for an old delta blues singer to be true 'art' than it is for a classical composer. Of course, the criteria are different, but the blues guy might satisfy more of the criteria for art than a derivative concerto. Some of these art criteria might be:

1. Is the artist sincere? Does the art reflect this?
2. Do the art and the artist express universal qualities of being human?
3. Does the art communicate in a universal way, crossing cultural boundaries?
4. Is the art a self-contained structure which is satisfying in itself?


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> With Morton Feldman, I've found that my knowledge of John Cage and of Existentialism, Samuel Beckett, Sartre, and even the art of Diego Giacometti, has helped me in understanding his music.


Really? How? 
(Not meant to be agressive, I'm curious because I've never got into Mortan Feldman


----------



## millionrainbows

Mandryka said:


> Really? How?
> (Not meant to be aggressive, I'm curious because I've never got into Morton Feldman


Existentialism. Cage was Feldman's mentor in New York, and got him 'in.' New York, Abstract Expressionism, it all ties in. The first thing Feldman did was a soundtrack for a documentary film about Jackson Pollock.

Giacometti has an "existential" quality to his work. He started out as more surrealist, and there are elements of that in Gorky. The whole idea of art as sacred, as a sort of religion in itself.

With Feldman, less means more. Like on the For Philip Guston 4-CD, the phrases and note choices are crucial, yet simple and easy to miss. One phrase repeated might have an 'open' quality, like it will continue, which establishes a kind of 'hope' or expectation; other phrases are more 'closed' sounding, and when repeated, begin to sound 'absurd,' as if there is no sense in continuing. Feldman uses dissonance and consonance. On one phrase section, he duplicates it at the tritone, which creates a dissonant, dark effect. Instrumentation, too: flute, vs. bells, or piano, vilin, etc all have different triggering effects on me.

There is a Giacometti sculpture on a base, which has a groove in it, a closed circular shape, in which he has place a ball to ride in the groove. Of course, the ball will never really go anywhere except in the groove prescribed for it, so in that sense it is a metaphor for the absurdity of life. Don't mean to depress you!









_"Woman with her Throat Cut"
_









_*The Palace at 4 A.M.
*_


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> One phrase repeated might have an 'open' quality, like it will continue, which establishes a kind of 'hope' or expectation; other phrases are more 'closed' sounding, and when repeated, begin to sound 'absurd,' as if there is no sense in continuing.


That's the only thing there that has anything to do with both Feldman's music and existentialism. Was this "begin to sound absurd" his idea or yours?


----------



## millionrainbows

* Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
*
*One phrase repeated might have an 'open' quality, like it will continue, which establishes a kind of 'hope' or expectation; other phrases are more 'closed' sounding, and when repeated, begin to sound 'absurd,' as if there is no sense in continuing.*



science said:


> That's the only thing there that has anything to do with both Feldman's music and existentialism. Was this "begin to sound absurd" his idea or yours?


I'm not here to 'prove' anything to you, science. I'm just sharing my observations, and I'm not going to explain them defensively; only in a spirit of sharing will I expound further. I was replying to Mandryka's polite inquiry.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> * Originally Posted by millionrainbows:
> *
> *One phrase repeated might have an 'open' quality, like it will continue, which establishes a kind of 'hope' or expectation; other phrases are more 'closed' sounding, and when repeated, begin to sound 'absurd,' as if there is no sense in continuing.*
> 
> I'm not here to 'prove' anything to you, science. I'm just sharing my observations, and I'm not going to explain them defensively; only in a spirit of sharing will I expound further. I was replying to Mandryka's polite inquiry.


I know it's uncomfortable to have your beliefs challenged, but instead of announcing that you're not going to discuss them, how about making less fanciful, careless claims?

Of course you're allowed to make stuff up, but then other people are allowed to try to figure out whether you're just making stuff up!


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I know it's uncomfortable to have your beliefs challenged, but instead of announcing that you're not going to discuss them, how about making less fanciful, careless claims?
> 
> Of course you're allowed to make stuff up, but then other people are allowed to try to figure out whether you're just making stuff up!


I don't feel like my "beliefs" are being challenged. I'm just sharing my experience with this art. This is what my 'soul' experiences when I hear this music; it brings in all my past knowledge of art, philosophy, religion, music, and my being as a person, into one experience of 'art' which is multi-dimensional.

If you have doubts about what I have said about Morton Feldman, Mark Rothko, Existentialism, and all the rest of it, you need to go read a book, or watch a documentary.

After all, Feldman wrote music for the Rothko chapel in Houston. You should watch the Rothko documentary.


----------



## Lukecash12

I would only say that there is one universal characteristic to sacred music, and that is the theme.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> I would only say that there is *one* universal characteristic to sacred music, and that is the theme.


You are asserting the _specificity_ and _exclusivity_ of religious-themed works, while I am asserting their _non-specific, universal, multi-faceted characteristics.

_This thread is intended to be about the universal aspects, not how they are specific and exclusive to a particular belief system.

I guess that brings me to point out another characteristic of religious music, which is, thankfully, not universal: a sense of exclusivity, which serves to distinguish and differentiate one religion from another. This creates an 'insider' form of music, which is intended to be accessed *only* by true believers in that specific doctrine. This would include the Islamic song forms we discussed earlier, which seem to be very specific vehicles for conveying specific cultural qualities. This can be overcome, though, and infidels can gain access.

"Exclusivity" can only be conveyed by text, serving doctrine. Literal meaning of text is at odds with music's abstract and universal character.

In cases like this, if the extra-musical intent (text) overpowers the music, and the music is used a merely an accompaniment to convey doctrinal information, then as effective universal art it has failed in its appeal, and is more determined by doctrine than art. In this sense, art is reduced to propaganda.

The argument could be made that different musics use different scales and instruments, and represent different cultures and belief systems, and this may be more true than not if we are examining older more traditional folk forms with long traditions.

These qualities are not fixed in meaning if they are musical rather than textual, and are therefore "tougher nuts to crack," but still accessible to "outsiders".

For example, I am trying to penetrate the sacred aspects of Mexican mariachi music at the moment. It's not going to be easy, but after that last tamale, it seems possible. Perhaps my idea of the 'sacred' will become more infused with fiesta and celebration of life, rather than some dour old homophobic singer intoning some depressing, dusty, centuries-old chant. :lol:


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Perhaps my idea of the 'sacred' will become more infused with fiesta and celebration of life


There you go!

Add in:

- warding off witchcraft and demons 
- healing diseases by appeasing angry spirits 
- guarantee fertility, favorable weather, or successful hunts
- channel ancestors and other spirits
- visionary journeys to other worlds
- cursing enemies and apostates and heretics
- the legitimization or delegitimization of political powers
- rites of passage
- war magic
- love magic 
- divination

and you're getting a much broader, fuller, more truly _human_ picture of "the sacred!"

It's not all calm introspection and monism and the brotherhood of man. In fact, it's rarely any of that!


----------



## science

Amend that to... a more truly human picture of "the sacred" _and its *music*_!


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> There you go!
> 
> Add in:
> 
> - warding off witchcraft and demons
> - healing diseases by appeasing angry spirits
> - guarantee fertility, favorable weather, or successful hunts
> - channel ancestors and other spirits
> - visionary journeys to other worlds
> - cursing enemies and apostates and heretics
> - the legitimization or delegitimization of political powers
> - rites of passage
> - war magic
> - love magic
> - divination
> 
> and you're getting a much broader, fuller, more truly _human_ picture of "the sacred!"
> 
> It's not all calm introspection and monism and the brotherhood of man. In fact, it's rarely any of that!


Yet it's not everything at the same time. A, B, and C, and 1, 2, and 3 are clearly members of the same sets, yet they are clearly not each other either. Is it really all that hard to countenance the idea that there isn't much of anything truly universal in human thought? Being on the spectrum myself, it isn't hard at all to countenance that idea and neither do I need to add any more cumbersome trappings than "1 is not 2". It's been plain as day to me most of my life that eye contact, for example, doesn't feel at all the same for most other people.

Christians overwhelmingly report different ideas about religion and different types of subjective/"subjective" (consider that word however you like) experiences than those who follow Islam. Let's take a look for the moment at Pentacostal Christians who "speak in tongues". Do you know of anything like that amongst Muslims, let alone most other Christians? If it's out there it isn't awful common is it?

Now let's take a cursory look at your own list. Those ideas themselves tend to be mutually exclusive, don't they? Do you know of anyone that *holds to all of those*? Everything about the "sacred" to people invokes philosophy, whether or not it is "subjective". And within philosophy there is quite a bit of variety. There are many, many things within that realm that are just plain dissimilar to one another.

Which is why I would posit that there isn't anything universal about our experience of the sacred. It is utterly personal and dependent upon a mind boggling host of variables. Only variables can be found in common so that is all we can share in and talk about.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Yet it's not everything at the same time. A, B, and C, and 1, 2, and 3 are clearly members of the same sets, yet they are clearly not each other either. Is it really all that hard to countenance the idea that there isn't much of anything truly universal in human thought? Being on the spectrum myself, it isn't hard at all to countenance that idea and neither do I need to add any more cumbersome trappings than "1 is not 2". It's been plain as day to me most of my life that eye contact, for example, doesn't feel at all the same for most other people.
> 
> Christians overwhelmingly report different ideas about religion and different types of subjective/"subjective" (consider that word however you like) experiences than those who follow Islam. Let's take a look for the moment at Pentacostal Christians who "speak in tongues". Do you know of anything like that amongst Muslims, let alone most other Christians? If it's out there it isn't awful common is it?
> 
> Now let's take a cursory look at your own list. Those ideas themselves tend to be mutually exclusive, don't they? Do you know of anyone that *holds to all of those*? Everything about the "sacred" to people invokes philosophy, whether or not it is "subjective". And within philosophy there is quite a bit of variety. There are many, many things within that realm that are just plain dissimilar to one another.
> 
> Which is why I would posit that there isn't anything universal about our experience of the sacred. It is utterly personal and dependent upon a mind boggling host of variables. Only variables can be found in common so that is all we can share in and talk about.


All of the things on my list are fairly normal. If you went to just about any village in the world in 1450 you'd've usually found at least one person doing each of those things. Perhaps not all on the same day, but over a period of a few years, pretty much all of those things would've happened. Religion and magic has had to retreat a bit in Western culture since old Luther posted his theses, so that makes things complicated.

Speaking in tongues is probably best understood as a form of spirit possession (watch those Pentecostal churches with that in mind and you'll easily see the similarities), and that is extremely common around the world, including with Islam where it is not technically orthodox in most people's opinions but happens anyway, especially in the same sorts of rural settings that favored Pentecostalism until a few decades ago. I'd argue that the entire point of Sufism is to mediate and tightly control the possession experience, so if you let me have that then possession is extremely common in an arguably orthodox form of Islam.

I won't get into semantic debates over what "the sacred" is, or corollary debates over what its characteristics are. "Religion" is a lot more concrete; even there we have problems, but at least it's a useful word to use in communication that is meant to be understood.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> There you go!
> 
> Add in:
> 
> - warding off witchcraft and demons
> - healing diseases by appeasing angry spirits
> - guarantee fertility, favorable weather, or successful hunts
> - channel ancestors and other spirits
> - visionary journeys to other worlds
> - cursing enemies and apostates and heretics
> - the legitimization or delegitimization of political powers
> - rites of passage
> - war magic
> - love magic
> - divination
> 
> and you're getting a much broader, fuller, more truly _human_ picture of "the sacred!"
> 
> It's not all calm introspection and monism and the brotherhood of man. In fact, it's rarely any of that!


In spite of science's intention, this post gives me the opportunity to reveal the true underlying fear among the participants here. Science's 'list' is only symptomatic of the superficial and specific biases against all things "exotic," strange, and non-Western _(read: heresy)._

What people on this thread are uncomfortable with (when it suits their purposes) is when 'religious' music is removed from its original social context, and is listened to freely, subjectively, and without the restrictions of use or social context to deter 'outsiders' (read: heretics). Oh, Spinoza would be so disappointed in you, Lukecash12!

Now that the modern world has given us recording, and music is no longer tied-in to its original social function or context, we can listen to any music in any way. Just like Yo-Yo Ma, Lang Lang, and countless others have done; they have 'appropriated' our Western classical music as their own. Gays used black music, and disco, as their music of choice to define their identities, in the same way white suburban teenagers use rap music to produce their own identities, as well as Justin Beibers to go along with it.

When it comes to Haydn, our astute listeners have no problem whatsoever in taking-in and swallowing Haydn as their very own; yet, the "original social function" of Haydn's music, which was originally an elitist music intended for the upper-class, is quickly brushed-aside, and Haydn's "universal appeal and subjectivity" are touted, as if this music was intended for their own subjective reverie! As this post exemplifies this "open and flexible attitude" where Haydn is concerned:

_


HaydnBearstheClock said:



I think Haydn did want you to be introspective - this is what he said of The Seven Last Words: "Each [movement], or rather each setting of the text, is expressed only by instrumental music, but in such a way that it creates the most profound impression on even the most inexperienced listener."

Haydn's music was in part a product of his time, of course, but there is a large subjective component in his music nonetheless - that's why he sounds like Haydn, and not like Mozart or Beethoven. He had his own personality and it's reflected in the music. I personally admire Haydn's personality since he took on incredibly challenging tasks late in life and thereby produced some of his greatest masterpieces, namely the London Symphonies, The Creation, The Seasons and the late masses. He was also very experimental, innovative and continued mastering his own style despite some criticisms. His later works have increasingly full instrumentation and are more complex - Haydn kept on getting better and better with age. And, imo, Haydn's humour is in itself based on introspection - to 'get' Haydn's jokes, you have to know how musical pieces are generally constructed - therefore, you have to distance yourself for some moments from the purely emotional perception of music and *move into 'thinking about what makes music work', which is a different level of perceiving art. That's one of the reasons why I love Haydn's humour - it communicates to the listener and establishes a familiarity between him and the composer. Millionrainbows, no one is forcing you to like Haydn more than the composers which you prefer; we're all free people here and listen to what we like and it should continue being that way...*

Click to expand...

_Oh, that's such a generous attitud_e_ where Haydn is concerned, but apparently not so with "religious" music!
I think this selective, contradictory attitude towards listening is indicative of an unwillingness to allow "religious" music to be listened to freely, apart from its social and historical context. This underscores how religion and ideology separates people, rather than brings them together. Music is supposed to be universal! ...but not when dogma weighs it down, apparently.

So which side are you on: can music be fully appreciated apart from its historical baggage, like Haydn's apparently is, or does "social context" suddenly kick-in whenever the music is "religious?"










This is beautiful music. It has elements which sound Spanish (one of the singers sound astonishingly like my favorite Mexican singer from Oaxaca), Moorish/Islamic, and East Indian, all at once. This music hybrid was created in Spain, when it was under Islamic rule...in fact, the Jews got along much better with the Arabs than they did when Spain reclaimed the territory, and ushered-in the Inquisition! This was a very important time in the history of the Jewish people, and shows the wonderful hybrids which can be produced when people are flexible and open, rather than being exclusive and orthodox.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> In spite of science's intention, this post gives me the opportunity to reveal the true underlying fear among the participants here. Science's 'list' is only symptomatic of the superficial and specific biases against all things "exotic," strange, and non-Western _(read: heresy)._


Exactly how did yo reach the conclusion that I was afraid or biased against or uncomfortable with any of those things?

Justify that _ad hom_ or take it back.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> What people on this thread are uncomfortable with (when it suits their purposes) is when 'religious' music is removed from its original social context, and is listened to freely, subjectively, and without the restrictions of use or social context to deter 'outsiders' (read: heretics). Oh, Spinoza would be so disappointed in you, Lukecash12!


Au contraire, monsieur! I applaud your perspective and welcome it. In no way should you be deterred from your fancies, and you're welcome to share them with me. That doesn't however make my rib eye the same as your filet mignon, friend.

Now, from our friend science:



> All of the things on my list are fairly normal. If you went to just about any village in the world in 1450 you'd've usually found at least one person doing each of those things. Perhaps not all on the same day, but over a period of a few years, pretty much all of those things would've happened. Religion and magic has had to retreat a bit in Western culture since old Luther posted his theses, so that makes things complicated.
> 
> Speaking in tongues is probably best understood as a form of spirit possession (watch those Pentecostal churches with that in mind and you'll easily see the similarities), and that is extremely common around the world, including with Islam where it is not technically orthodox in most people's opinions but happens anyway, especially in the same sorts of rural settings that favored Pentecostalism until a few decades ago. I'd argue that the entire point of Sufism is to mediate and tightly control the possession experience, so if you let me have that then possession is extremely common in an arguably orthodox form of Islam.
> 
> I won't get into semantic debates over what "the sacred" is, or corollary debates over what its characteristics are. "Religion" is a lot more concrete; even there we have problems, but at least it's a useful word to use in communication that is meant to be understood.


Methinks that you're throwing ancient peoples under too broad of a blanket. Every member of that list was most definitely excluded, one or the other or even most, depending upon the area you look at. This type of broadly superstitious person you are talking about sounds most like folk from the Germanic tribes who were converting to Christianity. There was religious syncretism involved there between Rome and the Germans, but otherwise when you look at the main religions of the world (I'm talking about the big three: I, C, and J) there are quite a few mutually exclusive beliefs that are held, even between denominations.

Some Christian groups don't believe in the deity of Christ. Others don't even believe in creation ex nihilo which sets them apart from basically everyone.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, that's such a generous attitude where Haydn is concerned, but apparently not so with "religious" music!
> I think this selective, contradictory attitude towards listening is indicative of an unwillingness to allow "religious" music to be listened to freely, apart from its social and historical context. This underscores how religion and ideology separates people, rather than brings them together. Music is supposed to be universal! ...but not when dogma weighs it down, apparently.
> 
> So which side are you on: can music be fully appreciated apart from its historical baggage, like Haydn's apparently is, or does "social context" suddenly kick-in whenever the music is "religious?"


And what if music can't be "fully" appreciated by anyone anyways? What if validity is a non-issue? I would say that it is, and I would go even further in saying that music can only be appreciated *personally*. To you maybe that stuff is baggage, but to many others it is very rewarding. Much like in the general practice of philosophy, the benefit we gain is based upon the questions we pose, what we hope to gain from the experience.

All there is to it, is that you ask yourself different questions than me when you listen, so you get different answers. How can we get the same answers when we ask ourselves different questions? Instead of dogma weighing "it" down, can you at least recognize that there is more than one "it" and yours isn't any more valid?


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Methinks that you're throwing ancient peoples under too broad of a blanket. Every member of that list was most definitely excluded, one or the other or even most, depending upon the area you look at. This type of broadly superstitious person you are talking about sounds most like folk from the Germanic tribes who were converting to Christianity. There was religious syncretism involved there between Rome and the Germans, but otherwise when you look at the main religions of the world (I'm talking about the big three: I, C, and J) there are quite a few mutually exclusive beliefs that are held, even between denominations.
> 
> Some Christian groups don't believe in the deity of Christ. Others don't even believe in creation ex nihilo which sets them apart from basically everyone.


I'm not sure how what some Christian groups don't believe in was relevant. Also, I'm not considering anything "superstition."

Saying that "the main religions of the world" are Islam, Christianity and Judaism really distorts things. At most you're covering maybe a third of humanity in 2014, a far smaller portion in 1450, and none prior to the Iron Age. Whatever religion is, it was that a heck of a long time before anybody started writing scriptures, believing in only one god, legitimizing states.

I understand that you might have some ideological reason to want to eliminate all that from consideration, just as millionrainbows wants to eliminate spirit possession from his consideration of religion. But both have to accept that apparently human religious behavior ordinarily includes all of those things. Not only among the Romans, who did all of them, or the Germans who probably did all of them though I'm not sure what the evidence is, nor only among members of big institutionalized monotheistic religions (most of whom do at least several of them), but among all of humanity at large.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I'm not sure how what some Christian groups don't believe in was relevant. Also, I'm not considering anything "superstition."
> 
> Saying that "the main religions of the world" are Islam, Christianity and Judaism really distorts things. At most you're covering maybe a third of humanity in 2014, a far smaller portion in 1450, and none prior to the Iron Age. Whatever religion is, it was that a heck of a long time before anybody started writing scriptures, believing in only one god, legitimizing states.
> 
> I understand that you might have some ideological reason to want to eliminate all that from consideration, just as millionrainbows wants to eliminate spirit possession from his consideration of religion. But both have to accept that apparently human religious behavior ordinarily includes all of those things. Not only among the Romans, who did all of them, or the Germans who probably did all of them though I'm not sure what the evidence is, nor only among members of big institutionalized monotheistic religions (most of whom do at least several of them), but among all of humanity at large.


Not so fast, friend. That clever little ad hom in the third paragraph towards myself is unnecessary; I would ask that you afford me the same courtesies I afford yourself.

Now, let me answer each paragraph separately here so I can think clearly:

1. It was merely an example. Such examples abound between denominations in religions around the world. Need I go all across the board and discuss the differences between Vedanta and Hare Krishna Hinduism, Sufi, Wahabi, Sunni and Sheia Islam. Differences abound just between denominations, let alone the world of differences that can be found between Sikhism and Hinduism, etc.

2. What I said wasn't a distortion at all. Those three dwarf any others when it comes to the number of adherents. That means that for the last 1400 years, most of the people in the world disagreed with each other quite a bit. This "third" of humanity is quite a scant figure my friend, compared to the real figures.

http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm

Let's see... 2 billion Christians. 1.3 billion Muslims. 14 million Jews, not so surprising. 900 million Hindus. 394 million following indigenous Chinese folk beliefs. 360 million Bhuddists. Not nearly as many Jews any more, but of course that was Rome's effect on the Diaspora. While Judaism and it's adherents have always been a decided minority, if anything, it is clear that most of the people in the world do in fact look back to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, etc.

3. Looking at the world today, and looking at world history, I would say that it is soundly arguable that there isn't much of anything ordinary in religion.

Now... what's the real thrust of your list? There are tons of different factors in religion. I can of course make a list of beliefs that divide people just as well as you can make that list. It isn't all exclusive and it isn't all the same. But it is all down to the individual person.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Not so fast, friend. That clever little ad hom in the third paragraph towards myself is unnecessary; I would ask that you afford me the same courtesies I afford yourself.
> 
> Now, let me answer each paragraph separately here so I can think clearly:
> 
> 1. It was merely an example. Such examples abound between denominations in religions around the world. Need I go all across the board and discuss the differences between Vedanta and Hare Krishna Hinduism, Sufi, Wahabi, Sunni and Sheia Islam. Differences abound just between denominations, let alone the world of differences that can be found between Sikhism and Hinduism, etc.
> 
> 2. What I said wasn't a distortion at all. Those three dwarf any others when it comes to the number of adherents. That means that for the last 1400 years, most of the people in the world disagreed with each other quite a bit. This "third" of humanity is quite a scant figure my friend, compared to the real figures.
> 
> http://www.religionfacts.com/big_religion_chart.htm
> 
> Let's see... 2 billion Christians. 1.3 billion Muslims. 14 million Jews, not so surprising. 900 million Hindus. 394 million following indigenous Chinese folk beliefs. 360 million Bhuddists. Not nearly as many Jews any more, but of course that was Rome's effect on the Diaspora. While Judaism and it's adherents have always been a decided minority, if anything, it is clear that most of the people in the world do in fact look back to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, etc.
> 
> 3. Looking at the world today, and looking at world history, I would say that it is soundly arguable that there isn't much of anything ordinary in religion.
> 
> Now... what's the real thrust of your list? There are tons of different factors in religion. I can of course make a list of beliefs that divide people just as well as you can make that list. It isn't all exclusive and it isn't all the same. But it is all down to the individual person.


There was no ad hom in the third paragraph.

1 & 2. Whatever you want to say about religion has to be as true of the religious traditions of some foraging society as of the big organized religions that flourish in modern states. Pretending that since Christianity and Islam are the biggest they are the only ones that really have to be considered representative of humanity really is a distortion. This is THE point. Milliionrainbows only wants to count the meditative, mystical traditions and their music as "sacred." That's fine, I guess, but we need to recognize that the results are arbitrary.

3. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we've been discussing. You appear to be focusing on the word "universal." There are things that are true of all humans, things that are true of most humans, things that are true of some humans, things that are true only of you individually. Any time you limit your considerations of religion to the monotheistic traditions, you're in the "things that are true of some humans" category, at best. Me, I want to see what we can say of religion in the "things that are true of all humans" category. Short of that I won't make generalizations about religion or religious music without acknowledging the exceptions. So I wouldn't exclude raucous, wild music from the category of religious music because I know there's a lot of raucous, wild music out there in the various traditions of religious music.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> There was no ad hom in the third paragraph.
> 
> 1 & 2. Whatever you want to say about religion has to be as true of the religious traditions of some foraging society as of the big organized religions that flourish in modern states. Pretending that since Christianity and Islam are the biggest they are the only ones that really have to be considered representative of humanity really is a distortion. This is THE point. Milliionrainbows only wants to count the meditative, mystical traditions and their music as "sacred." That's fine, I guess, but we need to recognize that the results are arbitrary.
> 
> 3. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we've been discussing. You appear to be focusing on the word "universal." There are things that are true of all humans, things that are true of most humans, things that are true of some humans, things that are true only of you individually. Any time you limit your considerations of religion to the monotheistic traditions, you're in the "things that are true of some humans" category, at best. Me, I want to see what we can say of religion in the "things that are true of all humans" category. Short of that I won't make generalizations about religion or religious music without acknowledging the exceptions. So I wouldn't exclude raucous, wild music from the category of religious music because I know there's a lot of raucous, wild music out there in the various traditions of religious music.


The ad hom was the jibe about my ideological motivations. You aren't the only rational creature here friend. I don't find it hard at all to discuss complicated subjects with you without referring to your supposed biases and motivations. That is because genetic fallacies are tiresome, as are genetic references in general during such discussion. You can make any point without trying to infer something about me or million. Implicating who and what you might subjectively think we are doesn't do anything for anyone. On the contrary, it should be painstakingly evident from such sites as this that involving that in complicated discussion just irritates everyone and even can promote an inflammatory atmosphere.

Of course, you didn't do anything all that bad. And of course we've had our discussions about confirmation bias, ideological motivations, etc. That's as much mention as it ever needed.

1 & 2. Herein is a sleugh of assumptions that aren't supported by what I literally said. Please remember that I'm a very literal type. C and I aren't "the only ones that really have to be considered". They are what they are: the two main religions. They don't define religion and everything there is to it, what they do underscore is that for the last 1400 years people have had a lot of differences in thought. Of course the whole story is quite a bit longer. However I do feel that the more we learn, the more anthropologists understand that ancient nomadic people didn't all just subscribe to the same generic formula.

3. And you're drawing hasty assumptions about what all fits in that category.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> The ad hom was the jibe about my ideological motivations. You aren't the only rational creature here friend. I don't find it hard at all to discuss complicated subjects with you without referring to your supposed biases and motivations. That is because genetic fallacies are tiresome, as are genetic references in general during such discussion. You can make any point without trying to infer something about me or million. Implicating who and what you might subjectively think we are doesn't do anything for anyone. On the contrary, it should be painstakingly evident from such sites as this that involving that in complicated discussion just irritates everyone and even can promote an inflammatory atmosphere.
> 
> Of course, you didn't do anything all that bad. And of course we've had our discussions about confirmation bias, ideological motivations, etc. That's as much mention as it ever needed.
> 
> 1 & 2. Herein is a sleugh of assumptions that aren't supported by what I literally said. Please remember that I'm a very literal type. C and I aren't "the only ones that really have to be considered". They are what they are: the two main religions. They don't define religion and everything there is to it, what they do underscore is that for the last 1400 years people have had a lot of differences in thought. Of course the whole story is quite a bit longer. However I do feel that the more we learn, the more anthropologists understand that ancient nomadic people didn't all just subscribe to the same generic formula.
> 
> 3. And you're drawing hasty assumptions about what all fits in that category.


Biases are important, and understanding that our ideologies drive our ideas about these things is important too. Rather than me trying to pretend you don't have them, why don't you help me identify mine?

The word "main" is bothering me, as if everything except Christianity and Islam were marginal and can be discounted when we consider religion. Really, that view is pretty generous since most people in our culture don't consider anything except Christianity. But it's still shortsighted. How about this? The main _countries_ in the world are China and India, and in them Christianity and Islam are only minority traditions. Anything like this is going to produce distortions. In fact, the largest traditions are likely to be idiosyncratic. If you begin by discounting all those other traditions, you're guaranteed to have distortions in your ideas about religion. _Guaranteed_. It's exactly like trying to make generalizations about human language from only English and Spanish.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Biases are important, and understanding that our ideologies drive our ideas about these things is important too. Rather than me trying to pretend you don't have them, why don't you help me identify mine?
> 
> The word "main" is bothering me, as if everything except Christianity and Islam were marginal and can be discounted when we consider religion. Really, that view is pretty generous since most people in our culture don't consider anything except Christianity. But it's still shortsighted. How about this? The main _countries_ in the world are China and India, and in them Christianity and Islam are only minority traditions. Anything like this is going to produce distortions. In fact, the largest traditions are likely to be idiosyncratic. If you begin by discounting all those other traditions, you're guaranteed to have distortions in your ideas about religion. _Guaranteed_. It's exactly like trying to make generalizations about human language from only English and Spanish.


Except that it seems you're the one trying to make generalizations. You can take the word "main" however you want, because 1+1 does indeed equal 2. Find me another religion with more adherents worldwide. There's nothing misleading about that, as I'm not inferring that they are the main religions because of geography. The only distorted thing here is what you've been getting out of my mentioning them. Big assumptions about what it is that your interlocutor is really saying, is something I prefer to be patient and especially curious with. The more questions you ask, the better, no? Questions are fun: fun to think of, and they make the whole discussion more fun, because two informed interlocutors derive ten times more pleasure and progress during dialogue than one hundred interlocutors talking past one another. Feel free to ask them.

As I said before, I'm a very literal type. If I never say that other religions are marginal and unimportant simply because they don't have as many adherents, then we don't have any reason to assume that I think that, do we? Otherwise I surely would have intoned a detail like that. Maybe some or most other folks like to leave implications like that, however my wonky old noggin never has been able to wrap itself around subtext like that so I just don't deal in subtext.

Biases are important indeed. They just aren't something I feel like discussing. I'd much rather have dialogue on simple syllogistic grounds, "A" and "B" therefore "C", rather than either pontificating to you about your tendencies or listening to you go on about mine. Equations are wrong because they don't add up, not because "Bob believes in Jodenheim, Wildejaggd and Vallhalla". I'm sorry but that stuff just bores me to tears. I don't want to identify your biases, don't care what you think about mine. More often than not that kind of stuff appears to be grounds for _viva yo_, "big me little you", or more appropriately in this type of discussion "you're just not being as rational as me".

You don't have to pretend I don't have ideologies. But let's make the educated guess that between the hundreds, probably thousands of books that have been read between the two of us we haven't got a clue really what all the other gentleman's ideologies really are and what all they are based upon. I would personally like to think that logical principles and abstracts exist irrespective of personalities, as they can typically be understood and agreed upon by all types that have been educated in them. One plus one does equal two, yes? Then let's stack colored blocks together, monsieur. We can build a whole castle with one block after another.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Exactly how did yo reach the conclusion that I was afraid or biased against or uncomfortable with any of those things?
> 
> Justify that _ad hom_ or take it back.


That was directed more at the person who denied that there were any universal characterisics of sacred music at all except 'style.'... Plus, you misread my intent. "In spite of science's intention..." meant your_ good_ intent.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> I applaud your perspective and welcome it. In no way should you be deterred from your fancies, and you're welcome to share them with me.


Thanks, and that's what this thread is for. Can I stay for dinner?



Lukecash12 said:


> That doesn't however make my rib eye the same as your filet mignon, friend.


That may be true, but I'm here to uncover and reveal commonalities, not differences. And I think mine is a relatively minority position, in this context of a Western classical music forum with a "religious music" section, as evidenced from many of the defensive reactions and desperate defenders of doctrinal exclusivity.

You're welcome to discuss your doctrinal minutiae, but my purpose is diametrically different in direction. I'd like this thread to be a 'living testament' to the common spirituality and sense of the sacred among all participants here, and produce a harmonious effect, rather than promote conflict. After all, I think the best end result of any religion or spiritual engagement is to produce a person with a positive subjective identity which spills over into their outward social identity and acts.



Lukecash12 said:


> Some Christian groups don't believe in the deity of Christ. Others don't even believe in creation ex nihilo which sets them apart from basically everyone.


I think that emphasizing 'differences' in doctrines, people, or cultures, is something that is best left to the people involved as "declarations and celebrations of our particular culture, religion, etc." and not from 'outsiders' who are identifying these people, religions, and cultures from without. It makes them uncomfortable.

For me, as an outsider, I wish to make commonalities apparent, so that we all share a sense of being 'insiders' in the human race.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> And what if music can't be "fully" appreciated by anyone anyways? What if validity is a non-issue? I would say that it is, and I would go even further in saying that music can only be appreciated *personally*. To you maybe that stuff is baggage, but to many others it is very rewarding. Much like in the general practice of philosophy, the benefit we gain is based upon the questions we pose, what we hope to gain from the experience.
> 
> Instead of dogma weighing "it" down, can you at least recognize that there is more than one "it" and yours isn't any more valid?


You seem to be more interested in "content" than aesthetic experience of music.

Before recording, all music was heard within and attached to some social function. My point is that recording has removed music from these original intended social functions and contexts, and now listening is a* subjective *experience. There is no need for me to acknowledge any other perspective other than my own, unless I'm studying the music for its historical significance.

The ideology of a musical work leads towards a repression of the sensual. It is necessary to the aesthetic response that we free ourselves from textual and doctrinal content in order to fully experience the aesthetic form.

Music is the 'dynamic' of feelings and emotions and thoughts. Musical emotion is profound but vague. In this sense, modern recording has transformed all music into 'absolute' music, absent of specific meaning.

Music is concerned with feelings which are primarily individual and rooted in the body; music's structural and sensual elements resonate more with individuals' cognitive and emotional sets rather than with their cultural or doctrinal sentiments, although its external manner and expression may be rooted in historical circumstances.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I understand that you might have some ideological reason to want to eliminate all that from consideration, just as millionrainbows wants to eliminate spirit possession from his consideration of religion. But both have to accept that apparently human religious behavior ordinarily includes all of those things.


No, no, science. I think we are primarily on the same side. I think spirit possession is a very valid concept, and probably happens all the time (Putin). :lol:


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Except that it seems you're the one trying to make generalizations. You can take the word "main" however you want, because 1+1 does indeed equal 2. Find me another religion with more adherents worldwide. There's nothing misleading about that, as I'm not inferring that they are the main religions because of geography. The only distorted thing here is what you've been getting out of my mentioning them. Big assumptions about what it is that your interlocutor is really saying, is something I prefer to be patient and especially curious with. The more questions you ask, the better, no? Questions are fun: fun to think of, and they make the whole discussion more fun, because two informed interlocutors derive ten times more pleasure and progress during dialogue than one hundred interlocutors talking past one another. Feel free to ask them.
> 
> As I said before, I'm a very literal type. If I never say that other religions are marginal and unimportant simply because they don't have as many adherents, then we don't have any reason to assume that I think that, do we? Otherwise I surely would have intoned a detail like that. Maybe some or most other folks like to leave implications like that, however my wonky old noggin never has been able to wrap itself around subtext like that so I just don't deal in subtext.
> 
> Biases are important indeed. They just aren't something I feel like discussing. I'd much rather have dialogue on simple syllogistic grounds, "A" and "B" therefore "C", rather than either pontificating to you about your tendencies or listening to you go on about mine. Equations are wrong because they don't add up, not because "Bob believes in Jodenheim, Wildejaggd and Vallhalla". I'm sorry but that stuff just bores me to tears. I don't want to identify your biases, don't care what you think about mine. More often than not that kind of stuff appears to be grounds for _viva yo_, "big me little you", or more appropriately in this type of discussion "you're just not being as rational as me".
> 
> You don't have to pretend I don't have ideologies. But let's make the educated guess that between the hundreds, probably thousands of books that have been read between the two of us we haven't got a clue really what all the other gentleman's ideologies really are and what all they are based upon. I would personally like to think that logical principles and abstracts exist irrespective of personalities, as they can typically be understood and agreed upon by all types that have been educated in them. One plus one does equal two, yes? Then let's stack colored blocks together, monsieur. We can build a whole castle with one block after another.


Then why stop at 2? Why are there 2 "main" religions rather than 3? Why not generalize from the 3 "main" religions?

Or the 4 "main" religions? Or the 5 "main" religions? Etc.

I'd rather generalize from all the religious traditions than pretend that I can make some non-arbitrary selection. And even if I did try to make a non-arbitrary selection, I wouldn't choose two that had almost identical histories and ideas and practices.

Logic exists objectively, and of course a lot of empirical facts can be observed inter-subjectively. If we could limit our considerations to those things, then we might be able to stick to conclusions in which our biases played little role. But we're far outside of that realm as soon as, say, we decide to discuss what "the main religions" are. Or what "sacred" is. And so on.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> That was directed more at the person who denied that there were any universal characterisics of sacred music at all except 'style.'... Plus, you misread my intent. "In spite of science's intention..." meant your_ good_ intent.


I've read that several times now and I cannot figure out how to make what you wrote mean that. But anyway, whatever. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Then why stop at 2? Why are there 2 "main" religions rather than 3? Why not generalize from the 3 "main" religions?
> 
> Or the 4 "main" religions? Or the 5 "main" religions? Etc.
> 
> I'd rather generalize from all the religious traditions than pretend that I can make some non-arbitrary selection. And even if I did try to make a non-arbitrary selection, I wouldn't choose two that had almost identical histories and ideas and practices.
> 
> Logic exists objectively, and of course a lot of empirical facts can be observed inter-subjectively. If we could limit our considerations to those things, then we might be able to stick to conclusions in which our biases played little role. But we're far outside of that realm as soon as, say, we decide to discuss what "the main religions" are. Or what "sacred" is. And so on.


1. Who said I was "stopping"? And why not generalize from them all? Because the more we include the less "general" it seems. But of course there is a bigger picture when you start turning the time dial.

2. The selection wasn't arbitrary at all. We're looking at religion all over the world, and it seems for the most part that involves comparing the big two. More people follow those religions. So if we want to get very general we want to include the most people in our observations. Billions of people appear to be tied up on the same issues. Of course the story is bigger and so much more can be included, we've got a lot of history and prehistory to speculate upon.

3. It's about as objective as you get when you're talking about a huge chunk of the world's population. And we aren't discussing what sacred is. In part we are discussing what people say about that and how their thoughts compare. Just straightforward observations, no need to insert these odd bits of conjecture that you have.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Who said I was "stopping"? And why not generalize from them all? Because the more we include the less "general" it seems. But of course there is a bigger picture when you start turning the time dial.
> 
> 2. The selection wasn't arbitrary at all. We're looking at religion all over the world, and it seems for the most part that involves comparing the big two. More people follow those religions. So if we want to get very general we want to include the most people in our observations. Billions of people appear to be tied up on the same issues. Of course the story is bigger and so much more can be included, we've got a lot of history and prehistory to speculate upon.
> 
> 3. It's about as objective as you get when you're talking about a huge chunk of the world's population. And we aren't discussing what sacred is. In part we are discussing what people say about that and how their thoughts compare. Just straightforward observations, no need to insert these odd bits of conjecture that you have.


You can repeat as many times as you like that looking only at Christianity and Islam would give you a fair idea of what religion is; it still is wrong. Literally so!

Some ways that misleads you:

- You expect a religion to focus on a single, well-defined text. 
- You expect a religion to be led by precisely specified male adults whose primary qualification is their knowledge of that text. 
- You expect a religion to trace itself to a particular founder, a male, and to care about the details of his life. 
- You expect a religion to have a theory of history, especially of its transmission.
- You expect a religion to feature sermons given in buildings built for that purpose.
- You expect a religion to suffer some anxiety about the appropriateness of using images in worship. 
- You expect dance to be a relatively minor feature of religion. 
- You expect drums to be almost absent from religious music. 
- You expect spirit possession to be a rare and questionable event. 
- You expect a religion to have a calendar using 7-day weeks. 
- You expect a religion to have "holy cities." 
- You expect a religion to worship a single "God." 
- You expect a religion to identify "right" with its God and "wrong" with opposition to its God. 
- You expect a religion to promise some kind of life after death in a heaven, and to threaten a hell. 
- You expect a religion to demand exclusive allegiance. 
- You expect a religion to have "orthodox" and "unorthodox" variants, with conflict over which is "orthodox."
- You expect a religion to spread itself by organized violence, including against "unorthodox" variants. 
- You expect a religion to have been identified with a large empire. 
- You expect a religion to have very specific boundaries, so everyone knows who's "in" as a member and who's "out." 
- You expect a religion to have about a billion members.

Size was evidently not a consideration when we began this, given that you included Judaism, which is relatively tiny compared to a lot of traditions you choose to ignore, but just happens to share most of those features.

With time we could make this list of generalizations from "the 2 main religions plus one that is a lot like them" very long indeed, before we needed to get to generalizations that would hold up if we considered only the other major "world religions" from the Eurasian traditions of South Asia and East Asia. They look really foolish when we start adding in all the traditions of Africa, the Americas, Australia, Polynesia, pre-Christian Europeans, the ancient peoples of the Middle East, and all the new religious movements.

Of course you know perfectly well that arbitrarily using only the two largest religions in the world as a sample will give you a very distorted view of religion, but you insist on it because that view is the one you want. It evidently helps you somehow. Perhaps acknowledging the historical contingency of your tradition threatens you. Or perhaps acknowledging the relative rarity of monotheism threatens you. Perhaps you like to imagine that religions consists of discrete and mutually exclusive "religions" because the simplicity of that idea. I don't know of course. But whatever your reason is, there is something other than pure reason motivating your insistence on limiting your considerations to precisely those two traditions. Again, it is precisely as if I decided that I could understand human language having studied only English and Spanish.

Of course this relates to our definition of "sacred music." If we begin by eliminating all the oral traditions, all the local traditions, all the polytheistic traditions, all the traditions that do not require exclusivity, and so on - all the traditions except two or three that took shape in the Middle East and spread largely by identifying themselves with states and legitimizing the violence of those states - you cannot get a very full picture of the real diversity of sacred music.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> You can repeat as many times as you like that looking only at Christianity and Islam would give you a fair idea of what religion is; it still is wrong. Literally so!











Only problem is brah, I haven't said a single time that "looking only at Christianity and Islam would give you a fair idea of what religion is".



> - You expect a religion to focus on a single, well-defined text.
> - You expect a religion to be led by precisely specified male adults whose primary qualification is their knowledge of that text.
> - You expect a religion to trace itself to a particular founder, a male, and to care about the details of his life.
> - You expect a religion to have a theory of history, especially of its transmission.
> - You expect a religion to feature sermons given in buildings built for that purpose.
> - You expect a religion to suffer some anxiety about the appropriateness of using images in worship.
> - You expect dance to be a relatively minor feature of religion.
> - You expect drums to be almost absent from religious music.
> - You expect spirit possession to be a rare and questionable event.
> - You expect a religion to have a calendar using 7-day weeks.
> - You expect a religion to have "holy cities."
> - You expect a religion to worship a single "God."
> - You expect a religion to identify "right" with its God and "wrong" with opposition to its God.
> - You expect a religion to promise some kind of life after death in a heaven, and to threaten a hell.
> - You expect a religion to demand exclusive allegiance.
> - You expect a religion to have "orthodox" and "unorthodox" variants, with conflict over which is "orthodox."
> - You expect a religion to spread itself by organized violence, including against "unorthodox" variants.
> - You expect a religion to have been identified with a large empire.
> - You expect a religion to have very specific boundaries, so everyone knows who's "in" as a member and who's "out."
> - You expect a religion to have about a billion members.


"You expect", "you expect", "you expect", "you expect", "you expect"... Okay that's just nauseating to read and it comes off as pretty pompous. I never said any of that. If you think those are my expectations then go ahead and poke holes in the straw man. I'll still be here when you're interested in engaging with the real man. Are you really so oblivious that you don't realize you're talking down to me like I'm a child? I'm honestly amazed that you think you know me and my expectations so well, because if you did know them that well that would mean you're in a league of one.

Here's the simple formula of what I just said: "Most believe" does not equal "this is what religion is". It's a *starting* observation.

The fact that most people subscribe to this or that is notable. When most people tend towards something, you know what observation you can make? That most people tend towards something. This is pretty much as syllogistic as "socrates is a man", "all men are mortal", "ergo socrates is mortal". What's tripping you up is that you want to make a jump to light-speed ahead of this train of thought and string together a ton of assumptions about what that must mean. Is it all that hard just to ask "what do you mean by that"?



> Of course you know perfectly well that arbitrarily using only the two largest religions in the world as a sample will give you a very distorted view of religion, but you insist on it because that view is the one you want. It evidently helps you somehow. Perhaps acknowledging the historical contingency of your tradition threatens you. Or perhaps acknowledging the relative rarity of monotheism threatens you. Perhaps you like to imagine that religions consists of discrete and mutually exclusive "religions" because the simplicity of that idea. I don't know of course. But whatever your reason is, there is something other than pure reason motivating your insistence on limiting your considerations to precisely those two traditions. Again, it is precisely as if I decided that I could understand human language having studied only English and Spanish.


1. I don't feel threatened at all. This seems to be a button you enjoy pressing. Just give it a rest, please.

2. I never insisted on that. You won't find me doing that anywhere. What we will find is you reading a bunch of imaginary stuff in between the lines. And we'll also find that that itty bitty, minor little detail of me being a *very literal type* has still managed to escape you up to this point. If it isn't literally there, then it just isn't there.

3. Helps me to do what? Are you really so deeply under the impression that my whole purpose in discussing such subjects is just a pissing contest? I'm not a caveman, for christ's sake. I mean, try and have a little more imagination than that. "Limiting", "arbitrarily", "only", "insistence", "eliminating", "not a consideration". How about a polite little question or two? Inquisitive and conscientious questions are normally a lot funner during such discussion than pointless rejoinders where your interlocutor just decides to blurt out six or so paragraphs about how dumb you must be if I really think what you think I think. Yawn...


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> View attachment 47355
> 
> 
> Only problem is brah, I haven't said a single time that "looking only at Christianity and Islam would give you a fair idea of what religion is".
> 
> "You expect", "you expect", "you expect", "you expect", "you expect"... Okay that's just nauseating to read and it comes off as pretty pompous. I never said any of that. If you think those are my expectations then go ahead and poke holes in the straw man. I'll still be here when you're interested in engaging with the real man. Are you really so oblivious that you don't realize you're talking down to me like I'm a child? I'm honestly amazed that you think you know me and my expectations so well, because if you did know them that well that would mean you're in a league of one.
> 
> Here's the simple formula of what I just said: "Most believe" does not equal "this is what religion is". It's a *starting* observation.
> 
> The fact that most people subscribe to this or that is notable. When most people tend towards something, you know what observation you can make? That most people tend towards something. This is pretty much as syllogistic as "socrates is a man", "all men are mortal", "ergo socrates is mortal". What's tripping you up is that you want to make a jump to light-speed ahead of this train of thought and string together a ton of assumptions about what that must mean. Is it all that hard just to ask "what do you mean by that"?
> 
> 1. I don't feel threatened at all. This seems to be a button you enjoy pressing. Just give it a rest, please.
> 
> 2. I never insisted on that. You won't find me doing that anywhere. What we will find is you reading a bunch of imaginary stuff in between the lines. And we'll also find that that itty bitty, minor little detail of me being a *very literal type* has still managed to escape you up to this point. If it isn't literally there, then it just isn't there.
> 
> 3. Helps me to do what? Are you really so deeply under the impression that my whole purpose in discussing such subjects is just a pissing contest? I'm not a caveman, for christ's sake. I mean, try and have a little more imagination than that. "Limiting", "arbitrarily", "only", "insistence", "eliminating", "not a consideration". How about a polite little question or two? Inquisitive and conscientious questions are normally a lot funner during such discussion than pointless rejoinders where your interlocutor just decides to blurt out six or so paragraphs about how dumb you must be if I really think what you think I think. Yawn...


That list was of conclusions you would draw if you limit your consideration to what you're calling "the main religions."

Let's put it this way. Why exclude Hinduism from your list of "the main religions?" Why exclude Buddhism? Especially given that you originally included Judaism. What's the non-arbitrary justification for that?

There is of course none. You were wrong to do it. You chose to ignore the majority of humanity, not just throughout history but at the present moment.

Again, you cannot expect to get an accurate picture of "sacred music" if you BEGIN by systematically (and arbitrarily) ignoring almost all of India and almost all of China throughout the entirety of their histories, almost all of Japan, all the Americans before Columbus, those Africans who have been neither Muslim nor Christian, the entire ancient world including even the Mediterranean and West Asia, Australian aborigines, and Polynesians - just because they are not "the main religions."


----------



## science

Also, I'm not treating you like you're stupid or anything. You're absolutely normal - almost all Americans discount the rest of the world, even when they think about religion. It's usually Christianity alone; Christianity and Judaism at best. Some hippie left-wingers would consider Hinduism and/or Buddhism and/or Taoism as well, but outside of NYC and the west coast those guys are marginal to the culture at large. Not only Christians do this - listen to normal American atheists (insofar as there is such a thing) talk about religion and it very quickly becomes crystal clear that they are thinking exclusively of Christianity, maybe a little of Judaism or even of Islam. Even scholars do it; Huston Smith is a great example, as in his "Why Religion Matters" it becomes apparent that this guy who spent his life popularizing the idea of "world religions" (itself a hopelessly problematic term) pretty much only has Protestant Christianity in mind when he says "religion," projecting its assumptions on to _all the other traditions in the world_. He's not stupid, he's both smart enough and educated enough to know better, but he slipped up.

You were actually quite broad minded to include Islam. But this is a serious problem in how Americans ordinarily deal with religion, and it appears here in our discussion of sacred music as well. If our idea of sacred music doesn't include the raucous drumming and dancing of "shamans" all over the world, our idea is simply _wrong_. It doesn't matter that they don't belong to "the main traditions" or whatever - they're almost certainly more similar to what humans have usually done throughout our history than a well-organized ritual of standing straight up to sing a few hymns and sitting on long benches to sing a few others.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> That list was of conclusions you would draw if you limit your consideration to what you're calling "the main religions."
> 
> Let's put it this way. Why exclude Hinduism from your list of "the main religions?" Why exclude Buddhism? Especially given that you originally included Judaism. What's the non-arbitrary justification for that?
> 
> There is of course none. You were wrong to do it. You chose to ignore the majority of humanity, not just throughout history but at the present moment.
> 
> Again, you cannot expect to get an accurate picture of "sacred music" if you BEGIN by systematically (and arbitrarily) ignoring almost all of India and almost all of China throughout the entirety of their histories, almost all of Japan, all the Americans before Columbus, those Africans who have been neither Muslim nor Christian, the entire ancient world including even the Mediterranean and West Asia, Australian aborigines, and Polynesians - just because they are not "the main religions."


"Main religions" isn't some exclusive, superior list. If we wanted to talk about a larger list of main religions then Hinduism would be one of them. Like I cited earlier, hundreds of millions of people are Hindus. Furthermore, I never limited my considerations, and I didn't begin by "systematically" ignoring anything. I began with the religions that have the most current adherents, mentioning Judaism for a reason I already stated: it's scriptures are referred to and read by Christians and Muslims alike, as "the beginning of the story".

No one is being ignored. Yet again you are thinking as if you have some perfect frame into my mind when I never literally said any of that. "Main" doesn't mean "valid", it means what it literally means. And I said from the start that I was only talking about the present situation. Of course the situation used to be different, it's changed a lot over time and it's one of the things I most love to contemplate. We have similar interests bro, you don't need to be pegging me into this corner when I was probably right there with you back in the day reading the Enuma Elish just for it's own sake, not to compare it with Genesis.



> Also, I'm not treating you like you're stupid or anything. You're absolutely normal - almost all Americans discount the rest of the world, even when they think about religion. It's usually Christianity alone; Christianity and Judaism at best. Some hippie left-wingers would consider Hinduism and/or Buddhism and/or Taoism as well, but outside of NYC and the west coast those guys are marginal to the culture at large. Not only Christians do this - listen to normal American atheists (insofar as there is such a thing) talk about religion and it very quickly becomes crystal clear that they are thinking exclusively of Christianity, maybe a little of Judaism or even of Islam. Even scholars do it; Huston Smith is a great example, as in his "Why Religion Matters" it becomes apparent that this guy who spent his life popularizing the idea of "world religions" (itself a hopelessly problematic term) pretty much only has Protestant Christianity in mind when he says "religion," projecting its assumptions on to all the other traditions in the world. He's not stupid, he's both smart enough and educated enough to know better, but he slipped up.
> 
> You were actually quite broad minded to include Islam. But this is a serious problem in how Americans ordinarily deal with religion, and it appears here in our discussion of sacred music as well. If our idea of sacred music doesn't include the raucous drumming and dancing of "shamans" all over the world, our idea is simply wrong. It doesn't matter that they don't belong to "the main traditions" or whatever - they're almost certainly more similar to what humans have usually done throughout our history than a well-organized ritual of standing straight up to sing a few hymns and sitting on long benches to sing a few others.


I felt my intelligence was insulted because I do have the same passion for these subjects as yourself. There are no "marginal religions" to me, and it honestly surprises me that you would keep projecting your ideas about American religious awareness onto me because it seems that I've made it clear by now during all these discussions we've had that I studied anthropology in college and still love it. It flabbergasts me that you interpret "well, let's start by looking at what nearly 4 billion people believe today" as saying "well, this is the only valid starting point, and it's all you need to look at to begin making generalizations".

Let me be clear again, as this can help us to enjoy much clearer conversations in the future. As I've said before a number of times, I'm very literal. Much like others on the spectrum I can have trouble understanding sarcastic or sardonic statements, metaphors and idioms. Subtext is more often than not pretty well beyond my grasp. Your brain was built to function towards a certain end, and because of chemical imbalances and lack of insular lining between grey matter my amygdala, parietal lobe and pineal gland don't do what they're normally supposed to do, so we're both hardwired in a unique way (it's just that my hard-wiring works great for a few things and poorly with the rest). I hate to even mention this any more than I have to, as many like myself who don't have symptoms nearly as severe as those with the classic disorder have a permanent mentality of inappropriate "disableism" and making childish excuses, but you don't seem to have grasped this as of yet. Simply put: I'm not really even capable of doing what you think I'm doing.

Interestingly enough, you are actually making my point for me in that second paragraph. There are starkly different traditions of sacred music out there. They don't think the same, make music that sounds the same, do the same things while they listen or participate, etc.


----------



## science

Ok, then, what benefit at all is there in classifying some religions as "the main ones" and others as "not the main ones?" WHY did you choose to do that? Why did you stop at 3? For what literal reason are there 3 rather than 4 or 8 or 12 or 23 or 103 "main religions?" Explain it as literally as you like!


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Ok, then, what benefit at all is there in classifying some religions as "the main ones" and others as "not the main ones?" WHY did you choose to do that? Why did you stop at 3? For what literal reason are there 3 rather than 4 or 8 or 12 or 23 or 103 "main religions?" Explain it as literally as you like!


The "big 3" in religion are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism; this is common knowledge because of numbers of adherents.


----------



## Wood

Yawn! 

Guys, you've got stuck in a rut here discussing what Luke and America means by the main religions. 

Can you move it on a bit?


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> The "big 3" in religion are Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism; this is common knowledge because of numbers of adherents.


Uh...no. "Hinduism, with about one billion followers, is the world's third largest religion, after Christianity and Islam." --Wiki

However, Wiki ignores the largest religion of all, the worship of Mammon.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Ok, then, what benefit at all is there in classifying some religions as "the main ones" and others as "not the main ones?" WHY did you choose to do that? Why did you stop at 3? For what literal reason are there 3 rather than 4 or 8 or 12 or 23 or 103 "main religions?" Explain it as literally as you like!


None, hahahaha. You're just reading too much into it, I didn't mean to imply anything else. It wasn't a big deliberate choice as if I was making a distinction with great consequence. There is no literal reason other than what was already there.


----------



## science

Wood said:


> Yawn!
> 
> Guys, you've got stuck in a rut here discussing what Luke and America means by the main religions.
> 
> Can you move it on a bit?


The truth is, it's an interesting topic.

Until the Middle Ages, "we" Europeans classified the religions of the world as Christianity, Judaism, and paganism. Sometime around the Crusades we added "Mohammadanism," labeling it that way by analogy to Christianity, with the assumption that a religion would be named for a founder.

That went along pretty much unchanged until the 19th century. We should back up a bit and explain that in the 17th and 18th century Europeans found out about the Confucian tradition but it was treated as a secular philosophy.

Then in the 19th century the British "discovered" Buddhism, almost literally. The Buddhist tradition had not... let's say it had not "kept track" of itself as a distinct and organized tradition as it spread. It took a bit of sleuthing for the British to figure out that all the gigantic golden statues of East and Southeast Asia were actually part of a single tradition, and one that could be considered fairly analogous to Christianity and Islam, given that it looks back to a historical founder, is self-consciously literate, has particular doctrines, and so on. The main thing that really distinguished Buddhism from "normal" religions like Islam and Christianity was that it didn't try to be exclusive: as far as Buddhists were concerned, you could worship any number of spirits or whatever without any kind of conflict with Buddhism. That was a surprising concept.

Inspired, the British began finding new religions everywhere - they even created "Hinduism," giving a label to essentially everything religious in India that wasn't Islam or Buddhism or anything else more specific. Confucianism became labeled as a religion. So the list of religions grew and grew... Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Taoism. And the idea of "comparative religion" was born. For awhile, especially in the early 20th century, there were even efforts to classify the remaining "pagan" religious traditions into things like fetishism, animism, shamanism, and so on. (I still regard "shamanism" as a fairly useful category, but that is controversial among scholars.)

The idea of comparative religion persists today at a popular level, but at an academic level it has broken down in the last three or so decades with the realization that the coherence of these "religions" is largely a creation of scholars projecting some simple ideas created by western religious professionals - what we could basically term "confessionalism," the assumption that "religions" (the countable version) exist as organized bodies with discrete and conflicting beliefs - onto a far more complicated world. Even the native land of that assumption turns out to be much more complicated than the religious professionals hoped: folk religious traditions that are often more important to people than the "official" stuff promoted by the pros just arise and spread without regard for confessional boundaries or the opinions of religious professionals, most people don't actually regard the priests' (or other religious professionals's) ideas as very important anyway, many people even resent and secretly defy the ideas of the priests, the actual practices of people classified as different "religions" can be extremely similar, or the actual practices of people classified as the same "religion" can be very different, there is no end of syncretism, the actual content of all these labels are constantly changing anyway, and people change their religious identity fairly often.... and so on. In short, the confessional classifications themselves, when people actually use them, are best understood as data about particular situations rather than as something essential to a theoretical understanding religion as a whole. It may even be more than a minor point that "religion" itself (the uncountable abstraction) as a concept has a history and that it did not exist in most of the world prior to western influence.

I know that not everyone cares what is going on with the academic study of religion, and of course there are plenty of the old-fashioned scholars who go on assuming that the religious phenomena of the world inherently sorts itself into discrete -isms that can be studied without question. Really, it's just so much simpler.

But in fact, I think the main adjustment is mental. We just have to realize that the actual world of "religions" is in practice less like a new box of crayons and more like a box of crayons that have melted and are all mixed up. That is of course a big disappointment to people who want to enforce a particular religious community's boundaries or some particular orthodoxy or orthopraxy. But they can deal with it. For the rest of us, we have to stop saying "religion" so unselfconsciously, but usually "tradition" or "religious tradition" will work just as well. After all, things like having pews or meeting in a certain location for ritual or bibliomancy or arranging spirits into a precise hierarchy (or the idea that religious communities should be mutually exclusive) are all "traditions" regardless of how they cross some other sort of official category.

And this really does get us back to sacred music, since it is obvious that musical traditions cross confessional boundaries very freely, and within the boundaries they vary widely. While some Korean Buddhists have began adopting Protestant-style hymn singing, the Protestants themselves adopted quite a bit of their music from traditions we can easily trace back to "pagan" Africans (such as call and response); or, what you will hear in a monastery on Mt. Athos doesn't have a lot in common with what you will hear at a Gaither Homecoming.

So after all that, what are the universal characteristics of sacred music? I'd guess nothing except being music and being about religion!


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> None, hahahaha. You're just reading too much into it, I didn't mean to imply anything else. It wasn't a big deliberate choice as if I was making a distinction with great consequence. There is no literal reason other than what was already there.


Good! That is really good news.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Good! That is really good news.


Do you think you understand what I meant now about my condition? You were lightyears ahead of me in what you thought all of that meant and I was scratching my head at square one.



> The truth is, it's an interesting topic.
> 
> Until the Middle Ages, "we" Europeans classified the religions of the world as Christianity, Judaism, and paganism. Sometime around the Crusades we added "Mohammadanism," labeling it that way by analogy to Christianity, with the assumption that a religion would be named for a founder.
> 
> That went along pretty much unchanged until the 19th century. We should back up a bit and explain that in the 17th and 18th century Europeans found out about the Confucian tradition but it was treated as a secular philosophy.
> 
> Then in the 19th century the British "discovered" Buddhism, almost literally. The Buddhist tradition had not... let's say it had not "kept track" of itself as a distinct and organized tradition as it spread. It took a bit of sleuthing for the British to figure out that all the gigantic golden statues of East and Southeast Asia were actually part of a single tradition, and one that could be considered fairly analogous to Christianity and Islam, given that it looks back to a historical founder, is self-consciously literate, has particular doctrines, and so on. The main thing that really distinguished Buddhism from "normal" religions like Islam and Christianity was that it didn't try to be exclusive: as far as Buddhists were concerned, you could worship any number of spirits or whatever without any kind of conflict with Buddhism. That was a surprising concept.
> 
> Inspired, the British began finding new religions everywhere - they even created "Hinduism," giving a label to essentially everything religious in India that wasn't Islam or Buddhism or anything else more specific. Confucianism became labeled as a religion. So the list of religions grew and grew... Sikhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Shinto, Taoism. And the idea of "comparative religion" was born. For awhile, especially in the early 20th century, there were even efforts to classify the remaining "pagan" religious traditions into things like fetishism, animism, shamanism, and so on. (I still regard "shamanism" as a fairly useful category, but that is controversial among scholars.)
> 
> The idea of comparative religion persists today at a popular level, but at an academic level it has broken down in the last three or so decades with the realization that the coherence of these "religions" is largely a creation of scholars projecting some simple ideas created by western religious professionals - what we could basically term "confessionalism," the assumption that "religions" (the countable version) exist as organized bodies with discrete and conflicting beliefs - onto a far more complicated world. Even the native land of that assumption turns out to be much more complicated than the religious professionals hoped: folk religious traditions that are often more important to people than the "official" stuff promoted by the pros just arise and spread without regard for confessional boundaries or the opinions of religious professionals, most people don't actually regard the priests' (or other religious professionals's) ideas as very important anyway, many people even resent and secretly defy the ideas of the priests, the actual practices of people classified as different "religions" can be extremely similar, or the actual practices of people classified as the same "religion" can be very different, there is no end of syncretism, the actual content of all these labels are constantly changing anyway, and people change their religious identity fairly often.... and so on. In short, the confessional classifications themselves, when people actually use them, are best understood as data about particular situations rather than as something essential to a theoretical understanding religion as a whole. It may even be more than a minor point that "religion" itself (the uncountable abstraction) as a concept has a history and that it did not exist in most of the world prior to western influence.
> 
> I know that not everyone cares what is going on with the academic study of religion, and of course there are plenty of the old-fashioned scholars who go on assuming that the religious phenomena of the world inherently sorts itself into discrete -isms that can be studied without question. Really, it's just so much simpler.
> 
> But in fact, I think the main adjustment is mental. We just have to realize that the actual world of "religions" is in practice less like a new box of crayons and more like a box of crayons that have melted and are all mixed up. That is of course a big disappointment to people who want to enforce a particular religious community's boundaries or some particular orthodoxy or orthopraxy. But they can deal with it. For the rest of us, we have to stop saying "religion" so unselfconsciously, but usually "tradition" or "religious tradition" will work just as well. After all, things like having pews or meeting in a certain location for ritual or bibliomancy or arranging spirits into a precise hierarchy (or the idea that religious communities should be mutually exclusive) are all "traditions" regardless of how they cross some other sort of official category.
> 
> And this really does get us back to sacred music, since it is obvious that musical traditions cross confessional boundaries very freely, and within the boundaries they vary widely. While some Korean Buddhists have began adopting Protestant-style hymn singing, the Protestants themselves adopted quite a bit of their music from traditions we can easily trace back to "pagan" Africans (such as call and response); or, what you will hear in a monastery on Mt. Athos doesn't have a lot in common with what you will hear at a Gaither Homecoming.
> 
> So after all that, what are the universal characteristics of sacred music? I'd guess nothing except being music and being about religion!


I couldn't agree more. This is why I prefer to study religion through the lens of cultural anthropology over the lens of comparative religion. It's very much up to the individual and his or her immediate social and physical environment. I personally think it's short sighted to say there is anything universal about something that is ultimately very personal.

One good example I can think of is my views as a Preterist. Preterism is the idea that the rapture has already happened, that the fall of the second temple and the fall of Israel fulfilled much of revelation, that either Nero or Vespasian was the anti-christ, and that the period we are in right now is actually defined by the parables of the kingdom that talk about the harvest. While not many protestant leaning thinkers subscribe to Preterism, there are some and we tend to keep to ourselves about it because we don't feel there is any reason to bewilder or confuse our friends at church.

As you might imagine that is quite a different view from pre-trib, post-trib, pre-millenial, post-millineal, all-millineal, etc. which people are familiar with in the protestant sphere. Were I to mention it I would have to explain that it doesn't exactly mean I believe thus and such and thus and such, explaining the difference between "hard" and "soft" Preterism. So I can well imagine that there is a lot that people keep to themselves.

And of course there is this phenomenon you've mentioned called folk religion. I love to study folk religion, but personally I'm more of a classical period guy so that's where I've gotten most of my exposure to the idea. One main thing I have observed is that in the middle east people memorize thousands of wisdom sayings, parables and proverbs, many of which are unique to their region and even just their town. They participate in what is called a _haflat samar_, which is basically Arabic for a get together where an extended family and even a whole clan will get together and share in the village traditions. There is a measure of freedom involved in recitation but only those of a certain status get to recite and there are also strict content controls.

Here's a fascinating read that you might enjoy as much as I did:

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_tradition_bailey.html

Kenneth E. Bailey asks himself in this monograph how oral tradition relates to religion there and what that might tell us about classical period people in the middle east, posing the question of how much and what types of oral tradition were involved in the synoptic gospels.


----------



## Wood

science said:


> The truth is, it's an interesting topic.
> 
> It may even be more than a minor point that "religion" itself (the uncountable abstraction) as a concept has a history and that it did not exist in most of the world prior to western influence.
> 
> So after all that, what are the universal characteristics of sacred music? I'd guess nothing except being music and being about religion!


Yes, that is for sure.

Do you mean that religion and spirituality were indistinguishable from other facets of one's life prior to western influence? Could it then be deduced that these religious institutions were imposed as a means of power over neighbours and control over the populace.

My conclusion is the same. I never managed to extract any clear meaning from the OP.


----------



## Lukecash12

Wood said:


> Yes, that is for sure.
> 
> Do you mean that religion and spirituality were indistinguishable from other facets of one's life prior to western influence? Could it then be deduced that these religious institutions were imposed as a means of power over neighbours and control over the populace.
> 
> My conclusion is the same. I never managed to extract any clear meaning from the OP.


They weren't indistinguishable. There's a lot of variety when it comes to that, as you can imagine, and it has been known to cause internal conflict. An example I mentioned earlier, of how several German tribes adopted Roman Catholicism but kept ideas from the Poetic Edda and Norse Sagas, comes to mind. There was internal conflict over the issue, and there were some pretty clear lines between formal and folk tradition that people would butt heads over.

In a great deal of cases you're absolutely right about power being imposed. But of course we do need to acknowledge the variety of different missionary efforts. Ireland's patron saint was no high and mighty person with money behind him, just a "grassroots" type of fellow. Catholicism in Latin America was definitely the prototype for institutionalized and inhuman missionary work.

Really, no two events or groups are exactly the same when you look at this stuff, especially when it comes to music.


----------



## Wood

Lukecash12 said:


> They weren't indistinguishable. There's a lot of variety when it comes to that, as you can imagine, and it has been known to cause internal conflict. An example I mentioned earlier, of how several German tribes adopted Roman Catholicism but kept ideas from the Poetic Edda and Norse Sagas, comes to mind. There was internal conflict over the issue, and there were some pretty clear lines between formal and folk tradition that people would butt heads over.
> 
> In a great deal of cases you're absolutely right about power being imposed. But of course we do need to acknowledge the variety of different missionary efforts. Ireland's patron saint was no high and mighty person with money behind him, just a "grassroots" type of fellow. Catholicism in Latin America was definitely the prototype for institutionalized and inhuman missionary work.
> 
> Really, no two events or groups are exactly the same when you look at this stuff, especially when it comes to music.


I'm sure you're correct that every situation merits analysis in its own right.

In the context of religion and spirituality being indistinguishable from other aspects of life, my query in this case relates to the German tribes before they came under RC influence. The sagas you brought up seem to be a good case in point. They include Gods, but they are not a religious instruction manual in the way the Bible is for example.

I'm latching onto Science's almost throwaway comment about religion being something which can be seen to have been created as a kind of separate entity by the west, whereas it is more integrated in earlier and non western societies.


----------



## science

Wood said:


> I'm sure you're correct that every situation merits analysis in its own right.
> 
> In the context of religion and spirituality being indistinguishable from other aspects of life, my query in this case relates to the German tribes before they came under RC influence. The sagas you brought up seem to be a good case in point. They include Gods, but they are not a religious instruction manual in the way the Bible is for example.
> 
> I'm latching onto Science's almost throwaway comment about religion being something which can be seen to have been created as a kind of separate entity by the west, whereas it is more integrated in earlier and non western societies.


"Spirituality" is a much more recent concept than "religion," and would have been a strange idea in just about any society until recently. If we are careful to use the word simply to mean something like "religious emotion" or "personal religious experience" I guess we can apply it to the past, but I'd advise caution.

(Similarly, "superstition," which Lukecash seemed to think I was attributing to someone, is a concept I would not use lightly. Lukecash might like to check out Dale Martin's _Inventing Superstition_ on what "superstition" meant in the ancient world.)

Anyway, apparently people in most societies did not distinguish between religion, magic, science, technology, and politics. Given that the ancient German tribes didn't live in a large pluralistic empire or have a large tradition of written philosophy, the kinds of things that seem to be prerequisites for concepts like that emerging, I'd guess they wouldn't have made those distinctions.

I don't think the early Christians had the same idea of "religion" that we have; our idea emerged basically with the Enlightenment when people began to wish to separate "religion" from "politics" in order to create a "secular" state. So the medieval Christian missionaries couldn't have used our concept to try to control Germans.

Of course imposing _Christianity_ did have a political element to it for people like Charlemagne or Vladimir the Great. It probably was as much or more about asserting their own legitimacy ("Look what a good Christian ruler I am") and cultivating powerful alliances (it's easier to trust people who interact with the same spirits you do) as with controlling the "converted." And we should not underestimate the missionaries - I'm sure that some of them thought they were bringing really good news to the non-Christian peoples!

Our separation of religion and politics has been experienced as an unwelcome imposition primarily by religious people within our own culture, and also in some (not all) Muslim cultures. It seems not to have bothered most of the world (although of course Marxists who assumed that dichotomy caused a lot of suffering).


----------



## Guest

science said:


> So after all that, what are the universal characteristics of sacred music? I'd guess nothing except being music and being about religion!


Quite. Perhaps this thread should be joined to 'Is Religious Music Real?', your answer tacked on to the end and the thread comes to a simple conclusion.


----------



## Blake

Haha, that would be quite an extravagant ending. So after all of this fuss and bus... 'it's simply music about religion.' I tend to agree, actually. The rest seems to be arguments over individual ideology. 

Can it do extramusical things? Probably... Is it a general aesthetic? Nope... Will a juicy filet make my mouth water? Probably... Will it make everyone's? Nope. Hmmm.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> So after all that, what are the universal characteristics of sacred music? I'd guess nothing except being music and being about religion!


Music is an abstract art; it is not "about" any religion or ideology. I want to know specifically what musical and experiential universals are present in music designed for religious purposes. Of course, no "perfect" universals will be found which apply to every case, and exceptions will always be cited; but, generally speaking, what kind of effect should 'religious" music have, and what characteristics in music are these likely to be?


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Music is an abstract art; it is not "about" any religion or ideology. I want to know specifically what musical and experiential universals are present in music designed for religious purposes. Of course, no "perfect" universals will be found which apply to every case, and exceptions will always be cited; but, generally speaking, what kind of effect should 'religious" music have, and what characteristics in music are these likely to be?


The problem is that you are looking for "should" instead of simply observing what it does and recognizing what is good. There are no requirements or guidelines for listening to music. Moreover, you don't seem to recognize that religious ideology is abstract in the same manner as your own philosophy of music. Whether or not you acknowledge it, your thinking has it's own roots somewhere. While your ideas belong to you and you personally create your own whole picture, there are many that have been gifted to you by those thinkers long dead.

Once again: Music is vibrations in the air. That's all it is according to nature. There is no subject to wavelengths invisible to the naked eye. They just are. What you are doing is anthropomorphizing something purely physical to establish your idea of music as preeminent. We personally supply all of the meaning in music, it isn't there to start with. Bears aren't "bears", mankind names them "bears". That doesn't mean that they are universally "bears", they just are what they are and whatever we think of them is just what we think of them.

And talking about what type of response we "should" have and what is most "likely" is the same as trying to pinpoint an electron, or watching a photon pass through a screen. It seems to defy explanation. How can we even measure it? Do you have perfect empathy, or do I, that we can even have an inkling of understanding when it comes to exactly how someone else responds to the same melody? In fact, I think it's a wonderful thing that there is such a lack of uniformity or predictability. That is the only expected "universal" in art and it is something to be celebrated, not strangled by "ought to" and "this art means this by nature". My ideas and responses are just as natural as yours, million, and that is a good thing.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> "Spirituality" is a much more recent concept than "religion," and would have been a strange idea in just about any society until recently. If we are careful to use the word simply to mean something like "religious emotion" or "personal religious experience" I guess we can apply it to the past, but I'd advise caution.
> 
> (Similarly, "superstition," which Lukecash seemed to think I was attributing to someone, is a concept I would not use lightly. Lukecash might like to check out Dale Martin's _Inventing Superstition_ on what "superstition" meant in the ancient world.)
> 
> Anyway, apparently people in most societies did not distinguish between religion, magic, science, technology, and politics. Given that the ancient German tribes didn't live in a large pluralistic empire or have a large tradition of written philosophy, the kinds of things that seem to be prerequisites for concepts like that emerging, I'd guess they wouldn't have made those distinctions.
> 
> I don't think the early Christians had the same idea of "religion" that we have; our idea emerged basically with the Enlightenment when people began to wish to separate "religion" from "politics" in order to create a "secular" state. So the medieval Christian missionaries couldn't have used our concept to try to control Germans.
> 
> Of course imposing _Christianity_ did have a political element to it for people like Charlemagne or Vladimir the Great. It probably was as much or more about asserting their own legitimacy ("Look what a good Christian ruler I am") and cultivating powerful alliances (it's easier to trust people who interact with the same spirits you do) as with controlling the "converted." And we should not underestimate the missionaries - I'm sure that some of them thought they were bringing really good news to the non-Christian peoples!
> 
> Our separation of religion and politics has been experienced as an unwelcome imposition primarily by religious people within our own culture, and also in some (not all) Muslim cultures. It seems not to have bothered most of the world (although of course Marxists who assumed that dichotomy caused a lot of suffering).


Meh, superstition is an English word and it comes out messily when you try to use it to describe ancient people. Of course it's not as if all ancient people went around thinking "oh no, what if" or that they were easily open to suggestion like people attending seances in the early 20th century. That is pretty much what I was worried about, that you might hold that kind of view about ancient peoples. However, I am glad to observe your understanding of how interrelated and often indistinguishable these imaginary "isms" were.

One thing that is notable though, when we look at these issues, is that these different subjects seem to have been relegated to those with a different role in society. You had religious people, political people, craftsman, etc. And then again you had people well back in the B.C. era who lived in literate societies, or societies with exceptional oral traditions, who divided up subjects and had ideals on the well rounded person. Aristotle didn't write one book called philosophy, he wrote _posterior analytics_, _zoology_, and so on and so forth.

Considering that Platonism was a big trend in Christianity long before the Enlightenment, I would contend against this idea of yours that religion was a new idea during that period. Many years before people discussed church and state during the Enlightenment, people were reading _the Republic_.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Music is an abstract art; it is not "about" any religion or ideology.


Except music _can _be about stuff. It doesn't _have _to be, and some composers and listeners will go out of their way to tell you that it shouldn't be, or else it's not music.

You frequently talk about music as a 'mapping of experience' - and I'll point out that what is being mapped is not just an absolute and abstract experience of 'these sounds in this order' but also of associated ideas that can come along with the sounds.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Except music _can _be about stuff. It doesn't _have _to be, and some composers and listeners will go out of their way to tell you that it shouldn't be, or else it's not music.
> 
> You frequently talk about music as a 'mapping of experience' - and I'll point out that what is being mapped is not just an absolute and abstract experience of 'these sounds in this order' but also of associated ideas that can come along with the sounds.


No, what is being 'mapped' and shared are our universal human characteristics; see my latest post in "Is Religious Music Real," but I will paste it into my reply for you just in case, for your convenience, and so so I won't have to re-type it. :lol:

This is evidence of how this thread has gotten away from the aesthetic experience of "religious" music and whether it is intended and effective in evoking a 'real' and 'sacred' state of being, and how these can be identified as "universal" characteristics which are the result of our shared universal human characteristics.

This thread is being perceived more as a debate about religious doctrine.

*It was intended by me, its creator, as a discussion of the aesthetic effects of 'religious' music and **whether those aesthetic effects are 'real,' at least in palpable musical and experiential ways, and how we can identify these characteristics as being "universal" in that they reflect the commonality of the human experience of the sacred as related to music.

**Not *whether whatever religious doctrine or belief that is attached to the works is 'real' or true.

I think the main significance of 'religious' music in the classical, pre-Romantic era, is that it is a precursor to the Romantic notion of the ennobled individual and the post-enlightenment rise of reason. Therefore, some of the best aesthetic experiences with Handel, Mozart, and Haydn might appear to be more moving on an emotional level because of their religious nature, but it is really because of their appeal to the human soul, in a general sense, which explains their appeal, not doctrinal or ideological content. The "human to human" message is what comes through, and creates a sacred connection with our collective nature.

Almost any recording or setting which uses a choir is a good example of what I'm talking about. There is an overall 'sacred' and soothing, reassuring effect which is conveyed: the choral group, a massed group of voices, evokes a "collective" sense, as most choirs are wont to do, and gives credence to the human need to "belong" and be a "part of."

The assertive passages by the male chorus seem to be 'backing it up,' and are inspiring. The "question and answer" choruses seem to be affirming and re-affirming some primal, essential fact of our sacred nature, as if in assertive celebration. I mean, who's gonna argue with The Mormon Tabernacle Choir?







Their very existence gives credence to Mormonism, doesn't it? But at the same time, a choir reinforces and satisfies the basic human need to belong.

Of course, this is a human, aesthetic sense of belonging and empowerment, which is conveyed purely by the force of massed voices; no ideology is necessary or essential to the effect. It's a non-verbal, almost unconscious product, perhaps too closely associated with people raised in Church to be separated-out and viewed as an aesthetic, musical effect, as I have done.

Frankly, I haven't seen anyone here who is able to approach my thread question in an objective, dispassionate way. They all seem too emotionally invested in affirming their religious belief system, or of debating as "atheists" or "scientific realists" against such beliefs and ideologies.

That's not my purpose; I came here to discuss the aesthetic effects, sacred in nature, of religious music, and whether this music is a 'real' spiritual technology, and how these aesthetic effects are universal to sacred music. I think it is a real spiritual technology, like the Buddhist mandala, but perhaps for different reasons than the believers, non-believers, and ideological debaters.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Frankly, I haven't seen anyone here who is able to approach my thread question in an objective, dispassionate way. They all seem too emotionally invested in affirming their religious belief system, or of debating as "atheists" or "scientific realists" against such beliefs and ideologies.


I'm not going to speak for others, but you're so convinced of your viewpoint that anyone who has so far disagreed with you is dismissed as incapable of objective, dispassionate analysis. It could just be that I choose to disagree with your view as I understand it. Or that you've failed to communicate your meaning clearly enough.


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> I'm not going to speak for others, but you're so convinced of your viewpoint that anyone who has so far disagreed with you is dismissed as incapable of objective, dispassionate analysis. It could just be that I choose to disagree with your view as I understand it. Or that you've failed to communicate your meaning clearly enough.


Seeing as I gave an unequivocal dismissal of both religion and humanistic aesthetics as utterly abstract and nonessential, I fail to understand how much more dispassionate I could have been. I literally said that music is just air vibrating. If you look at it that way, it's all aesthetics, all just abstract ideas supplied by the listener.

It could be further argued at that point that we're merely having a physiological reaction. Throwing any dogma out the window, there may be no existential reason to say that anything more than a basically predetermined physiological process is occurring when we listen to music, *whether or not* we respond to it with religious sentiment.

Now from our friend million:



> Frankly, I haven't seen anyone here who is able to approach my thread question in an objective, dispassionate way. They all seem too emotionally invested in affirming their religious belief system, or of debating as "atheists" or "scientific realists" against such beliefs and ideologies.
> 
> That's not my purpose; I came here to discuss the aesthetic effects, sacred in nature, of religious music, and whether this music is a 'real' spiritual technology, and how these aesthetic effects are universal to sacred music. I think it is a real spiritual technology, like the Buddhist mandala, but perhaps for different reasons than the believers, non-believers, and ideological debaters.


And you came to level your claims ad nauseum, it seems. We've got it already. That doesn't mean that you've actually engaged with some of the legitimate responses you've been given. How is your process any more "natural"? What is the "human soul"? What is it to be "noble"? What is a "sacred connection"? Saying that these things exist outside of religion as they are self evident, just because you said so, doesn't establish anything. Are you god? No? Then what kind of authority are you on the subject?



> Of course, this is a human, aesthetic sense of belonging and empowerment, which is conveyed purely by the force of massed voices; no ideology is necessary or essential to the effect. It's a non-verbal, almost unconscious product, perhaps too closely associated with people raised in Church to be separated-out and viewed as an aesthetic, musical effect, as I have done.


That comes off as a little condescending. And the reason I say that is this: how do you know that it feels that way for me or anyone else? Do I really feel like I belong or that I'm empowered? You don't have a damned clue what it is I'm feeling, and furthermore it's starting to seem that you don't have a damned clue what religious sentiment is like.

We aren't salivating apes that all just need to feel like we belong to something. Maybe some have that urge at whatever level they do, but you are way oversimplifying, trivializing, and being condescending towards a phenomenon you haven't a clue about. When I listen to the Messiah, I don't feel like I'm a part of something, so much as I specifically see something. It's not so much about "me" and "my part in it" so much as it is "look at it", "isn't it marvelous", and "this is what pleases God". Just take a look at Luke 15, it's a great example of what I'm talking about, how it feels to be religious:

The first parable-

_So he told them this parable: 4 "What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he has lost one of them, *does not leave the ninety-nine in the open country, and go after the one that is lost, until he finds it*? 5 And when he has found it, *he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing*. 6 And when he comes home, *he calls together his friends and his neighbors, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep that was lost*.' 7 Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance._

And the third parable-

_And he said, "There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, 'Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.' And he divided his property between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property in reckless living. 14 And when he had spent everything, a severe famine arose in that country, and he began to be in need. 15 So he went and hired himself out to one of the citizens of that country, who sent him into his fields to feed pigs. 16 And he was longing to be fed with the pods that the pigs ate, and no one gave him anything.

17 "But when he came to himself, he said, 'How many of my father's hired servants have more than enough bread, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, "Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son. Treat me as one of your hired servants."' 20 And he arose and came to his father. But while he was still a long way off, his father *saw him and felt compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him.* 21 And the son said to him, 'Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. I am no longer worthy to be called your son.' 22 But the father said to his servants, '*Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.* 23 *And bring the fattened calf and kill it, and let us eat and celebrate.* 24 *For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.*' And they began to celebrate.

25 "Now his older son was in the field, and as he came and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing. 26 And he called one of the servants and asked what these things meant. 27 And he said to him, 'Your brother has come, and your father has killed the fattened calf, because he has received him back safe and sound.' 28 But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him, 29 but he answered his father, 'Look, these many years I have served you, and I never disobeyed your command, yet you never gave me a young goat, that I might celebrate with my friends. 30 But when this son of yours came, who has devoured your property with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him!' 31 And he said to him, '*Son, you are always with me, and all that is mine is yours*. 32 *It was fitting to celebrate and be glad, for this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found*.'"_

Now, why would I have quoted these? I quoted them because you talk about our preoccupation with substance and content, and then you turn around and act as if you know what that is like. You're not preoccupied with that stuff, are you? And you have no obligation to be. But you haven't a clue what it's like, either. You want to talk about the phenomenon like it's simple group dynamics, about the "soothing effect of the collective". That is a bunch of hogwash. What is really happening is that everyone there during a live performance of something like the Messiah, is someone having their own personal experience.

And what are we thinking about? Well, let's take a look at the parables here. You don't see in either parables that Jesus talks about what the 1 lost sheep thought, do you? And the second parable doesn't ask itself what the prodigal son thinks when he is taken back. What they do talk about is what pleases God.


----------



## Vaneyes

Lukecash12, goodta see you back. You been postin' like a maniac the last few days. Hope you have some parables for college football season.


----------



## Lukecash12

Vaneyes said:


> Lukecash12, goodta see you back. You been postin' like a maniac the last few days. Hope you have some parables for college football season.


Hell yeah, go Bulldogs. You know me, I'm kind of sporadic and all over the place. Good to see lots of new faces on TC.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Now, why would I have quoted these? I quoted them because you talk about our preoccupation with substance and content, and then you turn around and act as if you know what that is like. You're not preoccupied with that stuff, are you? And you have no obligation to be. But you haven't a clue what it's like, either. You want to talk about the phenomenon like it's simple group dynamics, about the "soothing effect of the collective". That is a bunch of hogwash. What is really happening is that everyone there during a live performance of something like the Messiah, is someone having their own personal experience.
> 
> And what are we thinking about? Well, let's take a look at the parables here. You don't see in either parables that Jesus talks about what the 1 lost sheep thought, do you? And the second parable doesn't ask itself what the prodigal son thinks when he is taken back. What they do talk about is what pleases God.


I beg your pardon, I was raised in a church environment. I'm not speaking as an "outsider;" and I had hoped this thread would be a living testament to our common humanity. It has revealed some aspects of human nature, though, although these seem to be exclusionary and seem to be seeking conflict.

Music is our common love, and it is a universal form which can reflect our universal good, if we approach it on our own terms, as human beings with freedom and free will.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> I beg your pardon, I was raised in a church environment. I'm not speaking as an "outsider;" and I had hoped this thread would be a living testament to our common humanity. It has revealed some aspects of human nature, though, although these seem to be exclusionary and seem to be seeking conflict.
> 
> Music is our common love, and it is a universal form which can reflect our universal good, if we approach it on our own terms, as human beings with freedom and free will.


If you were raised in a church environment then why don't you see the substance we're after? Again, slapping someone on the wrist for being exclusionary doesn't make "a" the same as "b". Some things are simply different and some things are simply the same. Invoking group dynamics doesn't change that. You want to talk about the group phenomenon when religion is such a complex subject, there is a lot of different substance to it and our experiences are personal. They aren't just personal *to* church goers, but *between* church goers.

And once again, I ask why you aren't qualifying any of your claims. What is it that makes music universal? What is "our universal good"? You only ever seem to respond in part to all of the points I make, please take a look at this post and my last post, so you can come up with something that actually accounts in a real way for what I've said.

There are some main points I've leveled so far:

1. Music is a physical phenomenon. All it really is, is vibrating air.
2. Many different approaches can be good, ergo many approaches are valid.
3. Different approaches to music aren't mutually exclusive and a lot of people like myself use a variety of approaches to different music, or more than one approach with the same piece of music.
4. You aren't some godlike authority, that everyone has to accept your ontological concept as if it were the preeminent, fundamental truth to music. Refer back to points 1 & 2.
5. Considering 1, 2, & 4, any response that we have to music is utterly abstract and supplied by the listener. There is nothing "essential" to the music itself. That's like saying there is something essential to a light bulb turning on and off. Maybe you have a genuine emotional response to that light bulb, and maybe that response is very novel and life enriching. That doesn't mean, however, that you aren't responding to a light bulb.
6. Religious people can be just as individual in their ideas as anyone else. You just saying "this is basically what religious people think when they listen" is entirely too casual and dismissive, as if we are all just having a subconscious response to the choir. That is *your universal, not mine*.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> If you were raised in a church environment then why don't you see the substance we're after? Again, slapping someone on the wrist for being exclusionary doesn't make "a" the same as "b". Some things are simply different and some things are simply the same. Invoking group dynamics doesn't change that. You want to talk about the group phenomenon when religion is such a complex subject, there is a lot of different substance to it and our experiences are personal. They aren't just personal *to* church goers, but *between* church goers. What is it that makes music universal? What is "our universal good"? You only ever seem to respond in part to all of the points I make, please take a look at this post and my last post, so you can come up with something that actually accounts in a real way for what I've said....Religious people can be just as individual in their ideas as anyone else....


I think the *real* problem people are having with the general acceptance and welcoming of the idea of a *subjective* individual response (Eastern) that I am supporting, in which all 'religious' music can be experienced individually and subjectively from the basis of a universal, shared sacred sense of humanity, is *sociological and cultural* rather than *ideological or doctrinal.
*
This is really a question of 'subjective vs. the collective.'

Doctrinal religions and ideology are collective in nature; the participants are part of a larger group, and they are all believing and supporting the same collective belief system. That's what 'church' is, a social and collective experience.

Although "independence' is touted as a favorite American quality, the idea of isolated individuality, especially in religion, is discouraged. 
Sociologically, we are all encouraged to participate socially and be 'joiners' and be part of Humanity as a larger entity, and doctrinal and idelologically-based religion generally serves this purpose.

A collective belief is much safer than an isolated individual who seeks the universal truth or spiritual enlightenment.

This idea of the isolated, alienated loner scares and repulses Americans; after all look at all the social aberrants who turn out to be criminals.

The fact is, we are scared of our own isolated individuality; we want to belong to something larger than ourselves, and be 'part of' the collective. We are uncomfortable in being alone.

We seek to be socialized, and this is the reason people start families. People are scared and uncomfortable with 'isolated loners' or individuals who are on the borderline of the social fabric.

Thus, the desperate opposition in this forum to the idea of a totally subjective response to religious art and music, art which was originally intended to be used for a specifically collective purpose. A subjective approach, which seeks universal qualities and discards or renders irrelevant those ideological specifics, is apparently a very discomforting idea to those for whom religion is a way of 'subsuming' their subjective identity into the comforting collective environment of a church or institutional setting.

That seems appropriate, since in our materialistic 21st century America, Who We Are is defined by what we own, and the house, car, job, etc. that feeds that sense of collective social identity.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Sociologically, we are all encouraged to participate socially and be 'joiners' and be part of Humanity as a larger entity, and doctrinal and idelologically-based religion generally serves this purpose.
> 
> A collective belief is much safer than an isolated individual who seeks the universal truth or spiritual enlightenment.
> 
> This idea of the isolated, alienated loner scares and repulses Americans; after all look at all the social aberrerants who turn out to be criminals.
> 
> The fact is, we are scared of our own isolated individuality; we want to belong to something larger than ourselves, and be 'part of' the collective. We are uncomfortable in being alone.


We may well be encouraged to be joiners...after all, there's a few people ended up here, having joined. That doesn't mean that we're all 'joiners' in a broad sense. Some of us might be quite selective about what we join, and why.

If I've not embraced the opinions you've put forward, it's not because I'm part of some collective...but if you keep suggesting that I am, I'll be forced to ask the Hive to assimilate you.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> I think the *real* problem people are having with the general acceptance and welcoming of the idea of a *subjective* individual response (Eastern) that I am supporting, in which all 'religious' music can be experienced individually and subjectively from the basis of a universal, shared sacred sense of humanity, is *sociological and cultural* rather than *ideological or doctrinal.
> *
> This is really a question of 'subjective vs. the collective.'
> 
> Doctrinal religions and ideology are collective in nature; the participants are part of a larger group, and they are all believing and supporting the same collective belief system. That's what 'church' is, a social and collective experience.
> 
> Although "independence' is touted as a favorite American quality, the idea of isolated individuality, especially in religion, is discouraged.
> Sociologically, we are all encouraged to participate socially and be 'joiners' and be part of Humanity as a larger entity, and doctrinal and idelologically-based religion generally serves this purpose.
> 
> A collective belief is much safer than an isolated individual who seeks the universal truth or spiritual enlightenment.
> 
> This idea of the isolated, alienated loner scares and repulses Americans; after all look at all the social aberrants who turn out to be criminals.
> 
> The fact is, we are scared of our own isolated individuality; we want to belong to something larger than ourselves, and be 'part of' the collective. We are uncomfortable in being alone.
> 
> We seek to be socialized, and this is the reason people start families. People are scared and uncomfortable with 'isolated loners' or individuals who are on the borderline of the social fabric.
> 
> Thus, the desperate opposition in this forum to the idea of a totally subjective response to religious art and music, art which was originally intended to be used for a specifically collective purpose. A subjective approach, which seeks universal qualities and discards or renders irrelevant those ideological specifics, is apparently a very discomforting idea to those for whom religion is a way of 'subsuming' their subjective identity into the comforting collective environment of a church or institutional setting.
> 
> That seems appropriate, since in our materialistic 21st century America, Who We Are is defined by what we own, and the house, car, job, etc. that feeds that sense of collective social identity.


And basically all I get out of that when I've finished reading it is this again: "I know all of your motivations." You don't know my motivations, and you don't know what everyone is experiencing.

Once again, I would ask you to actually respond to the points I've made instead of just talking past them. I even numbered them 1-6 the last time to make it easy. Million, do I have to say it for the millionth time that different approaches aren't mutually exclusive? Because you don't seem to be registering that and I'm tired of sounding like a broken record. I mean, if I'm just going to be talking to a brick wall here then I'll just concede it all, I don't care.

As regards these bad stereotypes about church: Guess how many different viewpoints there are in my church? If you guessed it was exactly the same as the number of members we have then you would be right. We don't go to church to all have the same exact experience, or to agree on everything. Apparently, because you've grown up in a church environment you think you're suddenly the authority on the issue and can generalize about churches. Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that there is plenty of variety between churches, and that religious people can have their own ideas too.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> If I've not embraced the opinions you've put forward, it's not because I'm part of some collective...but if you keep suggesting that I am, I'll be forced to ask the Hive to assimilate you.


Well, say hello to all the drones for me. I think it's too late for me to join the academy now.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> As regards these bad stereotypes about church: Guess how many different viewpoints there are in my church? If you guessed it was exactly the same as the number of members we have then you would be right. We don't go to church to all have the same exact experience, or to agree on everything....Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that there is plenty of variety between churches, and that religious people can have their own ideas too.


I think the reason people join collectives and groups and institutions is so that they can confirm their ideas and identity, not to question and debate. Debating is best left to do with people outside your group.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> I think the reason people join collectives and groups and institutions is so that they can confirm their ideas and identity, not to question and debate. Debating is best left to do with people outside your group.


Religious people are not sheeple. We don't have to debate with each other to have different opinions. Not all of us have to fit in your tiny little box, and you don't know everything that goes on in another person's head.

So I guess you're never actually going to respond to my points? You've apparently decided to talk past them yet again.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> I think the reason people join collectives and groups and institutions is so that they can confirm their ideas and identity, not to question and debate. Debating is best left to do with people outside your group.


There are wise and stupid people within and without religion. Even an atheist can form their supporting beliefs to make sense of life. I think the truly honest and insightful person admits that he really doesn't logically understand how any of this existence came into being.

Let's just take a look at us members... which one of us really knows the origin of this existence? Raise your hand, please. So to degrade anyone's path would be to imply that you've fully understood the origin of the cosmos and what's required to gain that understanding....


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> There are wise and stupid people within and without religion. Even an atheist can form their supporting beliefs to make sense of life. I think the truly honest and insightful person admits that he really doesn't logically understand how any of this existence came into being.
> 
> Let's just take a look at us members... which one of us really knows the origin of this existence? Raise your hand, please. So to degrade anyone's path would be to imply that you've fully understood the origin of the cosmos and what's required to gain that understanding....


The idea seems to be that not knowing everything is tantamount to knowing nothing.

But of course there are degrees of knowledge. Knowing something about DNA or evolution or stellar nucleosynthesis or the big bang gives us a little more knowledge about the origin of my existence than we had two centuries ago - more knowledge than someone who believes it started as a watery chaos or a primordial human sacrifice.

So if someone's "path" commits them to some belief like that....


----------



## Blake

science said:


> But of course there are degrees of knowledge. Knowing something about DNA or evolution or stellar nucleosynthesis or the big bang gives us a little more knowledge about the origin of my existence than we had two centuries ago - more knowledge than someone who believes it started as a watery chaos or a primordial human sacrifice.


Well, you 'believe' it's bringing you closer. But you could just end up doing the run-around.... Who knows? The beginning of this Universe could've spawned from something else, and something else, and somethings else.... and all this logic could just be games of imagination based on the perceived repetition of life. We don't know the true origin, but we think we're getting closer...

How do we know we're getting closer if we don't know what we're getting closer to? Are we imagining some infinitely dense and minuscule point of matter or something that we'll reach and say - "Oh look, there's the origin of us?" It might not be like that at all. We may never get there this way... But we may. Who knows?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Well, you 'believe' it's bringing you closer. But you could just end up doing the run-around.... Who knows? The beginning of this Universe could've spawned from something else, and something else, and somethings else.... and all this logic could just be games of imagination based on the perceived repetition of life. We don't know the true origin, but we think we're getting closer...
> 
> How do we know we're getting closer if we don't know what we're getting closer to? Are we imagining some infinitely dense and minuscule point of matter or something that we'll reach and say - "Oh look, there's the origin of us?" It might not be like that at all. We may never get there this way... But we may. Who knows?


Again, not knowing everything (that is, knowing something, knowing anything) is not the same as knowing nothing.

Why, I wonder, would we pretend otherwise? What are we supposed to get from pretending that some knowledge (rather than total knowledge) is equivalent to complete ignorance? Is the mystification itself the point, or is there some deeper goal?


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Again, not knowing everything (that is, knowing something, knowing anything) is not the same as knowing nothing.
> 
> Why, I wonder, would we pretend otherwise? What are we supposed to get from pretending that some knowledge (rather than total knowledge) is equivalent to complete ignorance? Is the mystification itself the point, or is there some deeper goal?


Rendering that value judgment doesn't necessitate a goal like mystification. Not everyone makes the same observations. And it takes more than simple appeals that our interlocutor is "pretending" to settle issues that have been hotly debated since Socrates. What is "truth"? What is "knowledge" and how does it relate to "truth"? Is "some knowledge" any different from complete ignorance? I mean, let's just look at science in the last hundred years. Tons of ideas have been revised or flat out changed. Not to mention that that is just in the realm of empiricism. What if Descartes is right and it's all a delusion anyways?

This is why great thinkers are defined by the quality of their questions and self discipline, which has nothing to do with blundering confidence in one's own rightness. It isn't fanciful or irrational to entertain reasonable doubts, it's healthy. Our observations can be mistaken, or our very faculties themselves can be flawed.

Take our friend million: he grew up in a religious environment. Now as far as I can tell he thinks he has the issue right under his thumb, that our emotions and behavior can easily be explained using sociology. For starters, if he were multidisciplinary and maybe took more advice from cultural anthropology, he would realize like you or I that religion like any other article of culture is very dynamic and isn't necessarily ruled by group dynamics. While group dynamics certainly tend to be on the forefront, examples abound to the contrary. Like most any article of culture, we can't say "aha, I have you under my thumb now", because people aren't merely helpless pawns beholden to culture, they participate in it and all have their own ideas at least to some degree.

So, to be clear, inferences of this order can be made using social studies: People *tend towards* thus and such. And inferences of this order cannot be made using social studies: People *will* do/think thus and such. There are always microcosms in social structures, and religion isn't exempt. The environment at my Freewill Baptist church is probably noticeably different from any other of the same denomination, especially considering that a few of us like myself aren't Freewill Baptists or members of any denomination for that matter (e.g. my belief in soft Preterism).


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> Rendering that value judgment doesn't necessitate a goal like mystification. Not everyone makes the same observations. And it takes more than simple appeals that our interlocutor is "pretending" to settle issues that have been hotly debated since Socrates. What is "truth"? What is "knowledge" and how does it relate to "truth"? Is "some knowledge" any different from complete ignorance? I mean, let's just look at science in the last hundred years. Tons of ideas have been revised or flat out changed. Not to mention that that is just in the realm of empiricism. What if Descartes is right and it's all a delusion anyways?
> 
> This is why great thinkers are defined by the quality of their questions and self discipline, which has nothing to do with blundering confidence in one's own rightness. It isn't fanciful or irrational to entertain reasonable doubts, it's healthy. Our observations can be mistaken, or our very faculties themselves can be flawed.
> 
> Take our friend million: he grew up in a religious environment. Now as far as I can tell he thinks he has the issue right under his thumb, that our emotions and behavior can easily be explained using sociology. For starters, if he were multidisciplinary and maybe took more advice from cultural anthropology, he would realize like you or I that religion like any other article of culture is very dynamic and isn't necessarily ruled by group dynamics. While group dynamics certainly tend to be on the forefront, examples abound to the contrary. Like most any article of culture, we can't say "aha, I have you under my thumb now", because people aren't merely helpless pawns beholden to culture, they participate in it and all have their own ideas at least to some degree.
> 
> So, to be clear, inferences of this order can be made using social studies: People *tend towards* thus and such. And inferences of this order cannot be made using social studies: People *will* do/think thus and such. There are always microcosms in social structures, and religion isn't exempt. The environment at my Freewill Baptist church is probably noticeably different from any other of the same denomination, especially considering that a few of us like myself aren't Freewill Baptists or members of any denomination for that matter (e.g. my belief in soft Preterism).


Aside from your point about Descartes (is that degree of scepticism really necessary? Does anyone really still think life might just be an illusion?) I like this post. You express clearly one of the reasons why people can be so far of the mark when they talk about what 'Christians' believe and what they assume a Christian 'upbringing' must be like.

However, to suggest that all knowledge might be overturned within the next 100 years and that we should proceed accordingly is taking things too far.


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> Aside from your point about Descartes (is that degree of scepticism really necessary? Does anyone really still think life might just be an illusion?) I like this post. You express clearly one of the reasons why people can be so far of the mark when they talk about what 'Christians' believe and what they assume a Christian 'upbringing' must be like.
> 
> However, to suggest that all knowledge might be overturned within the next 100 years and that we should proceed accordingly is taking things too far.


1. That degree of skepticism isn't necessary if you can find reasons to the contrary. The points Descartes raises are valid, and there are many Rationalists that still follow along the same vein. My issues with that level of skepticism, and my reasons for being an Empiricist, are an aside but they basically amount to differences of things like coherence, and Descartes' scenarios and any such similar scenario being impossibly contrived, just to name a couple.

Of course, I meant "valid" in the technical sense used by philosophers. Descartes' form is proper and his arguments are internally consistent. That does not mean that he can't have been mistaken.

2. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if we take a careless view of knowledge by merely making appeals to emotion like argumentum ad absurdum, then we are standing on tenuous ground and would have to accept that being the case if we were consistent to our own fallacious system of reasoning (that all things being equal, we have no way of knowing if everything will be overturned 100 years from now or in an even shorter span of time). This is one of the reasons that we can rule certain arguments out as a species of fallacy: if an argument when taken to it's logical conclusion by, say, using the same reasoning in an analogy to prove it's very opposite, we end up with an unacceptable paradox.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. That degree of skepticism isn't necessary if you can find reasons to the contrary. The points Descartes raises are valid, and there are many Rationalists that still follow along the same vein. My issues with that level of skepticism, and my reasons for being an Empiricist, are an aside but they basically amount to differences of things like coherence, and Descartes' scenarios and any such similar scenario being impossibly contrived, just to name a couple.
> 
> Of course, I meant "valid" in the technical sense used by philosophers. Descartes' form is proper and his arguments are internally consistent. That does not mean that he can't have been mistaken.
> 
> 2. That's not what I'm suggesting. What I am suggesting is that if we take a careless view of knowledge by merely making appeals to emotion like argumentum ad absurdum, then we are standing on tenuous ground and would have to accept that being the case if we were consistent to our own fallacious system of reasoning (that all things being equal, we have no way of knowing if everything will be overturned 100 years from now or in an even shorter span of time). This is one of the reasons that we can rule certain arguments out as a species of fallacy: if an argument when taken to it's logical conclusion by, say, using the same reasoning in an analogy to prove it's very opposite, we end up with an unacceptable paradox.


1. If I _need _to find reasons to the contrary. I'm not a technical philosopher, but a real world one. It's of no practical use to me to think that all life might be an illusion, so I don't need to find reasons to contradict the man.

2. I'm not sure I follow. In fact, I'me sure I don't. You seem to be saying that, for example, it would be absurd to suggest that our knowledge of 'gravity' could be overturned in the next 100 years, but we still need to allow for the possibility, or else the very tools of logical argument will be undermined.


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> 1. If I _need _to find reasons to the contrary. I'm not a technical philosopher, but a real world one. It's of no practical use to me to think that all life might be an illusion, so I don't need to find reasons to contradict the man.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure I follow. In fact, I'me sure I don't. You seem to be saying that, for example, it would be absurd to suggest that our knowledge of 'gravity' could be overturned in the next 100 years, but we still need to allow for the possibility, or else the very tools of logical argument will be undermined.


1. Descartes, Kant, Kripke, Plato, and Leibniz are all just people. They raised valid points using what resources they had. Logic exists irrespective of any one of them in particular, or you and I for that matter. Personally, I think reasons to the contrary of Descartes' ideas aren't all that hard to find even for anyone without knowledge of every little term or idea in philosophy.

Moreover, "true" has nothing to do with "practical". If you want what you think to be "true" for you because it works, that's just fine and I don't fault you for it. Epistemology doesn't concern itself with subjects like "need", "want", or "practical" when it comes to truth. The closest thing to that is utilitarian thinking, which isn't exactly the same. Epistemology concerns itself with "why", "how", and "is it true", not "it suits me for this to be true".

2. Interestingly enough, our understanding of gravity is a subject of hot debate now. But I digress, what I meant when I said that was basically that when we use careless reasoning (e.g. simple fallacies like "you're pretending" or "this is ridiculous") instead of syllogistic reasoning (reasoning that can ultimately be reduced down to "A, and B, therefore C") we have to accept the logical consequence that we can't really establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If ridicule or other appeals to emotion, and fallacies like argumentum ad populum ("well a bunch of people say this is so, so it must be right"), are taken seriously then we have to accept the exact same reasoning if it proves the opposite ("a bunch of people say the earth is flat, so it must be true"). As you can see, such reasoning ends up being problematic.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Descartes, Kant, Kripke, Plato, and Leibniz are all just people. They raised valid points using what resources they had. Logic exists irrespective of any one of them in particular, or you and I for that matter. Personally, I think reasons to the contrary of Descartes' ideas aren't all that hard to find even for anyone without knowledge of every little term or idea in philosophy.
> 
> Moreover, "true" has nothing to do with "practical". If you want what you think to be "true" for you because it works, that's just fine and I don't fault you for it. Epistemology doesn't concern itself with subjects like "need", "want", or "practical" when it comes to truth. The closest thing to that is utilitarian thinking, which isn't exactly the same. Epistemology concerns itself with "why", "how", and "is it true", not "it suits me for this to be true".
> 
> 2. Interestingly enough, our understanding of gravity is a subject of hot debate now. But I digress, what I meant when I said that was basically that when we use careless reasoning (e.g. simple fallacies like "you're pretending" or "this is ridiculous") instead of syllogistic reasoning (reasoning that can ultimately be reduced down to "A, and B, therefore C") we have to accept the logical consequence that we can't really establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If ridicule or other appeals to emotion, and fallacies like argumentum ad populum ("well a bunch of people say this is so, so it must be right"), are taken seriously then we have to accept the exact same reasoning if it proves the opposite ("a bunch of people say the earth is flat, so it must be true"). As you can see, such reasoning ends up being problematic.


2. Ah, yes, I get it. Thanks.
1. Where did 'true' come from? I made no mention of the word (or its oh-so-worthy companion, 'truth').


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> 2. Ah, yes, I get it. Thanks.
> 1. Where did 'true' come from? I made no mention of the word (or its oh-so-worthy companion, 'truth').


Descartes' works talk about truth and what it is that we can know, which is why we say he was doing epistemology (he is actually considered one of the fathers of modern epistemology). You were talking about reasons for disagreeing with him.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> 1. Descartes, Kant, Kripke, Plato, and Leibniz are all just people. They raised valid points using what resources they had. Logic exists irrespective of any one of them in particular, or you and I for that matter. Personally, I think reasons to the contrary of Descartes' ideas aren't all that hard to find even for anyone without knowledge of every little term or idea in philosophy.
> 
> Moreover, "true" has nothing to do with "practical". If you want what you think to be "true" for you because it works, that's just fine and I don't fault you for it. Epistemology doesn't concern itself with subjects like "need", "want", or "practical" when it comes to truth. The closest thing to that is utilitarian thinking, which isn't exactly the same. Epistemology concerns itself with "why", "how", and "is it true", not "it suits me for this to be true".
> 
> 2. Interestingly enough, our understanding of gravity is a subject of hot debate now. But I digress, what I meant when I said that was basically that when we use careless reasoning (e.g. simple fallacies like "you're pretending" or "this is ridiculous") instead of syllogistic reasoning (reasoning that can ultimately be reduced down to "A, and B, therefore C") we have to accept the logical consequence that we can't really establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt. If ridicule or other appeals to emotion, and fallacies like argumentum ad populum ("well a bunch of people say this is so, so it must be right"), are taken seriously then we have to accept the exact same reasoning if it proves the opposite ("a bunch of people say the earth is flat, so it must be true"). As you can see, such reasoning ends up being problematic.


I want to push on this claim about logic. I think you're conflating two different ideas that both get labelled "logic" in common use. One is essentially mathematics. Earlier there was some talk of modus ponens I think, and that would be true in every culture, just as the sentence "three fifths is less than three fourths" (translated and/or explained properly) would be true in every culture. Let's call that the "strictly speaking" meaning of "logic."

However, a whole lot of other things get called "logic." People will say that it's "logical" that we should treat people fairly, or it's "logical" that people should get what they deserve. In fact, strictly speaking, those aren't s logical statements at all. We might hope to render observations about the world in ways that we can apply strictly-speaking logic to them, but in practice we can only do so with the most elementary and trivial observations, like "all men are mortal."

But even that - really? ARE all men mortal? Even Jesus Christ? What about if scientists figure out how to stop aging, or to upload our consciousness onto silicon? In a case like this, is "Socrates" a "man?" We wind up questioning what "Socrates," "man," "mortal" actually mean - questioning them in ways that do not reduce to propositional logic or any other mathematical forms. None of these things can be universally valid the way math is.

I suspect that we cannot reduce anything except propositional logic (and other mathematical systems) to propositional logic. The relationship of any other kind of ideas to the underlying pure logic will always be problematic.

Descartes' cogito is a good example: (I know that) I think, therefore (I know that) I exist.

But wait? Do I really know that "I" think? As Hume (I believe) pointed out (and as Vesuvius' advaita friends would probably point out), at best he knows is that there is some thinking, but even that doesn't necessarily that there is an "I" thinking it.

As far as I can tell, any other other nice simple "P --> Q" story only stays nice and simple and universally true when it is solely about "P" and "Q" as abstractions. As soon as we label about some human concerns "P" and "Q," the story breaks down because we can examine "P" and "Q" more critically.

I think we'll find a good example of this if we were actually to try to solve for ourselves Descartes' dilemma: how does he know that he and his world aren't (or isn't) an illusion, or a demonic deception, or in more contemporary terms, a really fantastic computer simulation?

I'd bet you cannot solve that with pure propositional logic. The only thing that I know of that comes close to solving it is pragmatism, which is of course (at best) only a practical solution. Here we have this fairly simple philosophical problem and it almost certainly isn't going to allow us to reduce it to any unquestionably true formula of propositional logic.

So very little of what we usually call "logic" is something like "universally valid: calculators work everywhere, but not much else does.


----------



## science

Applying this to the larger discussion about "sacred music," there are some things that happen to be true as generalizations of human behavior - we dance, usually in meters that can be reduced to combinations of double and triple time, we recognize octaves, we set words to music, etc.... 

Just about anything more detailed than that, such as the relationships between "spirituality" and "interiority" or "relaxation" or "universality," or their musical expressions, is unlikely to work the same across all cultures.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> The only thing that I know of that comes close to solving it is pragmatism, which is of course (at best) *only *a practical solution.


For the purposes of living, what other kind of solution do we need? I mean a practical one, not pragmatism necessarily.


----------



## Wood

science said:


> So very little of what we usually call "logic" is something like "universally valid: calculators work everywhere, but not much else does.


I agree with you that the logic of mathematics is valid. It is tautological. We define the terms one, two and three for example, and it is logical to state that one plus two equals three.

However, it is also logical to make statements that are provable or disprovable. I could say that Haydn's Symphony No. 46 contains four movements. Again, this is sensible, because you can prove or disprove that statement.

The notion of sacred characteristics of music is literally nonsensical, because, as we haven't been provided with a definition of sacred, we cannot prove or disprove the notion of it having universal characteristics.

This thread is going round in circles, we keep explaining over and over why it doesn't make sense. These posts tend to get deleted.

It is more fun debating sacred frogs, but such posts literally do not last five minutes!


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> For the purposes of living, what other kind of solution do we need? I mean a practical one, not pragmatism necessarily.


None!

I'm contented with pragmatism. The remnant of the old theologian in me would like a more certain knowledge of truth, but...

You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes you get what you need. And this is one of those times!


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Descartes' cogito is a good example: (I know that) I think, therefore (I know that) I exist.
> 
> But wait? Do I really know that "I" think? As Hume (I believe) pointed out (and as Vesuvius' advaita friends would probably point out), at best he knows is that there is some thinking, but even that doesn't necessarily that there is an "I" thinking it.


As one of my philosophy professors always started out any class by telling everyone that if they could refute the cogito, then they automatically passed for the semester with full marks, I fail to be impressed by this refutation.

Decartes doesn't mention the source of the thoughts. Obviously they could be coming from some outside entity and implanted into your consciousness, but the very fact that thinking is occurring necessitates a subject. The cogito claims nothing beyond that.


----------



## Blake

It's similar to saying "I take a crap, therefore I am." Thinking isn't anything particularly special. It would be more inclusive to say "I am aware, therefore I am." But who is aware? The person? There is also awareness of the person....


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> the very fact that thinking is occurring necessitates a subject


Does it?

I can't see why.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Does it?
> 
> I can't see why.


Okay, what is thinking, then, as you understand it?

How does the act of thinking conceivably occur without some sort of entity/ies producing those thoughts?


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, what is thinking, then, as you understand it?
> 
> How does the act of thinking conceivably occur without some sort of entity/ies producing those thoughts?


That's a superb question. I'm surprised this isn't something more are contemplating. Where are these thoughts, sensations, and emotions really coming from beyond the subconscious? I'm not manufacturing them, but I take credit for it. Even my ambitions I don't create, but I still take credit for those, too. And what is this "I" if not just another thought? Who's thinking here?


----------



## aleazk

science said:


> Does it?
> 
> I can't see why.


You could see it in this way: if something happens to me, that's only possible if I exist in the first place, otherwise nothing could happen to me. So, thinking, whatever that is, is something that happens to me, therefore I must be something that exists.

I think Descartes was very clever at choosing "thinking" since it's a very intrinsic thing. He could have said "I have cold, therefore I exist". And that would work for anyone that felt cold at least once in his life. But what if someone is incapable of feeling cold, that person doesn't exist? Of course it exists, you would need to refine your claim. Perhaps, "my senses feel something, therefore I exist". But, again, what if we cut the spinal cord of the guy so that he can't feel anything. So, at the end, the best choice is thinking.

In fact, today we are all very Cartesian since we still use Descartes' claim in order to justify the claim that we exist. I think Descartes' claim works pretty well if we accept the standard notions/definitions of thinking and of existence. Of course, one could start to doubt about these definitions.

But we are even more than Cartesians. Descartes' claim is a "P implies Q", but we also believe in the reciprocal "Q implies P" if we understand "existence" (the Q) in the sense we like to exist: as conscious entities. We think that after a person stops thinking (in the sense that no neurological activity is there*) we say that the consciousness of this person does not exist anymore. And that's why death can be such a terrifying thing to us, since in our thinking we associate it to the cease of existence as conscious entities.

*so, yes, my definition of thinking is cerebral activity; I think it's a good one because there's indeed evidence of a strong correlation between what we call thinking (at various levels) and cerebral activity; also, it provides us with an objective way of measuring this thing rather than the sea of vagueness and subjectivity that clouded the notion for many centuries.


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> As one of my philosophy professors always started out any class by telling everyone that if they could refute the cogito, then they automatically passed for the semester with full marks, I fail to be impressed by this refutation.
> 
> Decartes doesn't mention the source of the thoughts. Obviously they could be coming from some outside entity and implanted into your consciousness, but the very fact that thinking is occurring necessitates a subject. The cogito claims nothing beyond that.


I guess one of the problems is that "existence" and "thinking" are very loaded terms. "Existence" as what?, as a mere entity that exists (for example, in the same way that a rock exists)?, as a conscious entity?. I think the meaning of the claim changes drastically according to which of these meanings you take. As you, I prefer to take the most conservative and less loaded of these possibilities.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> That's a superb question. I'm surprised this isn't something more are contemplating. Where are these thoughts, sensations, and emotions really coming from beyond the subconscious? I'm not manufacturing them, but I take credit for it. Even my ambitions I don't create, but I still take credit for those, too. And what is this "I" if not just another thought? Who's thinking here?


It's all in, and produced by, your brain.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> It's all in, and produced by, your brain.


Is it the brain that's self-aware? If so, where is the point in the brain that we refer to as "I?" And what's aware of that point, if that's not the original seat of awareness?

I have more questions than answers, really.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> Is the brain self-aware? If so, where is the point in the brain that we refer to as "I?" And what's aware of that point, if that's not the original seat of awareness?


There's no actual physical point, because in this point of view consciousness is an emergent thing in the systemic/emergence sense.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> There's no actual physical point, because in this point of view consciousness is an emergent thing in the systemic/emergence sense.


So bringing it all the way back, it emerges from 'nothingness?' I don't disagree with that. But I'd like to know what exactly this nothingness is. Is it really nothing as our minds conceptualize it?


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> Is it the brain that's self-aware? If so, where is the point in the brain that we refer to as "I?" And what's aware of that point, if that's not the original seat of awareness?


If this sort of thing interests you, I recommend the book _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. The first part of the book is a rigorous discussion of what consciousness is and, more to the point, is not. Fascinating!

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consci...1&sr=1-1&keywords=the+origin+of+consciousness


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> So it emerges from 'nothingness?' I don't disagree with that. But I'd like to know what exactly this nothingness is. Is it really nothing as our minds conceptualize it?


I'm not sure what you mean. I will answer based on what I think you are saying anyway. The brain is a very complex system composed of millions of interconnected basic unities (neurons). In this point of view, consciousness is something that emerges as a product of the brain working (there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for this claim). But that's not new, temperature and pressure, for example, are emergent properties in a gas in thermal equilibrium that are actually caused by the microscopic interactions of the molecules that compose this gas.

So, yes, it emerges from nothing when the brain starts to work. There's no law of conservation of consciousness. A lot of macroscopic properties of systems come and go in this way.

Do you remember being conscious before you were conceived? 

And as it comes from nothingness, it goes to nothingness. Shocking, yes, but unfortunately it's very likely the truth.


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> If this sort of thing interests you, I recommend the book _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind_. The first part of the book is a rigorous discussion of what consciousness is and, more to the point, is not. Fascinating!
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Consci...1&sr=1-1&keywords=the+origin+of+consciousness


Not sure I would call that mainstream science.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> I'm not sure what you mean. I will answer based on what I think you are saying anyway. The brain is a very complex system composed of millions of interconnected basic unities (neurons). In this point of view, consciousness is something that emerges as a product of the brain working (there's quite a lot of empirical evidence for this claim). But that's not new, temperature and pressure, for example, are emergent properties in a gas that are actually caused by the microscopic interactions of the molecules that compose this gas.
> 
> So, yes, it emerges from nothing when the brain starts to work. There's no law of conservation of consciousness. A lot of macroscopic properties of systems come and go in this way.
> 
> Do you remember being conscious before you were conceived?
> 
> And as it comes from nothingness, it goes to nothingness. Shocking, yes, but unfortunately it's very likely the truth.


Yea, like I said, I don't disagree. Consciousness is on contact. But what I'm interested in is what exactly is this nothingness? We're objectifying it in our minds as some sort of vacant space. But is it simply just the absence of dynamic consciousness? And how could we possibly know that?


----------



## KenOC

aleazk said:


> Not sure I would call that mainstream science.


So maybe the guy's a total loony. Nevertheless, I recommend the first part.

BTW there's nothing wrong with speculation, since "mainstream science" can tell us nothing of what consciousness is.

And as for "nothingness," good luck with that. Ask a Zen master, maybe you'll get a friendly whack!


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> Not sure I would call that mainstream science.


Yea, it's sort of a fringe. A bit interesting, though.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> Yea, like I said, I don't disagree. Consciousness is on contact. But what I'm interested in is what exactly is this nothingness? We're objectifying it in our minds as some sort of vacant space. But is it simply just the absence of dynamic consciousness? And how could we possibly know that?


Is not a vacant (as if it were something tangible), it is the termination of a physical process. For example, if the gas is not in thermal equilibrium, then you can't define the temperature in the usual way (as the 'T' in the statistical distribution)

You already experienced it: it's what you experienced before your body existed, and presumably we will experience the same thing once we die.


----------



## Morimur

Universal characteristic of sacred music: It glorifies God.


----------



## aleazk

KenOC said:


> So maybe the guy's a total loony. Nevertheless, I recommend the first part.
> 
> BTW there's nothing wrong with speculation, since "mainstream science" can tell us nothing of what consciousness is.
> 
> And as for "nothingness," good luck with that. Ask a Zen master, maybe you'll get a friendly whack!


I didn't say it's not interesting. And of course there's nothing wrong with speculation. Roger Penrose, a leading mathematical physicist has his own theories also. And it's of course wildly speculative and also not mainstream science. I was just saying that what I was saying to Vesuvius is mainstream science, while the book you suggested is interesting but quite more controversial, at least now.

I would say mainstream science is advancing very rapidly in understanding many things about the brain. Of course, the field (cognitive neuroscience) is still in its infancy, unlike, say, physics or philosophy.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Okay, what is thinking, then, as you understand it?
> 
> How does the act of thinking conceivably occur without some sort of entity/ies producing those thoughts?


I think we can imagine a world of pure thought, where thought or even thoughts exist without thinkers.



aleazk said:


> I think Descartes' claim works pretty well if we accept the standard notions/definitions of thinking and of existence. Of course, one could start to doubt about these definitions.


I think the entire advaita tradition doubts these definitions. That's a pretty substantial bit of human thought to throw out.


----------



## science

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Universal characteristic of sacred music: It glorifies God.


Well, there are polytheistic and non-theistic religious traditions with music.


----------



## science

aleazk said:


> I would say mainstream science is advancing very rapidly in understanding many things about the brain. Of course, the field (cognitive neuroscience) is still in its infancy, unlike, say, physics or philosophy.


This is a good point. Whenever people say that science can tell us "nothing" about consciousness, I wonder how much neuroscience they know. Science is telling us a heck of a lot about consciousness!


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> Is not a vacant (as if it were something tangible), it is the termination of a physical process. For example, if the gas is not in thermal equilibrium, then you can't define the temperature in the usual way (as the 'T' in the statistical distribution)
> 
> *You already experienced it: it's what you experienced before your body existed, and presumably we will experience the same thing once we die.*


This implies that we're not the body, as we're the consciousness inside of the body. And the consciousness can't manifest and experience without the body. I'm wondering what's aware of all this? Is there an aspect of us that's aware beyond the brain? Not like 'god' or anything. But the most subtle layer of ourselves that's more connected with the cosmos as a whole than simply the individual body-mind. And are we giving far too much focus on our localized consciousness, while overlooking this subtle universality of ourself?

I don't have any firm answers for this. I'm really just throwing out contemplations that I go through.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> This implies that we're not the body, as we're the consciousness inside of the body. And the consciousness can't manifest and experience without the body. I'm wondering what's aware of all this? Is there an aspect of us that's aware beyond the brain? Not like 'god' or anything. But the most subtle layer of ourselves that's more connected with the cosmos as a whole than simply the individual body-mind. And are we giving far too much focus on our localized consciousness, while overlooking this subtle universality of ourself?
> 
> I don't have any firm answers for this. I'm really just throwing out contemplations that I go through.


William S. Burroughs postulated that the soul is magnetic, and when an atomic bomb goes off, it releases a magnetic pulse which destroys the soul, causing "absolute soul death." So not only did the Hiroshima victims die a real death, they also experienced 'absolute soul death' and are dead forever; no afterlife, no reincarnation.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> This implies that we're not the body, as we're the consciousness inside of the body. And the consciousness can't manifest and experience without the body. I'm wondering what's aware of all this? Is there an aspect of us that's aware beyond the brain? Not like 'god' or anything. But the most subtle layer of ourselves that's more connected with the cosmos as a whole than simply the individual body-mind. And are we giving far too much focus on our localized consciousness, while overlooking this subtle universality of ourself?
> 
> I don't have any firm answers for this. I'm really just throwing out contemplations that I go through.


I'd be perfectly willing to say that there is, if only there were really good objective evidence for it - not just how we feel when we feel like we're aware of "the most subtle layer of ourselves." I'd especially appreciate that evidence building to some insights into how our minds work. Until then, we're working a really great story that is explaining a lot of things.

Our perception of music is right up there. Check this out: Cognitive neuroscience of music. That's some really impressive stuff going on!

That's what the intuitions of "the most subtle layer of ourselves" are up against! What have our most subtle layers ever told us about how our minds perceive and process music?


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> I think we can imagine a world of pure thought, where thought or even thoughts exist without thinkers.


I can't. It seems like a contradiction in terms to me personally. If, taking the scientific point of view, thoughts are produced by functioning brains, how can a thought exist without a brain to produce it?

Or are you simply redefining the terms?


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> William S. Burroughs postulated that the soul is magnetic, and when an atomic bomb goes off, it releases a magnetic pulse which destroys the soul, causing "absolute soul death." So not only did the Hiroshima victims die a real death, they also experienced 'absolute soul death' and are dead forever; no afterlife, no reincarnation.


That's a wild postulation, for sure.



science said:


> I'd be perfectly willing to say that there is, if only there were really good objective evidence for it - not just how we feel when we feel like we're aware of "the most subtle layer of ourselves." I'd especially appreciate that evidence building to some insights into how our minds work. Until then, we're working a really great story that is explaining a lot of things.
> 
> Our perception of music is right up there. Check this out: Cognitive neuroscience of music. That's some really impressive stuff going on!
> 
> That's what the intuitions of "the most subtle layer of ourselves" are up against! What have our most subtle layers ever told us about how our minds perceive and process music?


Definitely interesting. But this is all to do with our species, and our species isn't guaranteed to last the length of the cosmos... Hell, it's only been around for a blip in time. I'm just trying to see if we can find an absolute backbone of this whole transient existence. And could it be an absolute awareness? I'm not defending a position here... I'm simply bringing up questions that I feel are valuable at igniting different perceptions.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> This implies that we're not the body, as we're the consciousness inside of the body. And the consciousness can't manifest and experience without the body. I'm wondering what's aware of all this? Is there an aspect of us that's aware beyond the brain? Not like 'god' or anything. But the most subtle layer of ourselves that's more connected with the cosmos as a whole than simply the individual body-mind. And are we giving far too much focus on our localized consciousness, while overlooking this subtle universality of ourself?
> 
> I don't have any firm answers for this. I'm really just throwing out contemplations that I go through.


Maybe my wording gave the sensation that I believe in some kind of mind-body duality. No. As I said, I believe consciousness is just the brain working, I don't give an independent ontological status to the mind, consciousness, or whatever. It's just an effective and emergent phenomenon. Imagine a mechanical machine that produces sounds and noises while it works. The brain is the machine and the sounds and noises is the mind.

As to your second question, I don't know. In a hypothetical quantum brain, I guess non-local things like quantum entanglement between the microscopic components could allow some kind of connection to other brains, in the sense that the true quantum system is actually the set of all of these brains, and then you could say there's actually one single consciousness. But that's simply pure speculation, not based on any actual theoretical model of the brain (we don't have a general model yet).

But I'm more inclined to think that consciousness is a local thing and related to your brain, and the same happens to other people and their own brains.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> I can't. It seems like a contradiction in terms to me personally. If, taking the scientific point of view, thoughts are produced by functioning brains, how can a thought exist without a brain to produce it?
> 
> Or are you simply redefining the terms?


I think you're right, in scientific terms.

But the cogito is way prior to science. The context of the cogito is a fear that every bit of data we have comes from a malicious deceiving demon. We can't count science at that point. We can't count anything we've learned from experience.

After all, even Descartes didn't assume that our brains produce our thoughts - he was the paradigmatic dualist, and mind/soul was nonphysical. So for him "thought" exists in a nonphysical world. Imagining such a world, I can easily imagine the thoughts existing on their own without discrete individual thinkers producing them. An analogy could be a world where light exists without anything in particular shining. That's not hard for me to imagine.

Nor is it hard for the Buddhist tradition, for example, which understands very well that thoughts exist, but denies that there is any kind of self thinking them. The advaita tradition goes even further, insisting that both the thoughts and the thinker are illusions. "I think, therefore I am deceived by the illusion of my thoughts."

Those are some pretty heavyweight philosophical traditions! In the context of the deceiving demon, we cannot just discount them on the intuitive grounds that "something must be doing the thinking." We make that leap so casually only because, coming from an individualist and dualist culture, we assume the individual self that we want to prove.


----------



## aleazk

But it's not necessary for the being to be the one that produce the thoughts. You only need to perceive the thoughts. In that sense, something is happening to you (you are perceiving things), therefore you exist. Check the interpretation I mentioned in my previous post ("if something happens to me, that's only possible if I exist in the first place"), which is the same Mahlerian was pointing out.

And, as I said and also as you say in your last paragraph, we are more than Cartesians today, since we think that we are the ones producing the thoughts.


----------



## Blake

It definitely begs the question as to what's the focalized point of perceptions. Is it the mind that has evolved to a point that emerged a consciousness and became self aware? Well, the mere fact that we can talk about this implies that there is an awareness beyond. Because it must be understood that to be aware of anything, you must be beyond it. A rock isn't aware that it is a rock... But we are aware that it is a rock. So what exactly is this consciousness? And what is aware of it through it's transition before the human localized division?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Those are some pretty heavyweight philosophical traditions! In the context of the deceiving demon, we cannot just discount them on the intuitive grounds that "something must be doing the thinking." We make that leap so casually only because, coming from an individualist and dualist culture, we assume the individual self that we want to prove.


"Heavyweight" due to reverence for tradition, not validity.

Nothing wrong with a culture where we are allowed to make up our own minds, instead of accepting a given framework. If I wish to toss Descartes aside, I don't have to write out my fully formed thesis of rejection.


----------



## science

aleazk said:


> But it's not necessary for the being to be the one that produce the thoughts. You only need to perceive the thoughts. In that sense, something is happening to you (you are perceiving things), therefore you exist. Check the interpretation I mentioned in my previous post ("if something happens to me, that's only possible if I exist in the first place"), which is the same Mahlerian was pointing out.
> 
> And, as I said and also as you say in your last paragraph, we are more than Cartesians today, since we think that we are the ones producing the thoughts.


Think of multiple personality disorder. Do all of the people who have thoughts in that case actually exist? I think we all understand that the thinker - the perceiver - could be an illusion.

The truth is I suspect that the no-self doctrine is actually right. To question Descartes' cogito we only need to imagine a world of pure thought, but that's just philosophical gamesmanship. Back to reality, I suspect that our selves are illusions created by our brain, that there is no unitary "I" in our brain anywhere, no monistic "subject." I doubt that through introspection we actually do perceive the "I" that is supposedly in there thinking these thoughts, or, to which these thoughts supposedly happen. But even if I'm wrong about that, even if, introspecting, you do perceive your inner perceiver, I think it is an illusion - essentially a projection of a dualist homunculus. I doubt we can purge that assumption from our intuitions, but our intuitions are probably not reliable guide to the mind.

So, if I'm right, we are more complex than Descartes assumed. The "I" that "thinks" is not an "I," but a model, an illusion created by a multifarious brain that is including a model of itself in its model of its world.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Think of multiple personality disorder. Do all of the people who have thoughts in that case actually exist? I think we all understand that the thinker - the perceiver - could be an illusion.


Multiple personality disorder is a controversial - and renamed - branch of psychiatric science. It's doubtful that you could use such an example here to cast doubt on the idea that a brain simply generates thoughts (and that they might come from somewhere else).


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Multiple personality disorder is a controversial - and renamed - branch of psychiatric science. It's doubtful that you could use such an example here to cast doubt on the idea that a brain simply generates thoughts (and that they might come from somewhere else).


But "a brain" is not the same thing as Descartes' "I." I question the latter, not the former.

Even if multiple personality disorder isn't what it has been rumored to be, the concept works for me. The rumor is that there is a being who thinks it exists and the rest of us think its existence is an illusion. (Edit: Just to be clear, all we need is any way at all to imagine a thought that has not been produced by a unitary persistent "I." If we can even begin to imagine such a thing, the cogito is something less than certain. We can use spirit possession to cast the same doubt: when Kali possesses me and through me declares, "I think therefore I am," do you conclude that she exists? All we need is a bit of doubt... and we're up against a super-powerful deceiving demon.)


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Think of multiple personality disorder. Do all of the people who have thoughts in that case actually exist? I think we all understand that the thinker - the perceiver - could be an illusion.
> 
> The truth is I suspect that the no-self doctrine is actually right. To question Descartes' cogito we only need to imagine a world of pure thought, but that's just philosophical gamesmanship. Back to reality, I suspect that our selves are illusions created by our brain, that there is no unitary "I" in our brain anywhere, no monistic "subject." I doubt that through introspection we actually do perceive the "I" that is supposedly in there thinking these thoughts, or, to which these thoughts supposedly happen. But even if I'm wrong about that, even if, introspecting, you do perceive your inner perceiver, I think it is an illusion - essentially a projection of a dualist homunculus. I doubt we can purge that assumption from our intuitions, but our intuitions are probably not reliable guide to the mind.
> 
> So, if I'm right, we are more complex than Descartes assumed. The "I" that "thinks" is not an "I," but a model, an illusion created by a multifarious brain that is including a model of itself in its model of its world.


Good stuff. One could think that the "I" is the fabrication of an evolving human brain. I don't think we were always so individualistic. The early days of man were much more tribal driven. We still are to a large degree, but our individual image of ourselves in our mind has become much more prominent.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> all we need is any way at all to imagine a thought that has not been produced by a unitary persistent "I." If we can even begin to imagine such a thing, the cogito is something less than certain. We can use spirit possession to cast the same doubt: when Kali possesses me and through me declares, "I think therefore I am," do you conclude that she exists? All we need is a bit of doubt... and we're up against a super-powerful deceiving demon.)


But that's what I can't imagine - a thought that is not connected to the human that thinks it.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> But that's what I can't imagine - a thought that is not connected to the human that thinks it.


Well, I guess that's how it goes! I think I can imagine it, you think you can't!

So I remain unpersuaded, at least until science shows that this "I" really is one particular thing in there.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Think of multiple personality disorder. Do all of the people who have thoughts in that case actually exist? I think we all understand that the thinker - the perceiver - could be an illusion.


Certainly, someone can be deceived as to the nature of their own existence. The question, though, is whether someone can be deceived as to the fact that they exist or not.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> But "a brain" is not the same thing as Descartes' "I." I question the latter, not the former.
> 
> Even if multiple personality disorder isn't what it has been rumored to be, the concept works for me. The rumor is that there is a being who thinks it exists and the rest of us think its existence is an illusion. (Edit: Just to be clear, all we need is any way at all to imagine a thought that has not been produced by a unitary persistent "I." If we can even begin to imagine such a thing, the cogito is something less than certain. We can use spirit possession to cast the same doubt: when Kali possesses me and through me declares, "I think therefore I am," do you conclude that she exists? All we need is a bit of doubt... and we're up against a super-powerful deceiving demon.)


This is an interesting diversion, since it deals with* identity *rather than all that "does God exist" stuff. Has anyone considered *Moire patterns,* and how* holograms *are created by interference patterns? Basically, it's the same thing.

Although the circles and curves created by* moire patterns* (2 grids on clear paper, juxtaposed) do not "really" exist, we perceive them nonetheless. And anyone who has ever been to a hologram gallery can attest to the uncanny realism of the images.

Therefore, we can say that reality itself (solid matter, etc.) could possibly be a "hologram" which operates at low enough frequencies to create solids, and that "God" is the carrier signal, or laser beam, which propagates it. We are the "interference patterns" created by "God's" laser beams. This concept has been proposed already, and is called "*holographic cosmology."

*The electromagnetic spectrum is wide, and goes from solids to light.* It may be that there is a spectrum beyond our senses.

Identity might described to be "not real" or an illusion, but that term is misleading; it still might be perceivable as a phenomena which is "just as real as real seems to seem."

If identity is, indeed, simply a perception or interference effect, then it need not be "solid" or "real" like matter. Thus, identity might be an aggregate effect of our brain and its "patterns," which are interacting with reality's "waves," which creates an effect which we call "identity" or being.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moiré_pattern

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

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111142

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(wave_propagation)

Getting back to the thread subject, sound is waves, and when we listen to music we are definitely creating "interference patterns" of perception in our minds. It's very possible that certain frequencies and sound waves can create effects on our "being" or identity, since that, too, might be nothing more than wave activity.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Getting back to the thread subject, sound is waves, and when we listen to music we are definitely creating "interference patterns" of perception in our minds. It's very possible that certain frequencies and sound waves can create effects on our "being" or identity, since that, too, might be nothing more than wave activity.


Ah, yes precisely. And not to sound like a broken record, or to play the old flute... but what is aware of all of this? Is it not beyond these waves of perception? Is the perceiving agent simply nothingness... because anything spoken of is itself in the scope of awareness, so awareness itself would have to be absolutely nothing. As anything found would again be in the scope of awareness. We are NOTHING!


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Certainly, someone can be deceived as to the nature of their own existence. The question, though, is whether someone can be deceived as to the fact that they exist or not.


The question isn't whether _something_ exists, but whether _"I"_ exist. What is this _"I"_? The "I" is the controversy, not the existence. That remains as true for modern neuroscience and its philosophy as it did for the old dualists and theirs.

It is impossible for me to tie this back to music - perhaps we can imagine music without an instrument? again, I think I can! like light without a source in Genesis 1:3 - so we'd better stop. For now, it's convenient to note that while Descartes published his _Discourse on Method_ in 1637, Monteverdi published his eighth book of madrigals in 1638.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Ah, yes precisely. And not to sound like a broken record, or to play the old flute... but what is aware of all of this? Is it not beyond these waves of perception? Is the perceiving agent simply nothingness... because anything spoken of is itself in the scope of awareness, so awareness itself would have to be absolutely nothing. As anything found would again be in the scope of awareness. We are NOTHING!


Nothing?

How about we are "illusions of continuous consciousness?"

Edit: Sorry.... I meant to let this drop.... The best I can do to tie this to music is to recall the old Kierkegaardian or phenomenological reflections on the nature of music as a temporal art, in which our awareness of our experience of temporal continuity is heightened, without the illusion of plastic timeless permanence that inheres in many other arts. While we can at least pretend that a statue is eternal, music disappears moment to moment like the rest of our lives. We can wonder, perhaps "I" hear the overture to _Don Giovanni_, therefore "I" am; "I" walk out afterwards humming "Notte e giorno faticar," therefore "I" am; but is the "I" who heard the overture to _Don Giovanni_ the same "I" who hums the aria afterwards? And if not.... or if it turns out I hum it unconsciously... "I" don't know! "I" leave it to Kierkegaard's A.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Nothing?
> 
> How about we are "illusions of continuous consciousness?"
> 
> Edit: Sorry.... I meant to let this drop.... The best I can do to tie this to music is to recall the old Kierkegaardian or phenomenological reflections on the nature of music as a temporal art, in which our awareness of our experience of temporal continuity is heightened, without the illusion of plastic timeless permanence that inheres in many other arts. While we can at least pretend that a statue is eternal, music disappears moment to moment like the rest of our lives. We can wonder, perhaps "I" hear the overture to _Don Giovanni_, therefore "I" am; "I" walk out afterwards humming "Notte e giorno faticar," therefore "I" am; but is the "I" who heard the overture to _Don Giovanni_ the same "I" who hums the aria afterwards? And if not.... or if it turns out I hum it unconsciously... "I" don't know! "I" leave it to Kierkegaard's A.


Yea, I don't quite know either. But it sort of makes sense in a deductive way. As I've said earlier, to be aware of anything you would have to be beyond it. The body, mind, sensations, emotions, waking-dreaming-deep sleep. I am aware of all of this... even consciousness I am aware of. Then what exactly are we to be aware of even the most subtle perceiving agent of this world?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> ...to be aware of anything you would have to be beyond it.


I'm not sure what "beyond" means here... I can't think of a meaning that would make this to be an obviously true statement, so I'm not sure what you mean.

But setting that aside, I guess your point is that you can't "see" your inner homunculus... according to Descartes you know it exists because it thinks.

If the cogito works, our mental processes are like the shadows on the wall of the cave: we can't see the source of light (~the "I," the thinking homunculus), but maybe we can conclude that there must be one since otherwise (we might assume) the shadows wouldn't exist.

Anyway, for the moment we've got the thread to ourselves, so let's play....

What if neuroscience were able to show that there is no unitary persistent "self?" What practical implications would this have?


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Ah, yes precisely. And not to sound like a broken record, or to play the old flute... but what is aware of all of this? Is it not beyond these waves of perception? Is the perceiving agent simply nothingness... because anything spoken of is itself in the scope of awareness, so awareness itself would have to be absolutely nothing. As anything found would again be in the scope of awareness. We are NOTHING!


That is a rather harsh way of putting it. There is a concept of "the void," which is talked about in Buddhism. "The light" some call it. So really, that may be true, that 'being' is an illusion and is essentially groundless. That 'being' is essentially an aggregate of sensory effects which are illusory, and that our being is somehow 'beyond' the senses. There have been reported sightings of the white light, but these are unconfirmed, and highly discouraged while operating heavy machinery.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I'm not sure what "beyond" means here... I can't think of a meaning that would make this to be an obviously true statement, so I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> But setting that aside, I guess your point is that you can't "see" your inner homunculus... according to Descartes you know it exists because it thinks.
> 
> If the cogito works, our mental processes are like the shadows on the wall of the cave: we can't see the source of light (~the "I," the thinking homunculus), but maybe we can conclude that there must be one since otherwise (we might assume) the shadows wouldn't exist.
> 
> Anyway, for the moment we've got the thread to ourselves, so let's play....
> 
> What if neuroscience were able to show that there is no unitary persistent "self?" What practical implications would this have?


In Jungian terms, the answer is relatively simple, if you accept some givens. The 'self' is the source or wellspring of being; it is in the center, with the 'realized' and polarized archetypes all around it. These archetypes are 'ego' or our cognitive awareness. The 'self' archetype in the center is also the 'God' archetype, and is connected to the sacred through this central portal. This center is beyond thought; it is simply being, or sacred awareness. This has been experienced as "the void" or the "white light" or "pure love" or "God" by some mind explorers. It is timeless, without individual identity, so it might as well be "the other" as far as the ego is concerned. It is simply being, without identity, thought, or time.


----------



## millionrainbows




----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> The question isn't whether _something_ exists, but whether _"I"_ exist. What is this _"I"_? The "I" is the controversy, not the existence. That remains as true for modern neuroscience and its philosophy as it did for the old dualists and theirs.


Even if the subject is a bundle of sense perceptions a la Hume, you still have not disproved the cogito. You have simply redefined its terms.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> Even if the subject is a bundle of sense perceptions a la Hume, you still have not disproved the cogito. You have simply redefined its terms.


Cogito implies thought, and being is beyond thought, as any tennis player knows. Therefore, identity is experienced as "thought," along with other sensory input, but at the core of it all is simply being, and is connected to the sacred ground of being, of all existence. So there is no need to prove it, as that involves thought. That's like asking Federer to "prove" a tennis shot.

Also, if being is subsumed into the totality of being, as part of all creation, including "God," it is beyond identity and individual consciousness, and it might as well be "the other." So the "proof" is trying to justify some subjective or individual awareness, namely "I".

"I" is an illusion.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I'm not sure what "beyond" means here... I can't think of a meaning that would make this to be an obviously true statement, so I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> But setting that aside, I guess your point is that you can't "see" your inner homunculus... according to Descartes you know it exists because it thinks.
> 
> If the cogito works, our mental processes are like the shadows on the wall of the cave: we can't see the source of light (~the "I," the thinking homunculus), but maybe we can conclude that there must be one since otherwise (we might assume) the shadows wouldn't exist.
> 
> Anyway, for the moment we've got the thread to ourselves, so let's play....
> 
> What if neuroscience were able to show that there is no unitary persistent "self?" What practical implications would this have?


I'm not using "beyond" in any sort of abstract way. It simply means that to be aware of anything there needs to be a separation and distance from it... no matter how intimate a sensation may feel - this "I." If it is perceived means that their is distance between the objective "I-thought" and the perceiver - whatever that is... perhaps the 'nothingness' of awareness. Because if you keep looking back within yourself and disregarding everything perceived - both subtle and gross - you reach a point were there is just nothing there but being aware.

It's difficult for me to imagine hard-science being able to prove any of this with testable experiments just yet. It has to be a subjectively pragmatic discovery... at least for now.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> Even if the subject is a bundle of sense perceptions a la Hume, you still have not disproved the cogito. You have simply redefined its terms.


Yea, but it can be replaced with anything. "I think - I walk - I talk - I breath - I eat - I sleep" therefore I exist. Well, certainly something exist. It's nearly a useless statement. The question is what is this "I" that's holding onto everything and taking responsibility? Is it really there, or is it just the mind latching onto events and projecting some individual doer?


----------



## Mahlerian

Vesuvius said:


> Yea, but it can be replaced with anything. "I think - I walk - I talk - I breath - I eat - I sleep" therefore I exist. Well, certainly something exist. It's nearly a useless statement. The question is what is this "I" that's holding onto everything and taking responsibility? Is it really there, or is it just the mind latching onto events and projecting some individual doer?


The point is not the nature of the "I" (or not at that point in the Meditations, anyway), but the question of whether anything can be known for sure about oneself. All of the other things are subsequent and depend on a specific kind of physical existence, whereas to Descartes, the knowledge of one's existence is not predicated on either physical or non-physical existence, though as a dualist he believes in both.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> The point is not the nature of the "I" (or not at that point in the Meditations, anyway), but the question of whether anything can be known for sure about oneself.


The question can be expanded: Can we know anything for sure at all? Well of course, we can't. And that's for sure.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> The question can be expanded: Can we know anything for sure at all? Well of course, we can't. And that's for sure.


There is no possible universe in which mathematical or logical laws such as 2+2=4 are invalid (outside of simply redefining some of the terms involved).


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> There is no possible universe in which mathematical or logical laws such as 2+2=4 are invalid (outside of simply redefining some of the terms involved).


On what do you base that assertion? (PS Did you miss my little ha-ha there?)


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> There is no possible universe in which mathematical or logical laws such as 2+2=4 are invalid (outside of simply redefining some of the terms involved).


Well, we haven't experienced it yet. That's for sure. But are there other Universes where logic gets put on it's head and everything is ***-backwards... Where 2+2=3 because the energies are so distorting and deluding. Who knows? It's all pure speculation at this point, though.


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> Well, we haven't experienced it yet. That's for sure. But are there other Universes where logic gets put on it's head and everything is ***-backwards... Where 2+2=3 because the energies are so distorting and deluding. Who knows? It's all pure speculation at this point, though.


There are curiously illogical things in our own universe. For example, certain particles (some quarks I believe) must take three half-turns before they're facing the same way again. No mean trick, that!


----------



## Mahlerian

Vesuvius said:


> Well, we haven't experienced it yet. That's for sure. But are there other Universes where logic gets put on it's head and everything is ***-backwards... Where 2+2=3 because the energies are so distorting and deluding. Who knows? It's all pure speculation at this point, though.


If 2+2=3, it isn't because numbers work differently, it's because the definitions are different. Abstracts are not bound by physical laws. It's like saying that there can be an actual universe which anything that is true is also false. Saying that you can imagine that such a thing exists does not indicate that you could actually comprehend what it would mean, because it's patently nonsense to begin with and doesn't mean anything.



KenOC said:


> There are curiously illogical things in our own universe. For example, certain particles (some quarks I believe) must take three half-turns before they're facing the same way again. No mean trick, that!


A paradox is an apparent contradiction, or something that seems illogical given what we know, rather than an actual logical contradiction.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> If 2+2=3, it isn't because numbers work differently, it's because the definitions are different. Abstracts are not bound by physical laws. It's like saying that there can be an actual universe which anything that is true is also false. Saying that you can imagine that such a thing exists does not indicate that you could actually comprehend what it would mean, because it's patently nonsense to begin with and doesn't mean anything.


I just wonder if everything appears the way it is because our minds translate it that way. It's all logic according to the brains of our species. No other place has to follow the way our brains work. Hell, it could be very misguided and delusive to begin with, which I already feel it is. Latching on to patterns that are really not set in stone. And quite often straight-up imagining patterns that aren't even there.


----------



## KenOC

Mahlerian said:


> If 2+2=3, it isn't because numbers work differently, it's because the definitions are different.


You're simply repeating your assertion. Please see my question in #383.


----------



## Mahlerian

KenOC said:


> You're simply repeating your assertion. Please see my question in #383.





KenOC said:


> On what do you base that assertion? (PS Did you miss my little ha-ha there?)


If you feel the need to justify logic, you reach an infinite regress. The very idea of justifying anything without logic is absurd.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I want to push on this claim about logic. I think you're conflating two different ideas that both get labelled "logic" in common use. One is essentially mathematics. Earlier there was some talk of modus ponens I think, and that would be true in every culture, just as the sentence "three fifths is less than three fourths" (translated and/or explained properly) would be true in every culture. Let's call that the "strictly speaking" meaning of "logic."
> 
> However, a whole lot of other things get called "logic." People will say that it's "logical" that we should treat people fairly, or it's "logical" that people should get what they deserve. In fact, strictly speaking, those aren't s logical statements at all. We might hope to render observations about the world in ways that we can apply strictly-speaking logic to them, but in practice we can only do so with the most elementary and trivial observations, like "all men are mortal."
> 
> But even that - really? ARE all men mortal? Even Jesus Christ? What about if scientists figure out how to stop aging, or to upload our consciousness onto silicon? In a case like this, is "Socrates" a "man?" We wind up questioning what "Socrates," "man," "mortal" actually mean - questioning them in ways that do not reduce to propositional logic or any other mathematical forms. None of these things can be universally valid the way math is.
> 
> I suspect that we cannot reduce anything except propositional logic (and other mathematical systems) to propositional logic. The relationship of any other kind of ideas to the underlying pure logic will always be problematic.
> 
> Descartes' cogito is a good example: (I know that) I think, therefore (I know that) I exist.
> 
> But wait? Do I really know that "I" think? As Hume (I believe) pointed out (and as Vesuvius' advaita friends would probably point out), at best he knows is that there is some thinking, but even that doesn't necessarily that there is an "I" thinking it.
> 
> As far as I can tell, any other other nice simple "P --> Q" story only stays nice and simple and universally true when it is solely about "P" and "Q" as abstractions. As soon as we label about some human concerns "P" and "Q," the story breaks down because we can examine "P" and "Q" more critically.
> 
> I think we'll find a good example of this if we were actually to try to solve for ourselves Descartes' dilemma: how does he know that he and his world aren't (or isn't) an illusion, or a demonic deception, or in more contemporary terms, a really fantastic computer simulation?
> 
> I'd bet you cannot solve that with pure propositional logic. The only thing that I know of that comes close to solving it is pragmatism, which is of course (at best) only a practical solution. Here we have this fairly simple philosophical problem and it almost certainly isn't going to allow us to reduce it to any unquestionably true formula of propositional logic.
> 
> So very little of what we usually call "logic" is something like "universally valid: calculators work everywhere, but not much else does.


Meh, I don't feel like rehashing all of the arguments for Rationalism, Empiricism, and classic Skepticism. They're already out there, and this thread seems pretty derailed already. Now, if you guys would enjoy discussing this somewhere else, I'd love to.


----------



## Vaneyes

Mahlerian said:


> If you feel the need to justify logic, you reach an infinite regress. *The very idea of justifying anything without logic is absurd.*


Not really. I can maintain an absurd realm for argument is relevant as long as it's set in vacuum. IOW everyone's on that wavelength, without interruption from more obvious suppositions, or hard-fast facts.

Truth can be obtained in roundabout ways sometimes. :tiphat:


----------



## Blake

It happens all the time, actually....


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Even if the subject is a bundle of sense perceptions a la Hume, you still have not disproved the cogito. You have simply redefined its terms.


I think you're the one redefining the terms. You've turned "I think therefore I am" into "Something thinks therefore something is."


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> I think you're the one redefining the terms. You've turned "I think therefore I am" into "Something thinks therefore something is."


Fun fact, Descartes didn't literally say "cogito ergo sum". That's just a latin phrase that's been used to sum up this statement:



> I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No: if I convinced myself of something then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that this proposition, _I am, I exist, _is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (Med. 2, AT 7:25)


Some more from Stanford on Descartes' First Item of Knowledge:



> As the canonical formulation has it, I think therefore I am. (Latin: cogito ergo sum; French: je pense, donc je suis.) This formulation does not expressly arise in the Meditations.
> 
> Descartes regards the 'cogito' (as I shall refer to it) as the "first and most certain of all to occur to anyone who philosophizes in an orderly way" (Prin. 1:7, AT 8a:7). Testing the cogito by means of methodic doubt is supposed to reveal its unshakable certainty. As earlier noted, the existence of my body is subject to doubt. The existence of my thinking, however, is not. The very attempt at thinking away my thinking is indeed self-stultifying.
> 
> The cogito raises numerous philosophical questions and has generated an enormous literature. In summary fashion, I'll try to clarify a few central points.
> 
> First, a first-person formulation is essential to the certainty of the cogito. Third-person claims, such as "Icarus thinks," or "Descartes thinks," are not unshakably certain - not for me, at any rate; only the occurrence of my thought has a chance of resisting hyperbolic doubt. There are a number of passages in which Descartes refers to a third-person version of the cogito. But none of these occurs in the context of establishing the actual existence of a particular thinker (in contrast with the conditional, general result that whatever thinks exists).
> 
> Second, a present tense formulation is essential to the certainty of the cogito. It's no good to reason that "I existed last Tuesday, since I recall my thinking on that day." For all I Know, I'm now merely dreaming about that occasion. Nor does it work to reason that "I'll continue to exist, since I'm now thinking." As the meditator remarks, "it could be that were I totally to cease from thinking, I should totally cease to exist" (Med. 2, AT 7:27). The privileged certainty of the cogito is grounded in the "manifest contradiction" (cf. AT 7:36) of trying to think away my present thinking.
> 
> Third, the certainty of the cogito depends on being formulated in terms of my cogitatio - i.e., my thinking, or awareness/consciousness more generally. Any mode of thinking is sufficient, including doubting, affirming, denying, willing, understanding, imagining, and so on (cf. Med. 2, AT 7:28). My non-thinking activities, however, are insufficient. For instance, it's no good to reason that "I exist, since I am walking," because methodic doubt calls into question the existence of my legs. Maybe I'm just dreaming that I have legs. A simple revision, such as "I exist since it seems I'm walking," restores the anti-sceptical potency (cf. Replies 5, AT 7:352; Prin. 1:9).


----------



## KenOC

Being way less certain than Descartes: I think, therefore I am...I think.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Fun fact, Descartes didn't literally say "cogito ergo sum". That's just a latin phrase that's been used to sum up this statement:
> 
> Some more from Stanford on Descartes' First Item of Knowledge:


Wikipedia says:



> Descartes' original phrase, _je pense, donc je suis_, appeared in his _Discourse on the Method_ (1637), which was written in French rather than Latin to reach a wider audience in his country than scholars. He used the Latin cogito ergo sum in the later _Principles of Philosophy_ (1644).


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Wikipedia says:


If you take a gander at this, it's a much more helpful and exhaustive look at Descartes' epistemology: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#4 Imo, wikipedia serves it's purpose but I'm normally loathe to use it, as it doesn't conform to professional standards.

You're right, I confused myself when I said that too. What I had meant was that people attribute the idea to his second Meditation, yet we don't see that phrase there in either language.


----------



## Guest

Trying to follow this debate is quite a challenge, mostly because what's being passed around is a chameleon. One minute it heads towards a consideration of what Descartes wrote and what he meant by it, then it takes on the appearance of personal response to it and outlandish speculations about whether I'm too close to myself to be self aware...or something like that...

I think I've lost all sense of what this has to do with the OP or even music at all. In fact, reading this thread, I begin to lose all sense-perception...


----------



## Lukecash12

MacLeod said:


> Trying to follow this debate is quite a challenge, mostly because what's being passed around is a chameleon. One minute it heads towards a consideration of what Descartes wrote and what he meant by it, then it takes on the appearance of personal response to it and outlandish speculations about whether I'm too close to myself to be self aware...or something like that...
> 
> I think I've lost all sense of what this has to do with the OP or even music at all. In fact, reading this thread, I begin to lose all sense-perception...


Except that, ultimately it is quite relevant. How can million prove this ontological entity of his? What is his epistemological justification?


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahlerian said:


> The point is not the nature of the "I" (or not at that point in the Meditations, anyway), but the question of whether anything can be known for sure about oneself. All of the other things are subsequent and depend on a specific kind of physical existence, whereas* to Descartes, the knowledge of one's existence is not predicated on either physical or non-physical existence, though as a dualist he believes in both.*


*I'm a materialist, then. *I believe that to experience oneself as an identity, ego, or "I", one must physically exist, or be, first. That's why babies develop identities as their brain grows.

The* experience* of this identity, however, is not a physical entity unto itself, but is a perception (experience in thought in the mind) of the interaction of our mind with reality. Does that mean I'm a non-materialist too?

Being is primary, and is not 'thought' or 'mind.'

Philosophy is a rational pursuit. To solve the question of being, it must go beyond thought.
Can it do that?
If it could, what good would it be?

Back to the thread idea, and this one's for MacLeod:

Jerry Garcia: "I think, therefore I jam."


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Except that, ultimately it is quite relevant. How can million prove this ontological entity of his? What is his epistemological justification?


I don't have to prove it, I simply have to be, and experience it. I could jump in front of a train if you'd like. "Proof" and "justifications" are the stuff of rational philosophy. "Being" and the sacred are metaphysical states of experience, and metaphysics (experience) can't be proven. As far as you are concerned, I'm just a holy-gram. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> I think you're the one redefining the terms. You've turned "I think therefore I am" into "Something thinks therefore something is."


You didn't follow me.

"I think therefore I am" is still a valid statement even if "I" indicates the bundle of sense perceptions that we associate with a self, rather than a consistent identity over time. It does not indicate "something thinks therefore something is" as this bundle of sense perceptions, while perhaps not amounting to a persistent identity, is in itself an indication that an "I" of some kind, however weakened by skepticism, does exist.

You are bringing in extra baggage by disputing the statement on the basis of what we know Descartes would have believed regarding the nature of the self.


----------



## Blake

Mahlerian said:


> You didn't follow me.
> 
> "I think therefore I am" is still a valid statement even if "I" indicates the bundle of sense perceptions that we associate with a self, rather than a consistent identity over time. It does not indicate "something thinks therefore something is" as this bundle of sense perceptions, while perhaps not amounting to a persistent identity, is in itself an indication that an "I" of some kind, however weakened by skepticism, does exist.
> 
> You are bringing in extra baggage by disputing the statement on the basis of what we know Descartes would have believed regarding the nature of the self.


I think our problem is that we don't treat it as objectively something that comes and goes. This bundle of sense perceptions is what billions are referring to as themselves... So really this entire world could be based on a deluded sense of reality... and everything that comes out of it is inherently tainted by that basic delusion. It could be simply a fantasy of human-kind, yet we take it with the utmost seriousness... And immense suffering entails because it's not natural... we're making it up.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> You didn't follow me.
> 
> "I think therefore I am" is still a valid statement even if "I" indicates the bundle of sense perceptions that we associate with a self, rather than a consistent identity over time. It does not indicate "something thinks therefore something is" as this bundle of sense perceptions, while perhaps not amounting to a persistent identity, is in itself an indication that an "I" of some kind, however weakened by skepticism, does exist.
> 
> You are bringing in extra baggage by disputing the statement on the basis of what we know Descartes would have believed regarding the nature of the self.


Maybe I'm still not following you. I don't know how you can defend Descartes's cogito without defending Descartes's "I," since whatever Descartes thought "I" was is what he thought he'd proven with the cogito. What Descartes, or anyone else who makes the claim "I exist," means by "I" is not mere extra baggage, but the crucial issue in evaluating the truth of the claim, which is why critics like Hume and Kant focus on the "I" part of the claim. For the right sort of "I" perhaps the cogito is true, but we have to figure out what this "I" is in order to evaluate that claim.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Maybe I'm still not following you. I don't know how you can defend Descartes's cogito without defending Descartes's "I," since whatever Descartes thought "I" was is what he thought he'd proven with the cogito. What Descartes, or anyone else who makes the claim "I exist," means by "I" is not mere extra baggage, but the crucial issue in evaluating the truth of the claim, which is why critics like Hume and Kant focus on the "I" part of the claim. For the right sort of "I" perhaps the cogito is true, but we have to figure out what this "I" is in order to evaluate that claim.


The problem here is that he is linguistically off base. Referring back to my lexicon this is what I've got on cogito: verb 1st conjugation, -clause: _cogitate cum animis vestris si quid_, etc., Cato ap. Gell. 16, 1, 4. Or _quid agam cogito_, Ter. And. 2, 2, 21. Basically what it says is that both when used as a verb and as a noun it implies the anima, and when party relations aren't referred to (first, second, third person) it is assumed to be in the first person. _Cogito_ is the process of the _anima_ (similar to the greek pneuma, as in: man's rational soul, the incorporeal center of thought) during cognition.


----------



## Blake

Lukecash12 said:


> The problem here is that he is linguistically off base. Referring back to my lexicon this is what I've got on cogito: verb 1st conjugation, -clause: _cogitate cum animis vestris si quid_, etc., Cato ap. Gell. 16, 1, 4. Or _quid agam cogito_, Ter. And. 2, 2, 21. Basically what it says is that both when used as a verb and as a noun it implies the anima, and when party relations aren't referred to (first, second, third person) it is assumed to be in the first person. _Cogito_ is the process of the _anima_ (similar to the greek pneuma, as in: man's rational soul, the incorporeal center of thought) during cognition.


Hmm, we could be getting a little closer here. I'm still aloof about what exactly he meant as "I," but at least we're moving forwards.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> Maybe I'm still not following you. I don't know how you can defend Descartes's cogito without defending Descartes's "I," since whatever Descartes thought "I" was is what he thought he'd proven with the cogito. What Descartes, or anyone else who makes the claim "I exist," means by "I" is not mere extra baggage, but the crucial issue in evaluating the truth of the claim, which is why critics like Hume and Kant focus on the "I" part of the claim. For the right sort of "I" perhaps the cogito is true, but we have to figure out what this "I" is in order to evaluate that claim.


Understanding of the I comes afterwards. Referring to Wiki:

"*Once he has secured his existence*, however, Descartes seeks to find out what "I" is."



Descartes said:


> But what then am I? A thinking thing. And what is that? Something that doubts, understands, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and also senses and has mental images.


The cogito is explicitly prior to any definition or understanding of what is entailed by the "I" involved, and it should be taken as such.


----------



## Lukecash12

Vesuvius said:


> Hmm, we could be getting a little closer here. I'm still aloof about what exactly he meant as "I," but at least we're moving forwards.


_Cogito_ is the process that happens to the "I", or the _anima/animae_.



> -The rational soul, mind: rationis consilique particeps: docent non interire animas, Cs.
> - A life, living being, soul, person: egregias animas, quae, etc., V.: animae quales nec candidiores, etc., H.: magnae animae, Ta.
> -The shades, departed spirits, manes: tu pias laetis animas reponis Sedibus, H.: animam sepulcro Condimus, V.
> - For consciousness (cf. animus, II. A. 3. and conscientia, II. A.): cum perhibetur animam liquisse, Lucr. 3, 598; in this phrase animus is more common.


What he was referring to, by using the formation _cogito ergo sum_, was a process happening to the object contingent to _cogito_, the _anima_. The _anima_ itself is his first item of knowledge, and what he said he established was that we can be aware of our own _anima_ in the face of any hyperbolic doubt, because we know *in* the very fact that we're experiencing something that our _anima_ is a necessary part of the picture no matter how contrived the situation is, regardless of our sense perceptions being unreliable because of hyperbolic thoughts like "I'm a brain in a vat".


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Understanding of the I comes afterwards. Referring to Wiki:
> 
> "*Once he has secured his existence*, however, Descartes seeks to find out what "I" is."
> 
> The cogito is explicitly prior to any definition or understanding of what is entailed by the "I" involved, and it should be taken as such.


If only he'd started with "something thinks" and then proceeded to show that it is "I." Notice that the fact that his "I" is a thing "that doubts, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and senses and has mental images" is intended as a corollary of the cogito, implicit in the "I think," not a later, separate conclusion but an explication of what he meant by "I think."

Besides all that of which he was conscious, he evidently also assumes discrete individuality and a subject/object dichotomy (between the I and the thought) in his initial "I think."

Either Hume, Kant, advaita vedanta, and the entire Buddhist tradition are idiots, or this "I exist as a thing that thinks" claim is not as self-evident as Descartes or that boastful prof believed, but a claim about which reasonable people can disagree.

I obviously land on the skeptical side. "Something thinks" is where he should've started, and probably where he should've gotten stuck with that kind of radical skepticism. How does he know that his perception of _himself_ thinking is more accurate than all the other perceptions that he dares to doubt?


----------



## Blake

I'm elated this topic is actually being investigated on a little internet forum. Some deep-thinkers around here.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> If only he'd started with "something thinks" and then proceeded to show that it is "I." Notice that the fact that his "I" is a thing "that doubts, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and senses and has mental images" is intended as a corollary of the cogito, implicit in the "I think," not a later, separate conclusion but an explication of what he meant by "I think."
> 
> Besides all that of which he was conscious, he evidently also assumes discrete individuality and a subject/object dichotomy (between the I and the thought) in his initial "I think."
> 
> Either Hume, Kant, advaita vedanta, and the entire Buddhist tradition are idiots, or this "I exist as a thing that thinks" claim is not as self-evident as Descartes or that boastful prof believed, but a claim about which reasonable people can disagree.
> 
> I obviously land on the skeptical side. "Something thinks" is where he should've started, and probably where he should've gotten stuck with that kind of radical skepticism. How does he know that his perception of _himself_ thinking is more accurate than all the other perceptions that he dares to doubt?


Actually, this isn't tricky at all when you see that _cogito_ is the contingent of another term, that he used it as a verb. _Cogito_ is a process and the object is implied by it's own definition. This is why Latin was used for so long by philosophers, it is a wonderful language where one word can have many different implications, and it can be used with exquisite precision depending on the grammatical form of the word. _Cogito_ and _cogitum_ are so close in meaning, yet they are even more specific.


----------



## Blake

Lukecash12 said:


> _Cogito_ is the process that happens to the "I", or the _anima/animae_.
> 
> What he was referring to, by using the formation _cogito ergo sum_, was a process happening to the object contingent to _cogito_, the _anima_. The _anima_ itself is his first item of knowledge, and what he said he established was that we can be aware of our own _anima_ in the face of any hyperbolic doubt, because we know *in* the very fact that we're experiencing something that our _anima_ is a necessary part of the picture no matter how contrived the situation is, regardless of our sense perceptions being unreliable because of hyperbolic thoughts like "I'm a brain in a vat".


I just feel he stopped midway with this inquiry. The action happens in the mind, and the "I-sensation" appears with it. What hasn't been fully looked at is what's perceiving both the thoughts and the "I" appear and disappear? He's making this claim while he's still identifying with something that's visible. Even the very subtle sensation of 'being' or 'existing' is also perceived, so that means there is distance from all of this to witness it. What is perceiving all of this is the question. Whatever comes up in the mind cannot be it because that is also seen. So... there is no answer, pretty much. And I'm back to - We are nothing.


----------



## Lukecash12

Vesuvius said:


> I just feel he stopped midway with this inquiry. The action happens in the mind, and the "I-sensation" appears with it. What hasn't been fully looked at is what's perceiving both the thoughts and the "I" appear and disappear? He's making this claim while he's still identifying with something that's visible. Even the very subtle sensation of 'being' or 'existing' is also perceived, so that means there is distance from all of this to witness it. What is perceiving all of this is the question. Whatever comes up in the mind cannot be it because that is also seen. So... there is no answer, pretty much. And I'm back to - We are nothing.


There is no "what" because Descartes feels it can't be defined any further. "I am perceiving all of this" is the sole item that can't be subjected to hyperbolic doubt. What must be understood when considering Descartes' doubts is that he makes a distinction between reasonable doubt and hyperbolic doubt, or rational certainty and absolute certainty. What's more, he wasn't entirely sure that his hyperbolic doubts applied, and members of his school of thought actually participated in the formation of our modern idea of empiricism, mulling over theories like the correspondence theory.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> If only he'd started with "something thinks" and then proceeded to show that it is "I." Notice that the fact that his "I" is a thing "that doubts, affirms, denies, wills, refuses, and senses and has mental images" is intended as a corollary of the cogito, implicit in the "I think," not a later, separate conclusion but an explication of what he meant by "I think."
> 
> Besides all that of which he was conscious, he evidently also assumes discrete individuality and a subject/object dichotomy (between the I and the thought) in his initial "I think."
> 
> Either Hume, Kant, advaita vedanta, and the entire Buddhist tradition are idiots, or this "I exist as a thing that thinks" claim is not as self-evident as Descartes or that boastful prof believed, but a claim about which reasonable people can disagree.


Evidently you know very little about the professor in question, who was anything but boastful.

You continue to rephrase and add to the proposition "I think, therefore I am", no matter how many times I ask for you to take it as is. Most people do not today agree with the conclusions Descartes draws from his Meditations, and his arguments for the existence of God are quite weak. But even disagreeing with Cartesian dualism, which I do not think is implicit in the formulation as described, one can still appreciate the idea that if one is to insist on the non-existence of one's self, this constitutes a contradiction. Buddhist thinkers are aware of the implications of their beliefs as conflicting with the nature of perception. Hume does not go quite so far; he doubts the veracity of our knowledge, the principles of causation, and the knowledge of identity.



science said:


> I obviously land on the skeptical side. "Something thinks" is where he should've started, and probably where he should've gotten stuck with that kind of radical skepticism. How does he know that his perception of _himself_ thinking is more accurate than all the other perceptions that he dares to doubt?


My question is, if you truly believe in skepticism of any and all of our faculties, including those most basic, why defend science as a superior way to ascertain the nature of the world? Why have you defended science in the past against things you believe to be dogma?

Some forms of Buddhism claim that everything about this world is false and illusory. This is consistent with the doubting of everything the senses present to us.

I understand that your skepticism does not prevent you from trusting the validity of the scientific method over and above other methods of relating to the world, but why? Are these methods not mediated through your own sense perceptions?


----------



## Blake

Lukecash12 said:


> There is no "what" because Descartes feels it can't be defined any further. *"I am perceiving all of this" *is the sole item that can't be subjected to hyperbolic doubt. What must be understood when considering Descartes' doubts is that he makes a distinction between reasonable doubt and hyperbolic doubt, or rational certainty and absolute certainty. What's more, he wasn't entirely sure that his hyperbolic doubts applied, and members of his school of thought actually participated in the formation of our modern idea of empiricism, mulling over theories like the correspondence theory.


Even the "I am" is perceived is what I'm saying.


----------



## Lukecash12

Vesuvius said:


> Even the "I am" is perceived is what I'm saying.


No, because "I" is _anima_, which is doing the perceiving. It is not the perceived but the act of perception itself. Because I perceive, I know for certain that if I take myself out of the picture there is a logical contradiction, so I must exist.


----------



## Blake

Lukecash12 said:


> No, because "I" is _anima_, which is doing the perceiving. It is not the perceived but the act of perception itself. Because I perceive, I know for certain that if I take myself out of the picture there is a logical contradiction, so I must exist.


So I is simply the perceiving, and not an object perceiving? The perceiving is happening, but there is nothing "doing it." Is that what you're saying? I might be down with that.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Evidently you know very little about the professor in question, who was anything but boastful.
> 
> You continue to rephrase and add to the proposition "I think, therefore I am", no matter how many times I ask for you to take it as is. Most people do not today agree with the conclusions Descartes draws from his Meditations, and his arguments for the existence of God are quite weak. But even disagreeing with Cartesian dualism, which I do not think is implicit in the formulation as described, one can still appreciate the idea that if one is to insist on the non-existence of one's self, this constitutes a contradiction. Buddhist thinkers are aware of the implications of their beliefs as conflicting with the nature of perception. Hume does not go quite so far; he doubts the veracity of our knowledge, the principles of causation, and the knowledge of identity.
> 
> My question is, if you truly believe in skepticism of any and all of our faculties, including those most basic, why defend science as a superior way to ascertain the nature of the world? Why have you defended science in the past against things you believe to be dogma?
> 
> Some forms of Buddhism claim that everything about this world is false and illusory. This is consistent with the doubting of everything the senses present to us.
> 
> I understand that your skepticism does not prevent you from trusting the validity of the scientific method over and above other methods of relating to the world, but why? Are these methods not mediated through your own sense perceptions?


I really think I am taking Descartes on his own terms, and that you are not. You are making him say something rather more defensible - "something exists" - rather than "I exist as an individual discrete entity." He clearly meant the latter. He tried to doubt everything, but it didn't occur to him to doubt the individuality or unity of his self, nor its distinction from the world, nor even that the self that thinks is the same as the self that wills. He tried to begin without assumptions, but he didn't manage to do so. He has a self in mind, he thought he'd proven its existence, but....

I don't think science can overcome the kind of radical skepticism that Descartes played with. I'd say the implicit epistemology of science is a form of pragmatism, which does not offer the kind of knowledge that Descartes and most other philosophers want, but alas is the best we humans can have... fortunately, though, it's evidently more than good enough for most practical purposes!

As for science relative to "other methods of relating to the world" - let's limit "relating" to understanding for now. Science (by which I mean intersubjective empiricism) is the second best way we have, after only mathematics. If I remember correctly, the thread took this turn back when I tried to distinguish between two sorts of "logic," one of the strict, formal mathematical sort, and the other the philosophical sort. Math gets us somewhere, but philosophy is at best useful in showing how difficult it is go get anywhere. People have been arguing with each other endlessly for over two thousand years at this point and they haven't been able to prove that my nose exists. At best philosophy shows us how hard it is to prove that my nose exists.


----------



## Lukecash12

Vesuvius said:


> So I is simply the perceiving, and not an object perceiving? The perceiving is happening, but there is nothing "doing it." Is that what you're saying? I might be down with that.


That much we can't determine. Perception simply *is*, whether or not it has an identity. Identity would imply that there is a figure for comparison, another object we can establish beyond Cartesian doubt. "I" encompasses all of reality for all that Descartes really knows beyond doubt.


----------



## Blake

Lukecash12 said:


> That much we can't determine. Perception simply *is*, whether or not it has an identity. Identity would imply that there is a figure for comparison, another object we can establish beyond Cartesian doubt. "I" encompasses all of reality for all that Descartes really knows beyond doubt.


See, if we would have simply started with "I am aware, therefore I exist," - the perceiving being the "I" - instead of putting so much weight on just the 'thinking', this whole run-around might've been thwarted. I digress, for now.


----------



## KenOC

Lukecash12 said:


> That much we can't determine. Perception simply *is*, whether or not it has an identity.


I wonder if others are as puzzled as I am about what it is looking out through our eyes... Anima? Just a word, not an explanation.


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> I really think I am taking Descartes on his own terms, and that you are not. You are making him say something rather more defensible - "something exists" - rather than "I exist as an individual discrete entity." He clearly meant the latter. He tried to doubt everything, but it didn't occur to him to doubt the individuality or unity of his self, nor its distinction from the world, nor even that the self that thinks is the same as the self that wills. He tried to begin without assumptions, but he didn't manage to do so. He has a self in mind, he thought he'd proven its existence, but....


Descartes' inability to remove all of his assumptions is of course a telling point, and it shows how even the most rigorous of thinkers can be led into believing that something has a solid foundation of incontrovertible evidence when it does not.

But as I said above, Descartes doesn't get into the nature of the subject until after it is established that a subject exists, and that this existence can be known by that subject because one cannot both think that one does not exist and have it be a true statement.



science said:


> I don't think science can overcome the kind of radical skepticism that Descartes played with. I'd say the implicit epistemology of science is a form of pragmatism, which does not offer the kind of knowledge that Descartes and most other philosophers want, but alas is the best we humans can have... fortunately, though, it's evidently more than good enough for most practical purposes!
> 
> As for science relative to "other methods of relating to the world" - let's limit "relating" to understanding for now. Science (by which I mean intersubjective empiricism) is the second best way we have, after only mathematics. If I remember correctly, the thread took this turn back when I tried to distinguish between two sorts of "logic," one of the strict, formal mathematical sort, and the other the philosophical sort. Math gets us somewhere, but philosophy is at best useful in showing how difficult it is go get anywhere. People have been arguing with each other endlessly for over two thousand years at this point and they haven't been able to prove that my nose exists. At best philosophy shows us how hard it is to prove that my nose exists.


Now you're introducing other concepts which have not been proven. You say that science is "good", the "second best" way of understanding the world after mathematics.

But if we are to doubt all of the commonplace assumptions we have regarding our relationship to the world (separate individuals, cause and effect), I do not think you have any basis on which to judge science better in any way than shamanism, for example. You say it is pragmatic, but this knowledge of what science has achieved depends on your sense perceptions of the outside world.


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> I wonder if others are as puzzled as I am about what it is looking out through our eyes... Anima? Just a word, not an explanation.


Oh, I'm sure we all are. It is an amazing contemplation, though. Not much else holds my interest as much as that question.


----------



## aleazk

The problem with the cogito claim lies in the use of the word/concept "thinking". Descartes is using the traditional notion of thinking, and in this sense his claim is not a syllogism, but a tautology or mere clarification. He clarifies that in the traditional concept of "thinking", an "I" is presupposed to exist, since this "I" is the one perceiving the thoughts. Descartes is accepting the traditional notion of "thinking" as valid, and thus _accepting_ that this "I" _exists and perceives_ the thoughts; therefore, he clarifies, it's evident that this "I" exists.

It works in this way. First, accept the traditional notion of thinking. This notion implies the notion of perception of the thoughts. But perception is something that happens to an "I" by its own definition. Therefore, the mere notion of perception implies the existence of this "I".

Possible objections: thinking does not implies perception. Fine, but that's not the traditional notion. Other: perception is an illusion. Fine, but then there's no perception at all then, so this is identical to the first objection.

So, you either accept the traditional notion of "thinking" (and in that case Descartes' claim is true; and, in fact, an evident truth, a tautology, but persuasive from the psychological point of view), or you reject it. In this second case, the claim may or may not be true, that will depend on your definition of "thinking".


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> Descartes' inability to remove all of his assumptions is of course a telling point, and it shows how even the most rigorous of thinkers can be led into believing that something has a solid foundation of incontrovertible evidence when it does not.
> 
> But as I said above, Descartes doesn't get into the nature of the subject until after it is established that a subject exists, and that this existence can be known by that subject because one cannot both think that one does not exist and have it be a true statement.
> 
> Now you're introducing other concepts which have not been proven. You say that science is "good", the "second best" way of understanding the world after mathematics.
> 
> But if we are to doubt all of the commonplace assumptions we have regarding our relationship to the world (separate individuals, cause and effect), I do not think you have any basis on which to judge science better in any way than shamanism, for example. You say it is pragmatic, but this knowledge of what science has achieved depends on your sense perceptions of the outside world.


Right. I'm absolutely NOT trying to prove that science overcomes Descartes' sort of radical skepticism. As far as I know, nothing except pure mathematics does, and definitely nothing empirical. If there's a deceiving demon, he's got us.

I don't know how science and the cogito get connected in your mind. Maybe you hope, as Descartes did, to work from the certain truth of something like the cogito up to other certain truths about the world, perhaps including some stuff about science. I don't think it can be done. Perhaps that is disappointing, and we can go on arguing about it for 2500 more years, but we're not going to get any closer to the kind of certainty about the world that philosophers like Descartes hoped to have. Pragmatic approximations - models that more or less work - are the closest we're going to get.


----------



## Lukecash12

aleazk said:


> The problem with the cogito claim lies in the use of the word/concept "thinking". Descartes is using the traditional notion of thinking, and in this sense his claim is not a syllogism, but a tautology or mere clarification. He clarifies that in the traditional concept of "thinking", an "I" is presupposed to exist, since this "I" is the one perceiving the thoughts. Descartes is accepting the traditional notion of "thinking" as valid, and thus _accepting_ that this "I" _exists and perceives_ the thoughts; therefore, he clarifies, it's evident that this "I" exists.
> 
> So, you either accept the traditional notion of "thinking" (and in that case Descartes' claim is true; and, in fact, an evident truth, a tautology, but persuasive from the psychological point of view), or you reject it. In this second case, the claim may or may not be true, that will depend on your definition of "thinking". If you say the mere perception is an illusion (i.e., not the content of the perception, but the mere act of perceiving, then the claim is not true, since the only way in which this is possible is if this "I" doesn't exist).


Descartes wasn't referring to the traditional notion of thinking. He was actually laying out what he felt was the only axiomatic ontological item that we might be able to justify other claims with, about what our sense perceptions report to us. Regardless, if we're looking at philosophy it is actually hard to pinpoint a traditional position on thinking, because there are a number of different theories of mind/soul (in several schools of philosophy the two, mind and soul, are the same).

A good example of the variety of approaches here is Leibniz's approach: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/



> In a more popular view, Leibniz's place in the history of the philosophy of mind is best secured by his pre-established harmony, that is, roughly, by the thesis that there is no mind-body interaction strictly speaking, but only a non-causal relationship of harmony, parallelism, or correspondence between mind and body. Certainly, the pre-established harmony is important for a proper understanding of Leibniz's philosophy of mind, but there is much more to be considered as well, and even in connection with the pre-established harmony, the more popular view needs to be refined, particularly insofar as it suggests that Leibniz accepts a roughly Cartesian, albeit non-interactionist dualism, which he does not. In fact, Leibniz is justly famous for his critiques, not only of materialism, but also of such a dualism. (Whether Leibniz accepts, throughout his maturity, the idealistic view that all substances are simple unextended substances or monads is an important interpretive issue that has been discussed widely in recent years. We shall not try to resolve the issue here. (See Garber 2009 for comprehensive treatment.) In short, Leibniz made important contributions to a number of classical topics of the philosophy of mind, including materialism, dualism, idealism and mind-body interaction.


To put it more simply, Leibniz was neither a materialist or a dualist. He actually thought that the two (mind and body) were parallel.


----------



## aleazk

Lukecash12 said:


> Descartes wasn't referring to the traditional notion of thinking. He was actually laying out what he felt was the only axiomatic ontological item that we might be able to justify other claims with, about what our sense perceptions report to us. Regardless, if we're looking at philosophy it is actually hard to pinpoint a traditional position on thinking, because there are a number of different theories of mind/soul (in several schools of philosophy the two, mind and soul, are the same).
> 
> A good example of the variety of approaches here is Leibniz's approach: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
> 
> To put it more simply, Leibniz was neither a materialist or a dualist. He actually thought that the two (mind and body) were parallel.


By "traditional notion" I mean " 'thinking' implies the perception of the thoughts".


----------



## Mahlerian

science said:


> I don't know how science and the cogito get connected in your mind. Maybe you hope, as Descartes did, to work from the certain truth of something like the cogito up to other certain truths about the world, perhaps including some stuff about science. I don't think it can be done. Perhaps that is disappointing, and we can go on arguing about it for 2500 more years, but we're not going to get any closer to the kind of certainty about the world that philosophers like Descartes hoped to have. Pragmatic approximations - models that more or less work - are the closest we're going to get.


I don't believe that it can much be built upon it either, and I recognize the epistemic problems that arise because we are not able to base our suppositions about the world on absolutely firm ground, but I don't take radical skepticism seriously except as an intellectual exercise. That is, I think that there is such a thing as reasonable epistemic certainty upon which we can base working assumptions about the nature of the world and ourselves, even if there is no such thing as absolute epistemic certainty outside of mathematics, logic (in its pure form), and the cogito.

To doubt even these things, and the idea that nothing whatsoever can be known, strikes me as absurd and contradictory. How can one argue, for example, about the validity of logic? If logic is invalid, then no argument regarding it has validity either.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Right. I'm absolutely NOT trying to prove that science overcomes Descartes' sort of radical skepticism. As far as I know, nothing except pure mathematics does, and definitely nothing empirical. If there's a deceiving demon, he's got us.
> 
> I don't know how science and the cogito get connected in your mind. Maybe you hope, as Descartes did, to work from the certain truth of something like the cogito up to other certain truths about the world, perhaps including some stuff about science. I don't think it can be done. Perhaps that is disappointing, and we can go on arguing about it for 2500 more years, but we're not going to get any closer to the kind of certainty about the world that philosophers like Descartes hoped to have. Pragmatic approximations - models that more or less work - are the closest we're going to get.


You seem to resemble a postmodernist here, and imo the fatal flaw of postmodern thinking is that they often dismiss an axiom, or even axioms in general, with an axiomatic statement. They do that with statements like "we're not going to get any closer", or "all religions are right". What they do when they say things like that is they state a clear logical contradiction without even recognizing it. The first can logically be reduced down to "I know that we will never know", which is an obvious contradiction. The second in all of it's various postmodern forms can be reduced down to "many different points of view can be correct". This takes for granted the fact that different ideas are by their very nature mutually exclusive. If everyone's opinion was right then it would be impossible to define anything because of the sheer number of absurdities that would entail, like round squares.


----------



## aleazk

Radical skepticism is boring, since it calls you to stay immobile. You can only sit there with your doubts. I prefer to accept logic and science and see where that leads me. So far, the ride has been very fun and revealing.


----------



## Lukecash12

aleazk said:


> Radical skepticism is boring, since it calls you to stay immobile. You can only sit there with your doubts. I prefer to accept logic and science and see where that leads me. So far, the ride has been very fun and revealing.


But is it a genuine "ride"? Is philosophy, and by extension learning in general (as every academic discipline predicates itself upon philosophical positions), just there for entertainment? Is it all just meaningless? Saying it's meaningful just because you want it to be meaningful sounds like madness to me.


----------



## aleazk

Lukecash12 said:


> But is it a genuine "ride"? Is philosophy, and by extension learning in general (as every academic discipline predicates itself upon philosophical positions), just there for entertainment? Is it all just meaningless? Saying it's meaningful just because you want it to be meaningful sounds like madness to me.


I said fun _and revealing_. Ultimately, that's why I accept it, and in fact that's what makes it fun. Radical skepticism is useless, and not fun because of that.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> You seem to resemble a postmodernist here, and imo the fatal flaw of postmodern thinking is that they often dismiss an axiom, or even axioms in general, with an axiomatic statement. They do that with statements like "we're not going to get any closer", or "all religions are right". What they do when they say things like that is they state a clear logical contradiction without even recognizing it. The first can logically be reduced down to "I know that we will never know", which is an obvious contradiction. The second in all of it's various postmodern forms can be reduced down to "many different points of view can be correct". This takes for granted the fact that different ideas are by their very nature mutually exclusive. If everyone's opinion was right then it would be impossible to define anything because of the sheer number of absurdities that would entail, like round squares.


Maybe I resemble postmodern something but I hope that nothing I've actually written denies the principle of noncontradiction or falls to a paradox of self-reference.


----------



## Lukecash12

science said:


> Maybe I resemble postmodern something but I hope that nothing I've actually written denies the principle of noncontradiction or falls to a paradox of self-reference.


Here it is:



> Perhaps that is disappointing, and we can go on arguing about it for 2500 more years, but we're not going to get any closer to the kind of certainty about the world that philosophers like Descartes hoped to have. Pragmatic approximations - models that more or less work - are the closest we're going to get.


How do you "know" that "we can't know"? I understand your position but all that you really can do from there without contradicting yourself is to plead Socratic ignorance.


----------



## science

Mahlerian said:


> I don't believe that it can much be built upon it either, and I recognize the epistemic problems that arise because we are not able to base our suppositions about the world on absolutely firm ground, but I don't take radical skepticism seriously except as an intellectual exercise. That is, I think that there is such a thing as reasonable epistemic certainty upon which we can base working assumptions about the nature of the world and ourselves, even if there is no such thing as absolute epistemic certainty outside of mathematics, logic (in its pure form), and the cogito.
> 
> To doubt even these things, and the idea that nothing whatsoever can be known, strikes me as absurd and contradictory. How can one argue, for example, about the validity of logic? If logic is invalid, then no argument regarding it has validity either.


Ok, so we've both basically agreed not to carry out Descartes' rational doubt. You've got some "reasonable epistemic certainty" and I've got pragmatism.

I really don't know why you and Lukecash talk as if I've denied logic. This turn in the conversation began when I tried to distinguish between actual mathematical logic and "logic" as an analogy for rationality in general. My epistemology is fairly cliché: there are the truths of pure mathematics or logic which can be known with certainty; there are empirical data that are good enough for science and practical use even though they don't survive the kind of radical skepticism that philosophers love (these often incorporate but cannot be reduced to mathematical truths); and then there are aesthetic and moral judgements, which which incorporate but cannot be reduced to either mathematical or empirical claims. Nothing postmodern or radical or opposed to logic there at all. I doubt I've expressed _anything_ that justifies accusing me of doubting logic itself; so I suspect that accusation is unfair rhetorical gamesmanship rather than sincere discussion.


----------



## science

Lukecash12 said:


> Here it is:
> 
> How do you "know" that "we can't know"? I understand your position but all that you really can do from there without contradicting yourself is to plead Socratic ignorance.


Socratic ignorance vis-a-vis radical skepticism was precisely my intention.

I definitely did not intend to categorically deny the possibility of such knowledge; it's merely (and I think this was obvious) a pragmatic summation of the state of affairs so far, and the likely state of affairs into the future. Of course I might be wrong, maybe some article in a philosophy journal published yesterday is about to establish the proof that overcomes even the most radical skepticism....

I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## science

aleazk said:


> I said fun _and revealing_. Ultimately, that's why I accept it, and in fact that's what makes it fun. Radical skepticism is useless, and not fun because of that.


I'm sympathetic to Descartes. He was an active part of the generation that discovered that earth moves through space. How disorienting that must have been! We should not forget that the revolution in astronomy, as well as disillusionment with religion, was the context for all the 17th century philosophy of knowledge. A century ago it was a sore spot again as relativity and quantum mechanics and the savagery of the Great War disillusioned many thoughtful people about the "certainties" and ideologies of the 19th century. When you realize that your world flies through space at inconceivable speeds, that time and space are relative, that fundamental particles behave in ways violate our most basic intuitions about the physical world, when your most respected spiritual and moral leaders turn out to be villains, you find yourself asking, "Is there anything I can know? How can I avoid being this wrong in the future?"

But I think the Cartesian tradition has gone about it wrong, and the pragmatists have figured it out. The ideal of proving all our beliefs with mathematical certainty has turned out to be inaccessible. Nothing but math - and sometimes not even math - is susceptible to that kind of proof. Instead of asking what we can prove with indubitable certainty, spinning our mental wheels for centuries without getting anywhere, we ask what models work in practice, and then we start to get amazing places.


----------



## aleazk

science said:


> I'm sympathetic to Descartes. He was an active part of the generation that discovered that earth moves through space. How disorienting that must have been! We should not forget that the revolution in astronomy, as well as disillusionment with religion, was the context for all the 17th century philosophy of knowledge. A century ago it was a sore spot again as relativity and quantum mechanics and the savagery of the Great War disillusioned many thoughtful people about the "certainties" and ideologies of the 19th century. When you realize that your world flies through space at inconceivable speeds, that time and space are relative, that fundamental particles behave in ways violate our most basic intuitions about the physical world, when your most respected spiritual and moral leaders turn out to be villains, you find yourself asking, "Is there anything I can know? How can I avoid being this wrong in the future?"
> 
> But I think the Cartesian tradition has gone about it wrong, and the pragmatists have figured it out. The ideal of proving all our beliefs with mathematical certainty has turned out to be inaccessible. Nothing but math - and sometimes not even math - is susceptible to that kind of proof. Instead of asking what we can prove with indubitable certainty, spinning our mental wheels for centuries without getting anywhere, we ask what models work in practice, and then we start to get amazing places.


Yes, of course a good dose of skepticism is essential, as the examples in your first paragraph show.

"_Instead of asking what we can prove with indubitable certainty, spinning our mental wheels for centuries without getting anywhere, we ask what models work in practice, and then we start to get amazing places._"

Yes, that's what I believe too, as we agreed before. But even that needs the ontological assumptions about accepting logic, accepting our sensory experiences (to some degree, of course, not literally), etc. I'm not sure a radical skeptic would agree with all that.

Also, radical skeptics fail to see the pro arguments. For example, take the fact that the universe seems to be logical. They say, "oh, yes, but it could be an illusion of our brain". Ok, it's something interesting. But what about the argument I mentioned in the other thread: the universe seems logical to us simply because it _is_ logical, the brain is simply reflecting what he sees, and this makes sense because of evolutionary reasons since a brain that "creates" its own realities is a brain that will be eaten by a predrator when he's busy in his imaginary reality.

But also as a scientist, I do believe in the existence of an objective reality and therefore I do believe that there are some truths out there. I think the method in your quote simply brings us closer to these truths.


----------



## science

aleazk said:


> Yes, of course a good dose of skepticism is essential, as the examples in your first paragraph show.
> 
> "_Instead of asking what we can prove with indubitable certainty, spinning our mental wheels for centuries without getting anywhere, we ask what models work in practice, and then we start to get amazing places._"
> 
> Yes, that's what I believe too, as we agreed before. But even that needs the ontological assumptions about accepting logic, accepting our sensory experiences (to some degree, of course, not literally), etc. I'm not sure a radical skeptic would agree with all that.
> 
> Also, radical skeptics fail to see the pro arguments. For example, take the fact that the universe seems to be logical. They say, "oh, yes, but it could be an illusion of our brain". Ok, it's something interesting. But what about the argument I mentioned in the other thread: the universe seems logical to us simply because it _is_ logical, the brain is simply reflecting what he sees, and this makes sense because of evolutionary reasons since a brain that "creates" its own realities is a brain that will be eaten by a predrator when he's busy in his imaginary reality.
> 
> But also as a scientist, I do believe in the existence of an objective reality and therefore I do believe that there are some truths out there. I think the method in your quote simply brings us closer to these truths.


Radical skepticism is probably just a bit too much of a very good thing. It's really easy for us to jump from idea to idea just a little too carelessly!

The mathematical-ness of the universe astounds me, but just as astounding to me is that a brain that evolved to hammer weapons out of rocks and dance itself into prosocial religious trances also manages to integrate trig functions.

I wouldn't want to overstate how intuitive the universe has turned out to be... the sheer scale of it, from photons to galaxy filaments... the time scale is no easier... the fact that the gold in my wedding ring was forged in a primordial supernova... that our distant ancestors once shivered through the darkness as the dinosaurs died... that my body began as a single cell, growing organs and limbs and fingers according to the instructions coded in DNA molecules... and now perhaps we begin to figure out how matter generates an experience of consciousness. The wonder of science is the shock of the complexity but also the counter-intuitiveness of our world.

I love it, and I am so grateful to live in the era that has discovered these things, not only because I get a flush toilet and commercial transoceanic flight and a smallpox vaccination, nor even because (for now at least) I don't have to bother sacrificing half of the product of my labor and my best looking daughter to some guy whose thugs will torture me to death if I question the priests who establish his right to rule.... but just for the joy of contemplating the pictures taken by Cassini.

I sure wish that the intellectual heroes of the past - including Descartes, who helped us figure out a lot of the math - could see what wonders their work has spawned. Imagine if poor Newton could have been taken away from his apocalyptic nonsense and shown the Andromeda Galaxy.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> Radical skepticism is boring, since it calls you to stay immobile. You can only sit there with your doubts. I prefer to accept logic and science and see where that leads me. So far, the ride has been very fun and revealing.


The point is to get beyond doubts, boringness, and fun... because those are also transient objects that are seen.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> The point is to get beyond doubts, boringness, and fun... because those are also transient objects that are seen.


Is that the point? I doubt that's the point!

I care about a lot of transient things... like people!... and I hope I have the courage to go on caring about them even if God Her Own Almighty Self comes down from heaven and tells me the point is not to care about transient things.


----------



## aleazk

Vesuvius said:


> The point is to get beyond doubts, boringness, and fun... because those are also transient objects that are seen.


Meh ...


----------



## Blake

Suit yourselves. I care about things too, by the way. But having a caring disposition and caring because of attachment are two very different things. 
:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

I haven't understood a bar of music in my life, but I have gone in anyway.


----------



## ziesha

The topic of beauty, or soundness of form, raises a long list of possible aesthetic controversies. Blessed John Paul II laid out three criteria in his Chirograph on Sacred Music (2003) that give helpful orientation in establishing standards for beauty in liturgical music. There are three aspects of Gregorian Chant that make it beautiful. Namely, it is true art that adheres to the text of the liturgy and it does so in a way that is comprehensible.


----------



## millionrainbows

Truly universal "sacred" music is absolute, in that the textual content, regardless of its requirement by authority to be essential, will not overshadow the "sacred effect" of the music experience. If text adds to the experience for doctrinaire believers, that's fine, but extra-musical elements such as text cannot restrict a truly effective sacred work.


----------



## Blake

Have we understood what the "sacred effect" means? I'm sure many are relating it to simply an imaginative religious experience based on belief, but I don't think that's what you're trying to portray, mill.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Truly universal "sacred" music is absolute, in that the textual content, regardless of its requirement by authority to be essential, will not overshadow the "sacred effect" of the music experience. If text adds to the experience for doctrinaire believers, that's fine, but extra-musical elements such as text cannot restrict a truly effective sacred work.


If you can't establish why we have to accept that your imaginary concept is absolute, then aren't you just talking to yourself essentially? There is no room for meaningful dialogue here when you just repeat the same claim for thirty pages. What if, for example, I didn't believe in *anything* sacred?

Let's say I'm not religious, and not only that but that the only thing I believe is happening when I listen to the same music you find sacred, is simply a series of electric discharges between synapses in my brain. To be more specific, by that I mean what if I'm naturalistic and deterministic? Then that would mean I don't believe anything of the sort is happening when you or I enjoy a piece of "sacred" music, whatever music we decide to call "sacred". At this point your opinion would have no more weight than mine and the mere existence of mine, the mere possibility of me being right and the mere possibility of you being right would cancel out both answers.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> If you can't establish why we have to accept that your imaginary concept is absolute, then aren't you just talking to yourself essentially? There is no room for meaningful dialogue here when you just repeat the same claim for thirty pages. What if, for example, I didn't believe in *anything* sacred?


See my question in #9 on page 1!

http://www.talkclassical.com/31454-what-universal-characteristics-sacred-post635669.html#post635669

Whilst I'm willing to accept that 'life is sacred', I know that if I use such a term, people may reasonably assume I'm claiming that it is a higher being that ordains it so. In fact, I'm not, as I am atheist on such matters. I would therefore need to explain why I was using a term usually reserved for things religious. I would reply that what I meant by 'sacred' in this case is 'untouchable'.

What millionrainbows seems to mean is something like 'transcendent' - music that induces a state of perception that takes us beyond the normal physical world based on our 5 senses.

Try http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/transcendent

Why he didn't just say so 30 pages ago is itself a mystery beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience!


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Have we understood what the "sacred effect" means? I'm sure many are relating it to simply an imaginative religious experience based on belief, but I don't think that's what you're trying to portray, mill.


Gee, what do you want, mathematical proof? Bear in mind that we are talking about experiential effects of music, so your experience is as valid as mine. But experience can only be described and empathized with, not proven.

What's your experience? Did it ever occur to you to tell us about your experience, or would you rather subject me to further inquisition?


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> If you can't establish why we have to accept that your imaginary concept is absolute, then aren't you just talking to yourself essentially? There is no room for meaningful dialogue here when you just repeat the same claim for thirty pages. What if, for example, I didn't believe in *anything* sacred?


Then I suppose the reason you are on this thread is because you feel empty, as if life is meaningless. Nothing is sacred...



Lukecash12 said:


> Let's say I'm not religious, and not only that but that the only thing I believe is happening when I listen to the same music you find sacred, is simply a series of electric discharges between synapses in my brain. To be more specific, by that I mean what if I'm naturalistic and deterministic? Then that would mean I don't believe anything of the sort is happening when you or I enjoy a piece of "sacred" music, whatever music we decide to call "sacred". At this point your opinion would have no more weight than mine and the mere existence of mine, the mere possibility of me being right and the mere possibility of you being right would cancel out both answers.


True; experience cannot be "validated" or proven. Yours is as good as mine, and for all we know, it might very well be simply a set of electrical discharges. But I am a spiritually-oriented human being, who prefers to find meaning in my experience.

However, I doubt the assertion that people do not seek or desire some sort of transcendent or spiritual experience. Isn't that why people do drugs? Admittedly, that's a wrong path, but I think the desire to find meaning in one's experience is one of the most primary and basic drives we have as humans.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Why he didn't just say so 30 pages ago is itself a mystery beyond or above the range of normal or physical human experience!


I could just "feed the chickens," but I just can't resist chasing them once around the barnyard.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Gee, what do you want, mathematical proof? Bear in mind that we are talking about experiential effects of music, so your experience is as valid as mine. But experience can only be described and empathized with, not proven.
> 
> What's your experience? Did it ever occur to you to tell us about your experience, or would you rather subject me to further inquisition?


I experience what everyone else does... thoughts, sensations, and perceptions. I agree with what you say about the _being_ as the ground of experience. So it's not the experience that's important... as it all comes and goes. I feel the realization of the unchanging _being_ to be the most significant, because without it, you would not be able to witness change. If every part of you changed and evolved, you wouldn't be able to know it. As then the perceiver would be just as unreliable and transient as experiences. That's why I don't understand why you focus on the experience when that is the most relative part.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> I experience what everyone else does... thoughts, sensations, and perceptions. I agree with what you say about the _being_ as the ground of experience. So it's not the experience that's important... as it all comes and goes. I feel the realization of the unchanging _being_ to be the most significant, because without it, you would not be able to witness change. If every part of you changed and evolved, you wouldn't be able to know it. As then the perceiver would be just as unreliable and transient as experiences. That's why I don't understand why you focus on the experience when that is the most relative part.


Because experience, although it is right in front of our noses, is metaphysical, and can't be proven. I can't experience your experience; in that sense, we are invisible to each other. Don't you think that is profound? I do.

Experience is interpreted by us in different ways, as well. Your idea of me might be totally different than who I really am, as I experience things.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> Then I suppose the reason you are on this thread is because you feel empty, as if life is meaningless. Nothing is sacred...


Sacredness isn't a prerequisite for life being meaningful. People can have the most existentially dull mindset possible, they can be more skeptical even than those looking for Cartesian proofs, and the same people can find meaning in their lives. They simply supply it themselves, when they can't find anything they supply it. Just like we personally supply all of the meaning we're going to find in music.



> True; experience cannot be "validated" or proven. Yours is as good as mine, and for all we know, it might very well be simply a set of electrical discharges. But I am a spiritually-oriented human being, who prefers to find meaning in my experience.
> 
> However, I doubt the assertion that people do not seek or desire some sort of transcendent or spiritual experience. Isn't that why people do drugs? Admittedly, that's a wrong path, but I think the desire to find meaning in one's experience is one of the most primary and basic drives we have as humans.


People seek meaningful experiences. This doesn't have to involve spiritualism or transcending anything. I can know exactly what this "special" cookie is going to do for me and I'll still eat it, knowing what it does on a scientific level doesn't diminish the experience. Our experiences can exist separately from our rationalizations for them, some folks may spoil it for themselves but for others the rationale has little to do with the novelty.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Because experience, although it is right in front of our noses, is metaphysical, and can't be proven. I can't experience your experience; in that sense, we are invisible to each other. Don't you think that is profound? I do.
> 
> Experience is interpreted by us in different ways, as well. Your idea of me might be totally different than who I really am, as I experience things.


Yes, it's a riot. But this proves, right here, that personal experiences are not the universal characteristic you've started this thread to seek. It is too varied, too relative, and too temporary.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Yes, it's a riot. But this proves, right here, that personal experiences are not the universal characteristic you've started this thread to seek. It is too varied, too relative, and too temporary.


Oh, you're exaggerating my position. There are universal aspects of being human that we all share, and that's what I am defining as "sacred" in this instance.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Sacredness isn't a prerequisite for life being meaningful.


I didn't say that to be meaningful, it had to have a sacred quality. But to be sacred, it must be imbued with meaning. That can be in varying degrees, as well. Morton Feldman's music is sometimes "absurd" and existential, but that is very much in the realm of a contemplative, quiescent space of being, even if we are contemplating a "lack of meaning" or absurdity.



Lukecash12 said:


> People can have the most existentially dull mindset possible, they can be more skeptical even than those looking for Cartesian proofs, and the same people can find meaning in their lives. They simply supply it themselves, when they can't find anything they supply it. Just like we personally supply all of the meaning we're going to find in music.


I can agree with that. I didn't say that "meaning" was supplied from without.



Lukecash12 said:


> People seek meaningful experiences. This doesn't have to involve spiritualism or transcending anything.


 Okay, I'll go along with that. It's being, nothong more. You know how to meditate? You just sit there.



Lukecash12 said:


> I can know exactly what this "special" cookie is going to do for me and I'll still eat it, knowing what it does on a scientific level doesn't diminish the experience. Our experiences can exist separately from our rationalizations for them, some folks may spoil it for themselves but for others the rationale has little to do with the novelty.


Yes, don't get lost in rationalizations. Just sit there.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, you're exaggerating my position. There are universal aspects of being human that we all share, and that's what I am defining as "sacred" in this instance.


But what are they? I can't think of any. As there will always be a group of people somewhere who will disprove virtually any objective definition.... other than the basic physical and primitive attributes.


----------



## Blake

Mill, I'm with you when you speak of an absolution of being (1) before it manifest in different forms. But do you think that's what our entire species is consciously/sub-consciously seeking to reunite with? That really, all desires are simply a fragment of our ultimate desire to find our totality?


----------



## Blake

...............................


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> But what are they? I can't think of any. As there will always be a group of people somewhere who will disprove virtually any objective definition.... other than the basic physical and primitive attributes.


Anthropologically speaking, experiences like spirit possession (spiritual voyages to "other" worlds in trances, ecstatic visions, etc.) are essentially universal - not that every individual experiences them, but every culture has at least some individuals who do.

And these experiences ordinarily take place in musical settings. And the music is usually heavy on rhythm rather than relaxation.

This is a human universal, or at least very nearly so. Hierarchical states have to control religion pretty strictly, so it can get pretty mellow - like chanting the Jesus prayer for hours until you have a vision of "the uncreated energies" of the Trinity. But if the state lets go a bit, pretty soon some people will be clapping their hands, stomping their feet, swaying, and passing out "in the spirit." But outside of the traditions permitted by hierarchical states, sacred music is drumming and dancing.


----------



## Blake

I just don't find that to be universal. About 90% of the population will most likely never experience any of this. So, it would simply seem absurd to call that objective.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> But what are they? I can't think of any. As there will always be a group of people somewhere who will disprove virtually any objective definition.... other than the basic physical and primitive attributes.


That sounds like you are tying "sacred" to specific religious and/or cultural characteristics. My conception of sacred is truly universal, so all of those specifics are irrelevant.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> Mill, I'm with you when you speak of an absolution of being (1) before it manifest in different forms. But do you think that's what our entire species is consciously/sub-consciously seeking to reunite with? That really, all desires are simply a fragment of our ultimate desire to find our totality?


Yes, I can go with that.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> Anthropologically speaking, experiences like spirit possession (spiritual voyages to "other" worlds in trances, ecstatic visions, etc.) are essentially universal - not that every individual experiences them, but every culture has at least some individuals who do.
> 
> And these experiences ordinarily take place in musical settings. And the music is usually heavy on rhythm rather than relaxation.
> 
> This is a human universal, or at least very nearly so. Hierarchical states have to control religion pretty strictly, so it can get pretty mellow - like chanting the Jesus prayer for hours until you have a vision of "the uncreated energies" of the Trinity. But if the state lets go a bit, pretty soon some people will be clapping their hands, stomping their feet, swaying, and passing out "in the spirit." But outside of the traditions permitted by hierarchical states, sacred music is drumming and dancing.





Vesuvius said:


> I just don't find that to be universal. About 90% of the population will most likely never experience any of this. So, it would simply seem absurd to call that objective.


Admittedly, there are people who are simply "believers" and subscribe to a doctrine; but just as the Sufis are to Islam, and the Pentecostals are to Christianity, there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music is one of those activities.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music is one of those activities.


Music is not a 'religious' activity, though it can of course be put to religious use.


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Music is not a 'religious' activity, though it can of course be put to religious use.


I agree. But how about "religion is a musical activity?" Can I get that?


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Music is not a 'religious' activity, though it can of course be put to religious use.


Music can definitely be a religious activity, a tool used to attain sacred states of being.

If you are saying that religion is a certain doctrinal set of beliefs which determines the form of Man's innate spirituality, I disagree. Man's innate sense of the sacred came first.

Music has always been used as an activity to seek states of being.

You seem to be trying to preserve an idea of "religion;" what you should be doing is cultivating within yourself your own sense of the sacred.

Religion doesn't need our protection.

Do you think you can "protect" the sanctity of religion by putting your own being in second place to an institution? Is your desire to "belong" that strong, that you would sacrifice your own spirituality?

Religion is our tool, to be used to enhance our own being; not as an "overmind" authority which prescribes and defines our innate nature.



> millionrainbows said: Admittedly, there are people who are simply "believers" and subscribe to a doctrine; but just as the Sufis are to Islam, and the Pentecostals are to Christianity, there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music is one of those activities.


It should be clear from my statement that certain factions of certain religions are seeking "more" than just belief, faith, or doctrine; in a large majority of these cases, these states of being are accompanied by music or chanting or singing or dancing. Are you saying that these activities must be "put to use" only in the context of a religious doctrine which supercedes the individual's own sense of being, in favor of a doctrine or pages of scripture?

If so, I disagree, as I have always said that religion is an expression of Man's innate spirituality, and thus musical activities associated with spirituality are expressions of this innate sacridity, and religion developed out of this sense; and out of these activities.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Music is not a 'religious' activity, though it can of course be put to religious use.





science said:


> I agree. But how about "religion is a musical activity?" Can I get that?


Right on, brother! "Religion is a musical activity." I like that! Yes, you can get that at your local spiritual center of being.


----------



## millionrainbows

Samuel Barber's Adagio for Strings: definitely sacred in effect. It's like sunlight being revealed through a morning window; an emotional peaking occurs, there is s dissonance in spots, seeming to outline a thought process or emotional revealing of some spiritual insight; we are left feeling emotional and humbled, thankful for existence, even with all its pain.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> *Music can definitely be a religious activity*, a tool used to attain sacred states of being.
> 
> If you are saying that *religion is a certain doctrinal set of beliefs which determines the form of Man's innate spirituality, I disagree.*


I agree with the first statement, music _can _be. I disagree with your second too - but since _I _wasn't saying that, no need to fret.


----------



## millionrainbows

> millionrainbows said: "...there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music is one of those activities."
> 
> *"Music can definitely be a religious activity,* a tool used to attain sacred states of being."





MacLeod said:


> I agree with the first statement, music _can _be.


You are being unclear, and apparently contradictory. You did say:



MacLeod said:


> *Music is not a 'religious' activity,* though it can of course be put to religious use.


Which one is it? Is music a religious activity or not?


----------



## Blake

I think he means that music is inherently a neutral tool, but it can certainly accommodate religion.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> I think he means that music is inherently a neutral tool, but it can certainly accommodate religion.


Well, if he did, so did I, and there was no need for McLeod or you, his translator, to respond as if I were saying otherwise. After all, my statement is decidedly neutral; I made sure that I was not making a rigid statement:



> millionrainbows said: "...there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music is one of those activities."
> 
> "Music* can definitely be* a religious activity*,* a tool used to attain sacred states of being."


How much more neutral do I have to be?


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Well, if he did, so did I, and there was no need for McLeod or you, his translator, to respond as if I were saying otherwise. After all, my statement is decidedly neutral; I made sure that I was not making a rigid statement:
> 
> How much more neutral do I have to be?


I wasn't taking a stance on either side... I was trying to clarify what I thought he meant. It was simply an attempt to alleviate the communication breakdown between the two of you. But we don't really know until he clarifies it himself.


----------



## Guest

OK. Clarification. You said:



millionrainbows said:


> there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music *is *one of those activities.


(My bold) Here, you seem to define music as a religious activity. Here's my rebuttal



MacLeod said:


> Music is not a 'religious' activity, though it can of course be put to religious use.


So, you relent a little:



millionrainbows said:


> Music *can *definitely be a religious activity, a tool used to attain sacred states of being


(My bold again) I'm assuming you can see the different position you've adopted. You've moved from 'is' to 'can be' You are more neutral, but you're still keen.

It was the next part of your post that I wanted to return to.



millionrainbows said:


> If you are saying that religion is a certain doctrinal set of beliefs which determines the form of Man's innate spirituality, I disagree.


I wasn't saying anything about what religion _is_, only what music _isn't_. If you want me to say what I think religion is, I will, but it's not relevant. My only point is to ask that you stop appropriating music to be whatever you want it to be.


----------



## Blake

The clouds... they parted. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at music as a religious activity... but to put an objective that it _is_ simply that is a folly.

Then again, what is religion exactly if not systems of belief? And usually everybody puts their beliefs into music... so in a sense, you could say that music is universally a religion. As long as you have a broad definition of religion, and not just the institutions.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> so in a sense, you could say that music is universally a religion.


You could indeed. I won't, however.


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> You could indeed. I won't, however.


I'm not either... I'm just trying to be a bit more understanding, and not so rigid in my own perspectives. That's no good.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> The clouds... they parted. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at music as a religious activity... but to put an objective that it _is_ simply that is a folly.
> 
> Then again, what is religion exactly if not systems of belief? And usually everybody puts their beliefs into music... so in a sense, you could say that music is universally a religion. As long as you have a broad definition of religion, and not just the institutions.


Well... I wouldn't accept a definition of religion that didn't include action as well as belief, and specifically action directed toward spirits (supernatural people-ish beings).


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I'm not either... I'm just trying to be a bit more understanding, and not so rigid in my own perspectives. That's no good.


Yes, that's where you're going wrong!

You have to be more rigid in adhering to MY perspectives. Then you'll be on the only right path.

(Just in case the mods are watching: THIS IS ONLY A JOKE! A harmless one, as I think and hope we can all agree.)


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Well... I wouldn't accept a definition of religion that didn't include action as well as belief, and specifically action directed toward spirits (supernatural people-ish beings).


Beliefs always affect one's action. I wouldn't be opposed to saying that any belief system not founded in pragmatic experience is a religion.



science said:


> Yes, that's where you're going wrong!
> 
> You have to be more rigid in adhering to MY perspectives. Then you'll be on the only right path.
> 
> (Just in case the mods are watching: THIS IS ONLY A JOKE! A harmless one, as I think and hope we can all agree.)


I agree that this is a joke.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> I wasn't saying anything about what religion _is_, only what music _isn't_.





> millionrainbows said: "...there are people who seek states of being via religious activity. Music is *one* of *those activities.*"


You're interpreting my statement way too rigidly. I said "Music is one religious activity," among others. I was speaking of *religious activities,* and putting music in that larger context,


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> The clouds... they parted. I don't think there is anything wrong with looking at music as a religious activity... but to put an objective that it _is_ simply that is a folly.


This rigid misinterpretation has been put to rest; see my post.



Vesuvius said:


> Then again, what is religion exactly if not systems of belief?


I think religion should ultimately be used to enhance one's being. To me, a system of beliefs must have a purpose other than simply blind faith.

Or am I interpreting you too rigidly??:lol:


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You're interpreting my statement way too rigidly. I said "Music is one religious activity," among others. I was speaking of *religious activities,* and putting music in that larger context,


No, I'm not. You're way too flexible in your use of English.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> I think religion should ultimately be used to enhance one's being. To me, a system of beliefs must have a purpose other than simply blind faith.
> 
> Or am I interpreting you too rigidly??:lol:


Aren't beliefs always founded on a sense of lack, and what will sanguinely make such tolerable... hopefully leading to an enhancement or fulfillment of oneself? Regardless of being properly or ill conceived.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Beliefs always affect one's action. I wouldn't be opposed to saying that any belief system not founded in pragmatic experience is a religion.


Religion is based on people's experience.

This is a really tricky point. From any religious individual's POV, their religion is empirically true. They've been possessed, or seen someone who was; they've felt the power of God in their lives, or they've had visions or dreams....

So the kind of empiricism that science-ish things want (I mean to include things like history and economics that share the basic values of science) isn't just observation or experience, but a special sort that is independent of culture and excludes emotion as much as possible.

The problem with allowing "religion" to mean pretty much any non-empirical idea is that we have to call things like beliefs in human rights or in Reganomics or in the gambler's fallacy "religion." Unless we are very clear that such cases are (arguably) _analogous to_ religion rather than literally religion, the word "religion" loses its meaning.



Vesuvius said:


> Aren't beliefs always founded on a sense of lack, and what will sanguinely make such tolerable... hopefully leading to an enhancement or fulfillment of oneself? Regardless of being properly or ill conceived.


Your comment here shows that you actually have a special kind of belief in mind when you think of religious belief (rather than just any non-empirical belief, as you said in the earlier post).

Also, I'm not sure that most beliefs - even limiting our discussion to religious beliefs - are "hopefully leading to an enhancement or fulfillment of oneself," unless that phrase includes ordinary, practical things like success in business or health. Looking around the world anthropologically, we see that things like "becoming a better person" aren't a part of most religious beliefs.



millionrainbows said:


> I think religion should ultimately be used to enhance one's being. To me, a system of beliefs must have a purpose other than simply blind faith.
> 
> Or am I interpreting you too rigidly?


I don't know that you are interpreting anybody too rigidly, but you are adhering too rigidly to liberal Protestant ideology in your definition of religion. Ordinary religion around the world and throughout history is more about getting things from the spirits (i.e. "Please bless this business venture," or, "Please heal this disease") than about "enhancing one's being," which no one before WWII or so would have even understood (and even now we can only guess at the meaning of such words).


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Religion is based on people's experience.
> 
> This is a really tricky point. From any religious individual's POV, their religion is empirically true. They've been possessed, or seen someone who was; they've felt the power of God in their lives, or they've had visions or dreams....
> 
> So the kind of empiricism that science-ish things want (I mean to include things like history and economics that share the basic values of science) isn't just observation or experience, but a special sort that is independent of culture and excludes emotion as much as possible.
> 
> The problem with allowing "religion" to mean pretty much any non-empirical idea is that we have to call things like beliefs in human rights or in Reganomics or in the gambler's fallacy "religion." Unless we are very clear that such cases are (arguably) _analogous to_ religion rather than literally religion, the word "religion" loses its meaning.
> 
> Your comment here shows that you actually have a special kind of belief in mind when you think of religious belief (rather than just any non-empirical belief, as you said in the earlier post).
> 
> Also, I'm not sure that most beliefs - even limiting our discussion to religious beliefs - are "hopefully leading to an enhancement or fulfillment of oneself," unless that phrase includes ordinary, practical things like success in business or health. Looking around the world anthropologically, we see that things like "becoming a better person" aren't a part of most religious beliefs.


Oh, I knew I was going to have to work for that one... We've strictly, and wrongly, relegated belief as a 'religious' thing. Religion being solely owned by one of the big founders of life's answers to perpetual mystery. Now, whether you adhere to any type of belief context of the popular religious views or not, if you have ideas cemented by a certain insecurity of the 'unknown'... you are inherently in a belief system.

It doesn't have to be a Christian belief, a Buddhist belief, a Muslim belief, etc... as long as you hold ideas that aren't founded in pragmatic experience, you're no greater than the religions that many frown upon because of their inaccessible concepts. Until we can rightly admit that the source of life and its meanings is quite unknowable, you're in a belief system. No one has ever been able to forcefully and convincingly answer the 'WHY"? That's not to say that all of these institutions are wrong. Some inspire great compassion and wisdom, but until there is a palpable, universal diagnosis, it's all mind games. And mind games aren't a crime in themselves either, we're playing them right now.... But if you're still in a state of lack, holding onto unproven beliefs, then you're just as wrong or right as anyone else. We haven't reached a consensus.


----------



## Blake

And when we speak of "Religion," we always think of those believers not really adhering to reality, but actually... in reality, we all have our religion that we follow. We are all believing countless of things that aren't a concrete universality. We hold onto them because it currently works in our individual life, but any moment your life can change and your views will follow. Where is solid state here? What actually last?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Oh, I knew I was going to have to work for that one... We've strictly, and wrongly, relegated belief as a 'religious' thing. Religion being solely owned by one of the big founders of life's answers to perpetual mystery. Now, whether you adhere to any type of belief context of the popular religious views or not, if you have ideas cemented by a certain insecurity of the 'unknown'... you are inherently in a belief system.
> 
> It doesn't have to be a Christian belief, a Buddhist belief, a Muslim belief, etc... as long as you hold ideas that aren't founded in pragmatic experience, you're no greater than the religions that many frown upon because of their inaccessible concepts. Until we can rightly admit that the source of life and its meanings is quite unknowable, you're in a belief system. No one has ever been able to forcefully and convincingly answer the 'WHY"? That's not to say that all of these institutions are wrong. Some inspire great compassion and wisdom, but until there is a palpable, universal diagnosis, it's all mind games. And mind games aren't a crime in themselves either, we're playing them right now.... But if you're still in a state of lack, holding onto unproven beliefs, then you're just as wrong or right as anyone else. We haven't reached a consensus.





Vesuvius said:


> And when we speak of "Religion," we always think of those believers not really adhering to reality, but actually... in reality, we all have our religion that we follow. We are all believing countless of things that aren't a concrete universality. We hold onto them because it currently works in our individual life, but any moment your life can change and your views will follow. Where is solid state here? What actually last?


I'm not able to understand what you've written here very well. Let's start with this: can you help me understand what you mean by "pragmatic" and "pragmatic experience?" Or, what sorts of beliefs or ideas aren't religious?

When you write that "many frown upon [religions] because of their inaccessible concepts," what do you mean by inaccessible?

Also, what would "a palpable, universal diagnosis" diagnose?


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I'm not able to understand what you've written here very well. Let's start with this: can you help me understand what you mean by "pragmatic" and "pragmatic experience?" Or, what sorts of beliefs or ideas aren't religious?
> 
> When you write that "many frown upon [religions] because of their inaccessible concepts," what do you mean by inaccessible?
> 
> Also, what would "a palpable, universal diagnosis" diagnose?


Pragmatic being an universal, objective experience that can be had with varying amounts of direction

Inaccessible being the finding of perfection in the dualistic, material world

A palpable diagnosis being the bitter taste of selfishness over the compassion of community... worldly and otherworldly

You can taste these things very easily. Don't deny your intuition.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Pragmatic being an universal, objective experience that can be had with varying amounts of direction
> 
> Inaccessible being the finding of perfection in the dualistic, material world
> 
> A palpable diagnosis being the bitter taste of selfishness over the compassion of community... worldly and otherworldly
> 
> You can taste these things very easily. Don't deny your intuition.


I'm sorry, man, I'm more lost than ever!

I'm trying to actually understand things, but I can't make sense of your ideas.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> I'm sorry, man, I'm more lost than ever!
> 
> I'm trying to actually understand things, but I can't make sense of your ideas.


All's well. It aint worth this much trouble. Stick with what you know.


----------



## millionrainbows

*The "Great Awakening"* of the 1730s and 40s, in the newly-founded American colonies, was an important turning point in religion in America. Not a unified movement, but led by individual ministers, it was a spontaneous dissention from the rigid civil _and_ religious traditions of their forebears.
In place of the Latin music of the Church of England, the Puritans adopted the Calvinist psalms of France and Holland. They were sung to tunes based on European secular folk tunes. The first book they used was The Ainsworth Psalter, which had hymns we still use today, such as The Old Hundredth.
This type of psalm singing persisted for a time, then in England, Isaac Watts broke away and began and wrote hymns which were called "man-made," instead of being literal renditions of the psalms. These were considered daring, but gained popularity in America.
At this same time, many Germans were immigrating to America, and brought with them very singable church music popularized in Germany by Martin Luther. These were based on German folk music, and contained many examples of the "man-made" hymn.
Thus, with the Great Awakening, the folk hymn, which sprang from the people like the ballad and folk song, came into being.

Thus we see* sacred music* as emanating directly from the sacred awareness and spiritual expression of the individual man, in dissent against rigid ideologies of The Church. This is American as apple pie; this is our heritage, this is our religious and spiritual inheritance, this is our living legacy.

With this in mind, I'm surprised at the many protests and arguments that I seem to have started here in this forum, by those who seem to disparage the idea of religious freedom and dissent from rigid ideology as being somehow "maverick" or tainted by some notion of Eastern spirituality or even the occult.

We are all Americans, and let us not forget our heritage, which is largely based on civil and religious dissent.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> We are all Americans, and let us not forget our heritage, which is largely based on civil and religious dissent.


No, we're not all Americans.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> *The "Great Awakening"* of the 1730s and 40s, in the newly-founded American colonies, was an important turning point in religion in America. Not a unified movement, but led by individual ministers, it was a spontaneous dissention from the rigid civil _and_ religious traditions of their forebears.
> In place of the Latin music of the Church of England, the Puritans adopted the Calvinist psalms of France and Holland. They were sung to tunes based on European secular folk tunes. The first book they used was The Ainsworth Psalter, which had hymns we still use today, such as The Old Hundredth.
> This type of psalm singing persisted for a time, then in England, Isaac Watts broke away and began and wrote hymns which were called "man-made," instead of being literal renditions of the psalms. These were considered daring, but gained popularity in America.
> At this same time, many Germans were immigrating to America, and brought with them very singable church music popularized in Germany by Martin Luther. These were based on German folk music, and contained many examples of the "man-made" hymn.
> Thus, with the Great Awakening, the folk hymn, which sprang from the people like the ballad and folk song, came into being.
> 
> Thus we see* sacred music* as emanating directly from the sacred awareness and spiritual expression of the individual man, in dissent against rigid ideologies of The Church. This is American as apple pie; this is our heritage, this is our religious and spiritual inheritance, this is our living legacy.
> 
> With this in mind, I'm surprised at the many protests and arguments that I seem to have started here in this forum, by those who seem to disparage the idea of religious freedom and dissent from rigid ideology as being somehow "maverick" or tainted by some notion of Eastern spirituality or even the occult.
> 
> We are all Americans, and let us not forget our heritage, which is largely based on civil and religious dissent.


The problem returns -

Although your purpose was evidently to promote Glass and Riley rather than anything particularly having to do with religion, you originally defined sacred music as relaxing, intentionally and specifically excluded raucous music from your category of "sacred" music. In its time the music of the Great Awakening "new light" churches was the more exciting music on offer, contrasted to the official calm music of the institutional, traditional churches.

Today these traditions have become the new establishment, and have been challenged in their turn by yet more rhythmic music.

If you want to endorse the music of rebellion and freedom, cast off that state-supported equation of "spiritual" and "calm," and embrace the spirituality of rhythm. Forget Buddhism and every other state religion - go straight to the unapproved and "unapprove-able" traditions of drums, masks, dance, and possession.


----------



## Blake




----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


>


A bit complicated. Obviously the religious infrastructure there - all those big impressive temples and statues - were built by a normal premodern agricultural state, of which those people's ancestors were either slaves or rulers. But that state has fallen apart, and in its ruins the people have a bit of freedom to move together to a beat. I wouldn't exaggerate the freedom there, since they're all seated, and it appears the ritual was designed to have no verbal content, so it's much safer for a state than an actual dance and possession would be. It could be tolerated. But there's no way the rulers would use their own resources to support that kind of thing!


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> No, we're not all Americans.


Right, there's no need for unnecessary obscurity!

We are all Texans.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> A bit complicated. Obviously the religious infrastructure there - all those big impressive temples and statues - were built by a normal premodern agricultural state, of which those people's ancestors were either slaves or rulers. But that state has fallen apart, and in its ruins the people have a bit of freedom to move together to a beat. I wouldn't exaggerate the freedom there, since they're all seated, and it appears the ritual was designed to have no verbal content, so it's much safer for a state than an actual dance and possession would be. It could be tolerated. But there's no way the rulers would use their own resources to support that kind of thing!


Yea, I'm not sure of any of this. But I was certainly intrigued. I'd find it curious if all ancient rulers were ignorant and oppressive. There are more ancient traditions that we are unsure than sure of, you know. It seems the ones we focus on were rolling people's heads down a pyramid of stairs.

Either way, I thought the video was pretty sweet... which is why I was inclined to share it.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Yea, I'm not sure of any of this. But I was certainly intrigued. I'd find it curious if all ancient rulers were ignorant and oppressive. There are more ancient traditions that we are unsure than sure of, you know. It seems the ones we focus on were rolling people's heads down a pyramid of stairs.
> 
> Either way, I thought the video was pretty sweet... which is why I was inclined to share it.


You attribute ideas to me with more clarity than you have expressed some of your own! Just in case you're actually misunderstanding, I didn't say anything about rulers being ignorant. On the contrary, some of them were among the most clever men of their time. And as to oppressive, that depends on your POV. Some of them were certainly better than others. Even the best of them lived in much better material conditions than their poorest subjects; the ordinary ones seized pretty much anything they wanted, including the bodies of their subjects; and the worst of them enjoyed cruelty itself. I'm sure the vicious were no less common than the moral saints. But I mean to speak of institutions, not men (edit: that is, not _individual_ men); for all of their regimes depended on the redistribution of resources upward though the use of force and the regulation of ideas, including promoting religious ideas and practices that would encourage the people to actively support their regimes or at least passively accept them.

Buddhism is one of the most successful such ideologies in human history! The rulers deserve their place because of karma, the people should obey to get their own good karma; this message is preached by flamboyantly non-materialistic monks; rendered more persuasive by the awesome grandeur of massive and beautiful art and architecture and music, the gravitas of ancient and obscure texts, and the peaceful bliss of meditation and chant.

As to the music in the video, yes, it's very good! I first heard that kind of thing on one of the Nonesuch Explorer disks of music from Bali. I want to hear many more of those Nonesuch Explorer disks ASAP!


----------



## Blake

science said:


> You attribute ideas to me with more clarity than you have expressed some of your own! Just in case you're actually misunderstanding, I didn't say anything about rulers being ignorant. On the contrary, some of them were among the most clever men of their time. And as to oppressive, that depends on your POV. Some of them were certainly better than others. Even the best of them lived in much better material conditions than their poorest subjects; the ordinary ones seized pretty much anything they wanted, including the bodies of their subjects; and the worst of them enjoyed cruelty itself. I'm sure the vicious were no less common than the moral saints. But I mean to speak of institutions, not men (edit: that is, not _individual_ men); for all of their regimes depended on the redistribution of resources upward though the use of force and the regulation of ideas, including promoting religious ideas and practices that would encourage the people to actively support their regimes or at least passively accept them.
> 
> Buddhism is one of the most successful such ideologies in human history! The rulers deserve their place because of karma, the people should obey to get their own good karma; this message is preached by flamboyantly non-materialistic monks; rendered more persuasive by the awesome grandeur of massive and beautiful art and architecture and music, the gravitas of ancient and obscure texts, and the peaceful bliss of meditation and chant.
> 
> As to the music in the video, yes, it's very good! I first heard that kind of thing on one of the Nonesuch Explorer disks of music from Bali. I want to hear many more of those Nonesuch Explorer disks ASAP!


I see where you're getting at, but I know too little about the ancients to fortify or dismiss your points. But yea, if you know of any other cool vids, send them my way.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> The problem returns -
> 
> Although your purpose was evidently to promote Glass and Riley rather than anything particularly having to do with religion, you originally defined sacred music as relaxing, intentionally and specifically excluded raucous music from your category of "sacred" music. In its time the music of the Great Awakening "new light" churches was the more exciting music on offer, contrasted to the official calm music of the institutional, traditional churches.
> 
> Today these traditions have become the new establishment, and have been challenged in their turn by yet more rhythmic music.
> 
> If you want to endorse the music of rebellion and freedom, cast off that state-supported equation of "spiritual" and "calm," and embrace the spirituality of rhythm. Forget Buddhism and every other state religion - go straight to the unapproved and "unapprove-able" traditions of drums, masks, dance, and possession.


I never definitively defined sacred music in such a rigid fashion. You are just saying that because you seek conflict. If you are truly at peace with yourself, you would not seek conflict.

The Great Awakening fits in perfectly to my views on what the 'universals' of sacred music can be, because dissent from traditional ideology is the only way new and different forms of sacred music will be developed and created...from the "folk," directly as an expression of the people.

Traditional classical masses and such are not only encumbered by tradition, and very Catholic, but the music serves an ideological purpose. As such, it is tainted. Not unusable, but tainted.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I never definitively defined sacred music in such a rigid fashion. You are just saying that because you seek conflict. If you are truly at peace with yourself, you would not seek conflict.
> 
> The Great Awakening fits in perfectly to my views on what the 'universals' of sacred music can be, because dissent from traditional ideology is the only way new and different forms of sacred music will be developed and created...from the "folk," directly as an expression of the people.
> 
> Traditional classical masses and such are not only encumbered by tradition, and very Catholic, but the music serves an ideological purpose. As such, it is tainted. Not unusable, but tainted.


Well...



millionrainbows said:


> The experience of the sacred is often tied to isolation and solitude, when the mind can be quieted and calmed, and reflective thought begins to kick in. Therefore, in this context, sacred music should ideally reinforce this quietude and reflection.
> 
> 1. It could be even and smooth, and not be overly rhythmic or driving. Sustained notes could be more effective than short notes.
> 
> 2. It would not have distracting harmonic movement. It might be more drone-like, and focus on a single tonic.
> 
> 3. Since human voices are comforting, sacred music might be vocal more often than not.
> 
> 4. As in rosary meditation and chanting, sacred music could be repetitious, as a way of focusing the mind. This repetition might take the form of rhythmic drumming, as in the Moroccan trance music of Joujouka. This repetition could be repeated pitch-figures, or repeated chanting.
> 
> This music would not disturb house-cats. (ha ha)





millionrainbows said:


> I'm interesting in identifying 'universals,' and what those constant universals would be.
> 
> The following works illustrate this universal sacred intent. They contain certain characteristics which I listed earlier: repetition, inducement of calm, resonance with brain waves, intent of the composer, the application of the term 'sacred' in its more flexible, general sense, to elements such as nature and the environment.


I just want to be sure of this: since those posts, you have given up this idea that "sacred" music is necessarily calm inducing?

The other parts of your post aren't apparently a response to anything I'd written.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> I just want to be sure of this: since those posts, you have given up this idea that "sacred" music is necessarily calm inducing?


I never said that sacred music had to induce calm, but I maintain the general truth that "the experience of the sacred is often tied to isolation and solitude, when the mind can be quieted and calmed, and reflective thought begins to kick in. Therefore, in this context, sacred music should ideally reinforce this quietude and reflection."

As to the rest of the post, the sacred is at its best an expression of individual spirituality, not a group effort. I consider the social aspect to come *after* that initial establishing of one's individual connection to the sacred, as a shared experience of an inner, individual awareness.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I never said that sacred music had to induce calm, but I maintain the general truth that "the experience of the sacred is often tied to isolation and solitude, when the mind can be quieted and calmed, and reflective thought begins to kick in. Therefore, in this context, sacred music should ideally reinforce this quietude and reflection."
> 
> As to the rest of the post, the sacred is at its best an expression of individual spirituality, not a group effort. I consider the social aspect to come *after* that initial establishing of one's individual connection to the sacred, as a shared experience of an inner, individual awareness.


Well, I can't argue the theological points; I'm usually more interested in how religion is practiced than how we think it should be practiced.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> As to the rest of the post, the sacred is at its best an expression of individual spirituality, not a group effort. I consider the social aspect to come *after* that initial establishing of one's individual connection to the sacred, as a shared experience of an inner, individual awareness.


I suppose it's like that little pearl of wisdom - "Clean up yourself before you try to help someone else." This is really great advice. Because if one is walking around in a cloud of delusions, they will be of absolutely no help to anyone else. More so harm, as then they'd just be imparting their ignorance into another's life... complicating the issue even further.


----------



## millionrainbows

Vesuvius said:


> I suppose it's like that little pearl of wisdom - "Clean up yourself before you try to help someone else." This is really great advice. Because if one is walking around in a cloud of delusions, they will be of absolutely no help to anyone else. More so harm, as then they'd just be imparting their ignorance into another's life... complicating the issue even further.


Yeppir...yeppir...


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I never said that sacred music had to induce calm,


Yet earlier (your post #11) you said



> I'm not requiring that sacred music induce a trance-like state, but it should induce quietude.


What's your understanding of 'quietude' (if not 'calm')?


----------



## science

MacLeod said:


> Yet earlier (your post #11) you said
> 
> What's your understanding of 'quietude' (if not 'calm')?


He even once said:



millionrainbows said:


> The following works illustrate this universal sacred intent. They contain certain characteristics which I listed earlier: ... inducement of calm....


But he seems to have changed his mind.

I feel very gratified about that. That doesn't happen much, particularly in online discussion, so he deserves credit!


----------



## Blake

Maybe it's an inner calm, quietude that's really important. It's very possible to be moving and grooving on the outside, but silent on the inside.


----------



## Wood

Vesuvius said:


> Maybe it's an inner calm, quietude that's really important. It's very possible to be moving and grooving on the outside, but silent on the inside.


An inner calm is calm, just a really important calm. Quietude is therefore a subset of calm.


----------



## Blake

Wood said:


> An inner calm is calm, just a really important calm. Quietude is therefore a subset of calm.


But is quietude defined by an outward state, or simply an inward silence?


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> But is quietude defined by an outward state, or simply an inward silence?


Is a shaman possessed by Kali experiencing inner calm?

At this point I we may be straining at gnats in order to swallow camels. But I'll play along for peace' sake: on the outside at least, religion isn't always calm.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Is a shaman possessed by Kali experiencing inner calm?
> 
> At this point I we may be straining at gnats in order to swallow camels. But I'll play along for peace' sake: on the outside at least, religion isn't always calm.


I never once claimed that it was.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> I never once claimed that it was.


Ah, good. Perhaps I read too much into the trend of your questions.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Ah, good. Perhaps I read too much into the trend of your questions.


Definitely. I thought my questioning was actually in a similar ballpark to what you've opined. I understand religion can be quite active. Aren't we all aware of the extreme end of it - the numerous human and animal sacrifices to the gods? And there are many different levels of this.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Definitely. I thought my questioning was actually in a similar ballpark to what you've opined. I understand religion can be quite active. Aren't we all aware of the extreme end of it - the numerous human and animal sacrifices to the gods? And there are many different levels of this.


Perhaps we are beginning to see eye-to-eye, though I cannot see how your questions led that way!

Maybe we can begin to look at fear as one of the religious emotions too.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> Perhaps we are beginning to see eye-to-eye, though I cannot see how your questions led that way!
> 
> Maybe we can begin to look at fear as one of the religious emotions too.


Well... maybe not directly, but certainly loosely connected. You should know my moves by now. I have to talk broadly to keep things open, or else it becomes an intellectual discipline. And then it would just settle like any other educational course.

Fear is certainly a monumental component of religion. What aspects are you thinking of?


----------



## millionrainbows

In some cases, which I'm sure McLeod and Science will understand, a noisy, intrusive wall of sound or static is the most effective way to drown out the inner voices of one's ticker-tape inner dialog. Some bio-feedback techniques use white noise, or pink noise, to create this "sensory deprivation" effect. If it's just static, it becomes less bothersome, and the mind can focus and clear itself of inner dialog which is connected to "identity." Some people can't sleep unless a radio or TV is on. Same thing.

So the strategy is not working. Sacred music can be "whatever gets the job done."


----------



## millionrainbows

Listening lately to more John Coltrane. Now, here is an instance of readily accessible jazz, which Coltrane considered "sacred" in intent and in the way it was performed. They would go into long improvisations, and enter a sort of trance-like state, and wanted to share this experience with audiences. Coltrane's use of soprano sax had ties to Indian shenai player Bismillah Khan.


----------



## millionrainbows

*Traditional, or sacred man, does not recognize any activity as being profane; whether it be hunting, fishing, agriculture, games, sexuality, or what you will; even conflicts, wars, and struggles have a ritual cause and function, in that they repeat the struggle between two divinities, or commemorate an episode in the divine and cosmic drama. But objects or acts are real, only to the extent in which such objects or acts participate in a reality which transcends them. History, for example, is real if it repeats a history that had its origin at the beginning of time, or cosmically. A stone, for another example, is real, becomes saturated with being, possesses mana, religious, or magical power, either because of its symbolic shape, a shape which existed from time immemorial in the archetypal world before the stone, or because of its origin, as for instance, "pearl" which comes from the watery realms of Neptune, or because the stone is the dwelling place of an ancestor, and so on. Reality is also conferred through what Eliade terms "the symbolism of the center"; thus every traditional society has its own symbolic "center of the world," which --- in the case of Western Nigeria --- is "life." Furthermore, in traditional society, rituals and profane gestures acquire meaning, only because they repeat acts which were originally performed at the beginning of time by the gods, or heroes, or ancestors.**-----Fela Sowande*


----------



## science

Saw this article and remembered this thread: Inside the World of ISIS Propaganda Music.


----------



## Piwikiwi

millionrainbows said:


> Listening lately to more John Coltrane. Now, here is an instance of readily accessible jazz, which Coltrane considered "sacred" in intent and in the way it was performed. They would go into long improvisations, and enter a sort of trance-like state, and wanted to share this experience with audiences. Coltrane's use of soprano sax had ties to Indian shenai player Bismillah Khan.


Spiritual and energetic!






This is also a great example of quite upbeat spiritual music: Mingus - Better git it in your soul


----------



## spokanedaniel

I wasn't a member of TC yet when this thread was last active, so I'll just jump in here having read only the first page or so, and state that sacred music has no universal characteristics, since the sacred means so many different things to different people, and different people respond to so many different kinds of music. For the OP, music must be calming to be sacred, but for another person it must be ebullient. For one it must have a strong beat and for another it must have no beat. For one person, counterpoint or syncopation will be essential elements, while for another they are distracting or confusing. For one person it must be quiet, and for another, loud. In the Western tradition, sacred music runs from Gregorian chant to the B-Minor Mass to 19th-century composers whose names I don't know because they don't like harmony, to old-time Gospel to Christian Rock. In the African tradition sacred music may be drums alone with their complex rhythmical patterns. The sacred music of the indigenous North Americans (at least what I've heard of it) uses a strong drum beat combined with singing. The Hindu and Islamic traditions have their sacred musics, as I am sure do all cultures. And across the entirety of sacred music, I assert that you will not find any single universal, other than the fact that each tradition considers its sacred music to be sacred.


----------



## millionrainbows

spokanedaniel said:


> ...sacred music has no universal characteristics, since the sacred means so many different things to different people, and different people respond to so many different kinds of music.


Why? Why could we not also assert that spirituality is a universal quality which exists in all people?

You are trying to emphasize differences, and I wish to emphasize similarities.

I wish to emphasize "oneness," and harmony, while others wish to emphasize difference, and conflict.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Why? Why could we not also assert that spirituality is a universal quality which exists in all people?


You can make that assertion, but it's likely not true. Many people have told me that I possess no spirituality at all.


----------



## Celloman

millionrainbows said:


> I wish to emphasize "oneness," and harmony, while others wish to emphasize difference, and conflict.


Difference and conflict are not the same thing. We can celebrate differences as well as similarities.

And you can talk all day about the "universal" characteristics of sacred music, but can you define them specifically? Is one musical component such as melody, rhythm, or harmony really more sacred than another?


----------



## millionrainbows

Celloman said:


> Difference and conflict are not the same thing. We can celebrate differences as well as similarities.
> 
> And you can talk all day about the "universal" characteristics of sacred music, but can you define them specifically? Is one musical component such as melody, rhythm, or harmony really more sacred than another?


I agree that there are differences, but I wish to point out similarities. Much Gregorian chant is tone-centric and "droney," and does not modulate. The same for Indian music. So "tone-centricity" or "static harmonic structure" could be said to be a universal characteristic of sacred music. Of course, I'm speaking generally, and do not wish to be pinned-down by rigid definitions. The whole premise of this thread is much looser, and less conflicted. It is an invitation to discuss and compare, not to engage in conflict or one-upmanship argumentation.


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> I agree that there are differences, but I wish to point out similarities. Much Gregorian chant is tone-centric and "droney," and does not modulate. The same for Indian music. So "tone-centricity" or "static harmonic structure" could be said to be a universal characteristic of sacred music. Of course, I'm speaking generally, and do not wish to be pinned-down by rigid definitions. The whole premise of this thread is much looser, and less conflicted. It is an invitation to discuss and compare, not to engage in conflict or one-upmanship argumentation.


How inclusive do you actually want to be? Is Stryper's "To Hell With the Devil" "sacred?" Is the "Sarah Palin Battle Hymn" "sacred?" Is the music at a Korean shaman's kut sacred?


----------



## Albert7

science said:


> How inclusive do you actually want to be? Is Stryper's "To Hell With the Devil" "sacred?" Is the "Sarah Palin Battle Hymn" "sacred?" Is the music at a Korean shaman's kut sacred?


I have yet to hear the Sarah Palin Battle Hymn. How does it differ from the original American version?


----------



## science

Albert7 said:


> I have yet to hear the Sarah Palin Battle Hymn. How does it differ from the original American version?







Any discussion of this video needs to keep in mind that the question isn't whether we agree with their politics or religion, but whether this is sacred music.


----------



## Giordano

What is a sacred thing? Shouldn't we "debate" this question first?

Just saying. Me not interested.


----------



## millionrainbows

science said:


> How inclusive do you actually want to be? Is Stryper's "To Hell With the Devil" "sacred?" Is the "Sarah Palin Battle Hymn" "sacred?" Is the music at a Korean shaman's kut sacred?


No, not by my standards, but The Beatles' _Within You Without You, The Inner Light, Tomorrow Never Knows, _and_ Rain_ are.


----------



## millionrainbows

Giordano said:


> What is a sacred thing? Shouldn't we "debate" this question first?
> 
> Just saying. Me not interested.


Apparently not interested enough to read the first post of this thread, which generally outlines what I'm getting at here.

I'm not interested in strict, limiting, confining definitions; I'm using "sacred" in a universal, general sense which applies to all humans. 
Whomever is not aware of any "sacred" aspect to their existence and life, needs to start doing some self-examination or soul searching.

I came here to discuss, not argue or debate.

Come to me with solutions, not problems.


----------



## Celloman

millionrainbows said:


> Come to me with solutions, not problems.


I'm not sure if you'll like my solution! :lol:


----------



## Giordano

millionrainbows said:


> ..................


I saw what you wrote in one of the resurrected Beethoven's 9th thread. Very well said. Thanks!


----------



## science

millionrainbows said:


> Apparently not interested enough to read the first post of this thread, which generally outlines what I'm getting at here.
> 
> I'm not interested in strict, limiting, confining definitions; I'm using "sacred" in a universal, general sense which applies to all humans.
> Whomever is not aware of any "sacred" aspect to their existence and life, needs to start doing some self-examination or soul searching.
> 
> I came here to discuss, not argue or debate.
> 
> Come to me with solutions, not problems.


Actually, you're doing the opposite of what you intend. You intend to be talking about all humans, but your definition of sacred is really just a projection of your own preferences (which of course are shared by some other people - almost only people in the modern west, though). To other people, the three examples I gave are sacred. They're all about religion, as those people understand their religion.

What's wrong with your project is what's wrong with Traditionalism: when you simply include the aspects of other people's religions that you like, and exclude the aspects that you don't like, you can't justify saying that you're getting the essential aspects of religion.

If you're gonna be really universal and inclusive, you're gonna have to consider all the music of every tradition, even when both the music and the tradition are repugnant to you. If you're not going to do that, then you have to admit you're just exercising your preferences, and drop the language about universality and inclusivity.

I've thought about this quite a bit not only because religious studies is my field, but because the basic intuition of Traditionalism appeals to me. It's either you pick and choose according to some criteria that are inevitably arbitrary, or you include a lot of stuff that is not at all what you want - and no matter what, in the end, you've just created one more tradition, not anything universal. Sadly, there's just no way around the paradox.


----------



## Blake

science said:


> If you're gonna be really universal and inclusive, you're gonna have to consider all the music of every tradition, even when both the music and the tradition are repugnant to you. If you're not going to do that, then you have to admit you're just exercising your preferences, and drop the language about universality and inclusivity.
> 
> I've thought about this quite a bit not only because religious studies is my field, but because the basic intuition of Traditionalism appeals to me. It's either you pick and choose according to some criteria that are inevitably arbitrary, or you include a lot of stuff that is not at all what you want - and no matter what, in the end, you've just created one more tradition, not anything universal. Sadly, there's just no way around the paradox.


Thanks for this. It's funny how subjectives sneak in through an ~open~ conversation. It can happen in all sorts of subtle ways... where I'll think I'm being open, but I'll just be creating another "genre" that suits my preferences. Haha, oh, this troubled mind.


----------



## millionrainbows

Blake said:


> Thanks for this. It's funny how subjectives sneak in through an ~open~ conversation. It can happen in all sorts of subtle ways... where I'll think I'm being open, but I'll just be creating another "genre" that suits my preferences. Haha, oh, this troubled mind.


I think the problem here is not my subjectivity, but an over-literal, rigid definition of "universal characteristics." This is, and always was, a generalization, and an attempt to discuss what music might also be termed "sacred" for exhibiting some, if not all of these sacred characteristics, and discuss and include these. It's not a "project" I devised for some sort of ulterior purpose.


----------



## Polyphemus

As a devout Atheist (nice one for your subjective analysis) sacred music has no religious meaning for me. It is just superb music. Be it the Missa Solemnis, Mozart Requiem or other masterpieces of the same ilk Berlioz Dvorak etc. Bruckner wrote his music with god in mind and was a deeply religious man. Mahler on the other hand was more pragmatic, he needed to be catholic so he became one. 
I don't want to get into a religious debate but ones beliefs do not detract from the quality of the music.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem here is not my subjectivity, but an over-literal, rigid definition of "universal characteristics." This is, and always was, a generalization, and an attempt to discuss what music might also be termed "sacred" for exhibiting some, if not all of these sacred characteristics, and discuss and include these. It's not a "project" I devised for some sort of ulterior purpose.


I was talking about myself more than anyone else. I've always dug your threads, and I think they usually push people to think in more open ways.

It's always best when it's more about questioning everything than defining everything.


----------



## millionrainbows

Polyphemus said:


> As a devout Atheist (nice one for your subjective analysis) sacred music has no religious meaning for me. It is just superb music. Be it the Missa Solemnis, Mozart Requiem or other masterpieces of the same ilk Berlioz Dvorak etc. Bruckner wrote his music with god in mind and was a deeply religious man. Mahler on the other hand was more pragmatic, he needed to be catholic so he became one.
> I don't want to get into a religious debate but ones beliefs do not detract from the quality of the music.


In my way of looking at things, 'beliefs' always come *after the fact* of our 'innate spirituality' or 'sacred awareness' or whatever you want to call it.

I've also said in these discussions that Morton Feldman and Mark Rothko were examples of a kind of existentialism which amounts to a kind of "sacred atheism," because it connects with this universal sacred sense.


----------



## millionrainbows

Blake said:


> I was talking about myself more than anyone else. I've always dug your threads, and I think they usually push people to think in more open ways.
> 
> It's always best when it's more about questioning everything than defining everything.


That's the nicest thing I've heard lately! Thank you. But yes, 'definitions' is where they've been chipping away at my case.


----------

