# Mahler as Shaman



## millionrainbows

After looking at the YouTube documentary about the Third (What the Universe Tells Me), it's tempting to see Mahler as a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist. Lots of new religious and philosophical ideas were floating around in the nineteenth century. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were two of the most important thinkers. Schopenhauer's philosophy has been compared to Eastern philosophy, and he was indeed influenced by it. His has been called "Buddhism without the joy," as it gave a rather grim reading of existence.
Mahler's ouvre starts out with that "droning" movement of the First Symphony, and by the Third he is pondering the great questions of existence. I definitely see him as an artist who realized the "sacred" nature of being and existence. He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to "wake us up," almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a "sacred technology" to further our spiritual awareness.
In this sense, Mahler is like a "shaman" in a tribal culture, acting as our artistic guide into the deeper regions of our existence.


----------



## Enthusiast

I don't know what he wanted but I am increasingly interested in what music does to me physically as well as intellectually and emotionally. I have been noticing that some music leaves me feeling I am in a "different" world, a feeling that slowly dissipates. It may be that all music does this to me. Now I am aware of it I have noticed it after listening to CPE Bach's keyboard concertos - works that are not without substance and are to be sure filled with fresh ideas and delights - but that is rather a simple feeling. I notice it very physically and strongly after Messiaen and, yes, Mahler transports me some place that it can take a while to come back from! So, is Mahler a shaman or are many composers shamanic, with Mahler just a particularly potent sorcerer?


----------



## millionrainbows

Perhaps the purpose of all art and music is to get us back in touch with our core being. Perhaps this is what is happening with you.

I am acutely aware of perceptible change when I listen to trance-like, repetitive, or droney music. Terry Riley does this to me _(Sri Camel, The Descending Persian Surgery Dervishes, Keyboard Studies, The Ten Voices of the Two Prophets)_, and Philip Glass _(Dance Nos. 1-5),_ which is why I like minimalism.

Less repetitive, less drone-like music does this less frequently, but it happens: Stockhausen _(Kontakte, Stimmung, Hymnen, Kurzwellen),_ Morton Feldman _(Music for Stefan Wolpe, Projections, Intersections),_ John Cage _(Atlas Eclipticalis, Concert for Piano and Orchestra),_ and some other works, depending on my mood.

There are also traditional "Western" works which induce in me "philosophical musings," which is a very meditative, introspective state. These include Mahler's_ Symphony No. 1 (first movement), _R. Strauss' _Metamorphosen, _Wagner without words _(Parsifal, Tristan),_ and Handel (_Suites for Keyboards) _and his_ Arias _(sung by Lorraine Hunt Lieberson).


----------



## SONNET CLV

Mahler, conducting his Third Symphony?


----------



## Jacck

the documentary only reinforced my preconception that Mahler was nuts. His symphonies are like some weird post-modernist mix of pseudointellectual ideas and neurotic sentimentality. Both, Schoppenhauer and Nietzsche mentioned in the documentary were nuts as well, so it is not suprising that Mahler gravitated towards their crackpot grand ideas - Schoppenhauer and his neurotic distorted buddhism and Nietzsche and his delusions of superhumans rid of morality and Apollonian and Dionysian forces of nature etc. 
I have not doubt that Mahler was a genius composer, but his music is very bizarre


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> the documentary only reinforced my preconception that *Mahler was nuts.* His symphonies are like some weird post-modernist mix of pseudointellectual ideas and neurotic sentimentality. Both, Schoppenhauer and Nietzsche mentioned in the documentary were nuts as well, so it is not suprising that Mahler gravitated towards their crackpot grand ideas - *Schoppenhauer *and his neurotic distorted buddhism and *Nietzsche *and his delusions of superhumans rid of morality and Apollonian and Dionysian forces of nature etc.
> I have not doubt that Mahler was a genius composer, but his music is very bizarre


three people you mention - all completely off their rocker. Mahler was probably the sanest of the lot! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> the documentary only reinforced my preconception that Mahler was nuts. His symphonies are like some weird post-modernist mix of pseudointellectual ideas and neurotic sentimentality. Both, Schoppenhauer and Nietzsche mentioned in the documentary were nuts as well, so it is not suprising that Mahler gravitated towards their crackpot grand ideas - Schoppenhauer and his neurotic distorted buddhism and Nietzsche and his delusions of superhumans rid of morality and Apollonian and Dionysian forces of nature etc.
> I have not doubt that Mahler was a genius composer, but his music is very bizarre


Ahh, so I see that you're not a 'believer.' You must be one of those _total rationalists_ who has no need for any sort of philosophy or religion, real or pseudo. Is this true?

Myself, I consider these grand 'crackpot' ideas to be rather conservative: even Albert Einstein would consider the possibility of the universe as 'vibrating' at some frequency, at least in part.

So, according to you, what is a 'sane' outlook? What kind of ideas do you subscribe to, pray tell?


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> Ahh, so I see that you're not a 'believer.' You must be one of those _total rationalists_ who has no need for any sort of philosophy or religion, real or pseudo. Is this true?
> 
> Myself, I consider these grand 'crackpot' ideas to be rather conservative: even Albert Einstein would consider the possibility of the universe as 'vibrating' at some frequency, at least in part.
> 
> So, according to you, what is a 'sane' outlook? What kind of ideas do you subscribe to, pray tell?


Albert Einstein - The World as I See It
Richard Feynman - The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
Jiddu Krishnamurti - Freedom from the Known
Huang Po - The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind 
Hui Hai - Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening

some of the influences whos amalgamation forms my own philosophical ideas, which are too complex to present here.


----------



## Larkenfield

Jacck said:


> the documentary only reinforced my preconception that Mahler was nuts. His symphonies are like some weird post-modernist mix of pseudointellectual ideas and neurotic sentimentality. Both, Schoppenhauer and Nietzsche mentioned in the documentary were nuts as well, so it is not suprising that Mahler gravitated towards their crackpot grand ideas - Schoppenhauer and his neurotic distorted buddhism and Nietzsche and his delusions of superhumans rid of morality and Apollonian and Dionysian forces of nature etc.
> I have not doubt that Mahler was a genius composer, but his music is very bizarre


It doesn't matter whether someone thinks they're nuts or not. The value is in understanding the circumstances of their lives from _their_ point of view or there's no point in studying anything or anyone. All three were highly influential and their philosophies motivated them to create and not be personally dismissed with the insensitivity and understanding of a rock. I've never heard anything in Mahler that suggested "crackpot grand ideas." He wrote from personal experience and was sharing something of his inner life. How does one exactly determined what his ideas were? Whatever texts he used we're primarily written by others, including from Goethe's _Faust_.

Reading a book on zen or philosophy doesn't automatically bestow understanding for an outside observer. Mahler also studied Theosophy which was a worldwide interest at the time and the blending of religion and science. That hardly makes him a nut because of his philosophical investigations. It makes him curious. But then, understanding the subtleties of such highly sensitive people is not necessarily bestowed upon everyone. One has to consider life from their perspective.

Mahler continued to function creatively when he knew he was dying to the very end of his life despite his devastating emotional losses-and that's hardly the sign of being a "nut". In fact, I believe most people would consider that a sign of mental health, despite his emotional and physical extremes, because he was able to transform his grief into his prophetic 10th Symphony, for harmonically it points in the direction that music was going to take in the 20th century. Some "nut". The cause of Friedrich Nietzsche's mental illness has been widely speculated, from syphilis to other physical or hereditary causes, not necessarily from his philosophy. It's a very complicated subject and yet it's been dealt with in the above post with one swipe of the careless hand.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> Albert Einstein - The World as I See It
> Richard Feynman - The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
> Jiddu Krishnamurti - Freedom from the Known
> Huang Po - The Zen Teaching of Huang Po: On the Transmission of Mind
> Hui Hai - Zen Teaching of Instantaneous Awakening
> 
> some of the influences whos amalgamation forms my own philosophical ideas, which are too complex to present here.


Okay, I get it: you're a genius who's into zen.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Jacck said:


> the documentary only reinforced my preconception that *Mahler *was nuts. His symphonies are like some weird post-modernist mix of pseudointellectual ideas and neurotic sentimentality. Both, Schoppenhauer and Nietzsche mentioned in the documentary were nuts as well, so it is not suprising that Mahler gravitated towards their crackpot grand ideas - *Schoppenhauer* and his neurotic distorted buddhism and *Nietzsche* and his delusions of superhumans rid of morality and Apollonian and Dionysian forces of nature etc.
> I have not doubt that Mahler was a genius composer, but his music is very bizarre





DavidA said:


> three people you mention - all completely off their rocker. Mahler was probably the sanest of the lot! :lol:


Is _this_ what this Forum has now come to???

Is _this_ the best we can now do with respect for three geniuses???









Let me put it another way.









Is _this_ where we are??? Really???


----------



## millionrainbows

SONNET CLV said:


> Is _this_ what this Forum has now come to???...Is _this_ the best we can now do with respect for three geniuses???...Is _this_ where we are??? Really???


Are these rhetorical questions?


----------



## Woodduck

A shaman is someone with a job to do, a job defined by his culture. That wasn't Mahler's job. He was simply a serious artist of philosophical disposition, some of whose works purport to be about what he considered life's major issues - his own life's, in any case. His issues are determined by his cultural context and personal psychology, and his take on them, far from being universal, may not be yours or mine. Life and death, of course, is the fundamental "issue" for all of us, and he seems to have had quite a preoccupation that eternal struggle. But he's hardly the first artist, or the first composer, to occupy himself with it. Perhaps he expresses his feelings with such intensity that he convinces those temperamentally disposed that he's uniquely profound. Personally, I don't find his work more "sacred" than that of many other composers, and in fact I sense in his mixture of nervosity, stridency, sentimentality and long-windedness a feeling of self-absorption almost unique among composers. I find nothing Buddhist (or quasi-Buddhist) about him.


----------



## Jacck

Larkenfield said:


> It doesn't matter whether someone thinks they're nuts or not. The value is in understanding the circumstances of their lives from _their_ point of view or there's no point in studying anything or anyone. All three were highly influential and their philosophies motivated them to create and not be personally dismissed with the insensitivity and understanding of a rock. I've never heard anything in Mahler that suggested "crackpot grand ideas." He wrote from personal experience and was sharing something of his inner life. How does one exactly determined what his ideas were? Whatever texts he used we're primarily written by others, including from Goethe's _Faust_.
> 
> Reading a book on zen or philosophy doesn't automatically bestow understanding for an outside observer. Mahler also studied Theosophy which was a worldwide interest at the time and the blending of religion and science. That hardly makes him a nut because of his philosophical investigations. It makes him curious. But then, understanding the subtleties of such highly sensitive people is not necessarily bestowed upon everyone. One has to consider life from their perspective.
> 
> Mahler continued to function creatively when he knew he was dying to the very end of his life despite his devastating emotional losses-and that's hardly the sign of being a "nut". In fact, I believe most people would consider that a sign of mental health, despite his emotional and physical extremes, because he was able to transform his grief into his prophetic 10th Symphony, for harmonically it points in the direction that music was going to take in the 20th century. Some "nut". The cause of Friedrich Nietzsche's mental illness has been widely speculated, from syphilis to other physical or hereditary causes, not necessarily from his philosophy. It's a very complicated subject and yet it's been dealt with in the above post with one swipe of the careless hand.


I did not pass my judgement with one swipe of a careless hand. I read one book from Schoppenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) and one from Nietsche (Thus Spoke Zarathustra). I consider both to be a mixture of genius and insanity. They were both very gifted with language, espeically Nietsche was almost a poet. But their ideas were crackpot, similar to CG Jung, Freud etc. In general, I do not value philosophers who created their pet theories, but built them on shaky grounds. They make various claims (assumptions) about the world, about man, about society and then build massive philosophies based on these claims. But if the fundaments are rotten, so are their whole pet theories. I much prefer the down to earh approach of actual scientists - that is why i quoted Einstein or Feynman.

I am not surprised that Mahler was interested in theosophy. That was probably the most crackpot theory of his time. So yes, I dislike Mahler's philosophy for the same reason I dislike theosophy
https://www.theosophyforward.com/in...-public-eye/689-gustav-mahler-1860-1911-.html

_"Mahler said with great conviction: "We all return; it is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation." The third symphony could be said to depict the reincarnation of life through the kingdoms to man and beyond.

Cook quotes a letter in which Mahler states that he wanted to express in the work an evolutionary development of nature that hides "within itself everything that is frightful, great, and also lovely." He notes that the composer added: "Of course, no one ever understands this, It always strikes me as odd that most people when they speak of "nature" think only of flowers, little birds, and woodsy smells. No one knows the god Dionysus, the great Pan. There now! You have a sort of program - that is, a sample of how I make music. Everywhere and always, it is only the voice of nature! "_


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to "wake us up,"...


Perhaps making it 100 minutes long was a bad move then.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> A shaman is someone with a job to do, a job defined by his culture. That wasn't Mahler's job. He was simply a serious artist of philosophical disposition, some of whose works purport to be about what he considered life's major issues - his own life's, in any case.


Marshall McLuhan, and probably Carl Jung, would say that "shamans" do, indeed exist, in the form of artists who are in touch with the subconscious, the mythological, archetypes, and the intuitive world. Richard Wagner was a shaman, as well.



> His issues are determined by his cultural context and personal psychology, and his take on them, far from being universal, may not be yours or mine.


Oh, I feel quite the opposite, because I'm looking for similarities, not differences. You tend to fragment ideas like this to further a paradigm which is the glorification of Man as an isolated self-determining individual.



> Life and death, of course, is the fundamental "issue" for all of us, and he seems to have had quite a preoccupation that eternal struggle.


At last, a recognition of universals...



> But he's hardly the first artist, or the first composer, to occupy himself with it.


...only to be shattered.



> Perhaps he expresses his feelings with such intensity that he convinces those temperamentally disposed that he's uniquely profound.


Well, isn't that what Richard Wagner does for you, and what Beethoven does for many others?



> Personally, I don't find his work more "sacred" than that of many other composers, and in fact I sense in his mixture of nervosity, stridency, sentimentality and long-windedness a feeling of self-absorption almost unique among composers.


"Nervosity? Sentimentality?" You make him sound like some sort of laughable 'Woody Allen' type of character.



> I find nothing Buddhist (or quasi-Buddhist) about him.


Nothing? Not even his interest in Schopenhauer? Mahler was very cosmopolitan in his outlook, and probably saw a non-deistic philosophy as appealing, due to his 'standing' in the 'Christian' Viennese environment. I would think that this would thrill you.

Your position on Mahler is so defensive that you almost sound "put upon," as if Mahler was trying to shove his philosophy down your throat. There may be a 'political' dimension to this as well, because Mahler virtually took over where Wagner left off, and gave it a different spin, not as Germanic, more cosmopolitan. For many of us, including Leonard Bernstein, Mahler has effectively replaced Wagner, with none of the cultural/nationalistic baggage. Is this some resentment I detect?


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> I did not pass my judgement with one swipe of a careless hand. I read one book from Schoppenhauer (The World as Will and Representation) and one from Nietsche (Thus Spoke Zarathustra). I consider both to be a mixture of genius and insanity. They were both very gifted with language, espeically Nietsche was almost a poet. But their ideas were crackpot, similar to CG Jung, Freud etc. In general, I do not value philosophers who created their pet theories, but built them on shaky grounds. They make various claims (assumptions) about the world, about man, about society and then build massive philosophies based on these claims. But if the fundaments are rotten, so are their whole pet theories. *I much prefer the down to earh approach of actual scientists - that is why i quoted Einstein or Feynman. *


If you feel so strongly about this, and are adopting a super-rational scientific view, then your opinions about metaphysical matters will not be of any value in such a discussion, as has been demonstrated by your negative comments.



> I am not surprised that Mahler was interested in theosophy. That was probably the most crackpot theory of his time. So yes, I dislike Mahler's philosophy for the same reason I dislike theosophy.
> 
> _"Mahler said with great conviction: "We all return; it is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation." The third symphony could be said to depict the reincarnation of life through the kingdoms to man and beyond._


Boy, this quote from Mahler is the exact opposite of the way you & Woodduck think about things. In fact, I notice that you, more overtly than Woodduck, seem very anxious to proclaim your rationalist outlook at the expense of Mahler and his ilk, more like a bull in a China shop.
_



Cook quotes a letter in which Mahler states that he wanted to express in the work an evolutionary development of nature that hides "within itself everything that is frightful, great, and also lovely." He notes that the composer added: "Of course, no one ever understands this, It always strikes me as odd that most people when they speak of "nature" think only of flowers, little birds, and woodsy smells. No one knows the god Dionysus, the great Pan. There now! You have a sort of program - that is, a sample of how I make music. Everywhere and always, it is only the voice of nature! "

Click to expand...

_That's inspiring. Mahler was obviously in touch with something much greater than himself. Yet, you guys make him sound like some isolated crackpot outsider. I think the truth of it is, men like you & Woodduck are the isolated ones, wrapped up in a rationalist outlook which is not unlike science. Really? Is this the way you think about art? Loosen up.


----------



## Larkenfield

Originally Posted by Jacck
_"Mahler said with great conviction: "We all return; it is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation." The third symphony could be said to depict the reincarnation of life through the kingdoms to man and beyond.

Cook quotes a letter in which Mahler states that he wanted to express in the work an evolutionary development of nature that hides "within itself everything that is frightful, great, and also lovely." He notes that the composer added: "Of course, no one ever understands this, It always strikes me as odd that most people when they speak of "nature" think only of flowers, little birds, and woodsy smells. No one knows the god Dionysus, the great Pan. There now! You have a sort of program - that is, a sample of how I make music. Everywhere and always, it is only the voice of nature._

When Mahler mentions "return", he is referring to the Theory of Reincarnation of which Cook and yourself apparently have an insufficient background. His quote is perfectly understandable in that context, the sense of 'comfort' it can bring that he speaks about. Reincarnation is the only theory that explains the inequalities of life, why somebody is born into a family of riches, or somebody is born into poverty, or the often senseless injustices that happen in life. It's the only explanation, and that we return until the scales of justice are balanced and the lessons are learned. It does not hold man to only one lifetime on this planet like most rationalists believe who haven't an answer to anything. It's beyond academic understanding. It's not an academic subject. It's not for the eggheads and self-righteous. For some, it's part of the meaningful exploration of life and Mahler was interested and it helped sustain him through tragic losses. That quote reveals his spiritual depths, not his stupidity, and proves exactly the opposite of what you and Cook think it is. Typical simpleminded academics are not interested in understanding any kind of spiritual philosophy, Mahler's or anyone's, judgemental to the hilt on matters they haven't begun to comprehend that are deeply metaphysical in nature.

"Reincarnation is the belief that each person goes through a series of lifetimes for the purpose of spiritual growth and soul development. The past merely provided a framework of potentials and probabilities and an individual's choices, actions, and free will in the present determines the actual experience lived this time around. Rather than being a fatalistic approach to life, it is much more one of nearly limitless opportunities. Within this framework of lessons that need to be learned as the soul strives to meet itself is the central idea that the soul is constantly experiencing the consequences of its previous choices. 'As you sow, so shall you reap.'"

_That_ is what Mahler was driving at. The Theory of Rebirth or Reincarnation has existed for thousands of years:

"I am trying to get nearer to the remarkable psychology of the Buddha himself, or at least of that which his contemporaries assumed him to be. It is chiefly the question of karma and rebirth which has renewed my interest in Buddha." _~Carl Jung, Letters Vol. II, Page 548_


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> The typical simpleminded academics are not interested in understanding any kind of spiritual philosophy, Mahler's or anyone's, judgemental to the hilt on matters they haven't begun to comprehend that are deeply metaphysical in nature.


And this, on a forum about the Arts! There must be a science forum out there for those folks...at any rate, I'm here to discuss Mahler, not to debate my personal convictions. Mainly, this thread was inspired by that video, "What the Universe Tells Me," and I'm just going along with that.


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> And this, on a forum about the Arts! There must be a science forum out there for those folks...at any rate, I'm here to discuss Mahler, not to debate my personal convictions. Mainly, this thread was inspired by that video, "What the Universe Tells Me," and I'm just going along with that.


That's a great video and I hope more people will see it. I personally consider Mahler very advanced in his personal, spiritual, and creative development, and it's an opportunity to learn from him rather than the other way around.


----------



## SONNET CLV

SONNET CLV said:


> Is _this_ what this Forum has now come to???...Is _this_ the best we can now do with respect for three geniuses???...Is _this_ where we are??? Really???





millionrainbows said:


> Are these rhetorical questions?


They are certainly ical questions. I never ask rhet questions.


----------



## millionrainbows

SONNET CLV said:


> They are certainly ical questions. I never ask rhet questions.


Spare me the 'cute' attempts at humor.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> That's a great video and I hope more people will see it. I personally consider Mahler very advanced in his personal, spiritual, and creative development, and it's an opportunity to learn from him rather than the other way around.


He raised a family and had children, and made a living. That's more than can be said for some of our other "heroes."


----------



## SONNET CLV

SONNET CLV said:


> They are certainly ical questions. I never ask rhet questions.





millionrainbows said:


> Spare me the 'cute' attempts at humor.


I do.

After all, isn't there enough of that in your avatar alone?


----------



## millionrainbows

Here's the little composing cottage that Mahler went into when he was creating his masterpieces.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> If you feel so strongly about this, and are adopting a super-rational scientific view, then your opinions about metaphysical matters will not be of any value in such a discussion, as has been demonstrated by your negative comments.


sure, I am the super-rationalistic guy and 3/5 of the book I mentioned are spiritual



Larkenfield said:


> When Mahler mentions "return", he is referring to the Theory of Reincarnation of which Cook and yourself have no insights. His quote is perfectly understandable in that context, perfectly, the sense of 'comfort' it can bring that he speaks about. Reincarnation is the only thing that explains the inequalities of life, why somebody is born into a family of riches, or somebody is born into poverty, or the often senseless injustices that happen in life. It's the only explanation, and that we return until the scales are balanced and the lessons are learned. It does not hold man to only one lifetime on this planet like most rationalists believe who haven't an answer to anything. It's beyond academic understanding. It's not an academic subject. It's not for the eggheads and self-righteous. For some, it's part of the meaningful exploration of life and Mahler was interested in that and it helped sustain him through tragic losses. That quote reveals his spiritual depths not his stupidity and proves exactly the opposite of what you and Cook think it is. The typical simpleminded academics are not interested in understanding any kind of spiritual philosophy, Mahler's or anyone's, judgemental to the hilt on matters they haven't begun to comprehend that are deeply metaphysical in nature.


It is easy to fool oneself. One can believe various things, because one wants them to be true. The question that you should be asking yourself is "how do I know that I am not fooling myself"? If you are incapable of facing this question in an honest manner, then I call you an intellectual hypocrite

PS: but there is one positive result of this thread. I re-listened to the Mahler 3rd today and found it more enjoyable than at my previous listening. The thing I dislike most about Mahler are probably the marches.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> When Mahler mentions "return", he is referring to the Theory of Reincarnation of which Cook and yourself apparently have no comprehension.


I think he was actually thinking about Nietzsche's concept of _The eternal return of the same_, which although clearly influenced by the vogue of Buddhist thought at that time, is not exactly the same idea.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> I think he was actually thinking about Nietzsche's concept of _The eternal return of the same_, which although clearly influenced by the vogue of Buddhist thought at that time, is not exactly the same idea.


hard to tell. I get a Theosophy vibe out of the quote. They believed in reincarnation theory and that consciousness starts at the primitive level of inanimate matter and through countless reincarnations evolves from primitive organisms, over plants, animals to man and beyond, to angels, Masters etc., till it reaches perfection and enters into God again. I interpret the symphony in this manner.

The eternal return idea was used in the movie K-PAX. It is certainly a very weird idea and I have no idea why Nietzsche thought it worthwhile. The most sane of these German philosophers was Kant. He would probably be a neuroscientist or a cognitive psychologist, if he were born today and if you translate his philosophical language into modern terms, he is quite modern even today.


----------



## Larkenfield

Jacck said:


> hard to tell. I get a Theosophy vibe out of the quote. They believed in reincarnation theory and that consciousness starts at the primitive level of inanimate matter and through countless reincarnations evolves from primitive organisms, over plants, animals to man and beyond, to angels, Masters etc., till it reaches perfection and enters into God again. I interpret the symphony in this manner.
> 
> .


As long as you continue to place _yourself_ above others, no matter their philosophical beliefs, you will learn or understand nothing about them. You will continue to mischaracterize and misunderstand them by putting words in their mouths, be a poor academic student, a condescending scholar, and continue to project your own beliefs and ideas on them.

Mahler _never_ espoused a belief in all that you associate with reincarnation, such as someone reincarnating up through the plant kingdom. He made his own statement about his convictions and they do not coincide with yours or what you associate with rebirth.

Nor is the belief in the ascended masters part of the Theory of Reincarnation. Mahler was not a Theosophist, but he and Alma were exposed to it, and his views on reincarnation could have come from some other source because the theory existed a few thousand years before Theosophy became a global phenomenon in the late 19th century based on the writings of Madame Blavatsky. Sibelius, Scriabin, Gustav Holst, and Cyril Scott were other composers who were exposed to Theosophical teachings... Holst's _The Planets_ is the result of his studies that are _astrological_ in nature in his portrayal of the nature of each planet.

It does not work to try to understand someone as deeply philosophical as Mahler through the mishmash of your own beliefs about _his_ beliefs, nor appreciate him on his own terms and the statement he made about the "return." It's poor scholarship with a heaping spoonful of academic hubris. One cannot understand the complexities of Mahler, Friedrich Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer by placing yourself in a superior position to them, personally judging them as weirdos or nuts, and it's also not necessary to personally believe as they do in order to understand them from their point of view. This is what professors are supposed to teach their students if they want them to be good scholars; otherwise, research can turn into condescension.

_Mahler said with great conviction: "We all return; it is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation." _

He was clear. None of the above has anything to do with many of the beliefs that you associate with reincarnation.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the problem here is internet-wide; there are a lot of "rationalists" out there who jump at the mention of anything remotely "religious," "spiritual," or "metaphysical;" I'd say something, but I was warned by the mods not to.

We really do need to immerse ourselves in the milieu of the artist, in order to really understand him.

Yes, I think the "return" refers to Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence.


----------



## Woodduck

Marshall McLuhan, and probably Carl Jung, would say that "shamans" do, indeed exist, in the form of artists who are in touch with the subconscious, the mythological, archetypes, and the intuitive world. Richard Wagner was a shaman, as well.

If that's your definition of a shaman, then Wagner was much more of one than Mahler. The programmatic ideas in those of Mahler's symphonies that contain them are mostly pretty fuzzy and crude compared with Wagner's, which of course are dramas allowing for a lot of precisely molded symbolism. But let's admit that the things you mention are not the definition of a shaman.

Similarly, you haven't attributed to Mahler anything particularly Buddhist.

Nothing? Not even his interest in Schopenhauer?

Lots of people were "interested" in Schopenhauer. Wagner was, and to a greater extent than Mahler. He actually planned a Buddhist opera, and incorporated some Buddhist philosophy into _Parsifal._ Did Mahler do anything comparable? In which work?

Mahler was very cosmopolitan in his outlook, and probably saw a non-deistic philosophy as appealing, due to his 'standing' in the 'Christian' Viennese environment. 

"Very," "probably," "appealing"... Meh.

I would think that this would thrill you.

How would you know what would thrill me - other than sound reasoning?

Mahler virtually took over where Wagner left off, and gave it a different spin, not as Germanic, more cosmopolitan. For many of us, including Leonard Bernstein, Mahler has effectively replaced Wagner, with none of the cultural/nationalistic baggage. 

Sorry, but this is nonsense. "Replaced" Wagner? Not in any way. Mahler is a much different artist than Wagner, in ways more fundamental than the absence of the "baggage" you like to attribute to Wagner. And as far as "baggage" is concerned, it's perfectly obvious that Mahler brought a great deal of highly personal "baggage" to his work, which he seems almost morbidly intent on laying out, in excruciating detail, for our perusal: his work is a virtual vivisection of its author, as remote from Buddhism's "anatta" (realization of selflessness) as art can be. The Chinese poet who wanders off into the misty mountains at the end of _Das Lied von der Erde_ is not expressing Buddhist enlightenment, and the gesture of acceptance that ends the struggles of the _Ninth_ is but the momentary release and relaxation that sometimes comes with exhaustion and "giving up" when further striving seems futile. Admittedly, a glimpse of deliverance is better than nothing. But if Mahler must be categorized, he is the composer who marks the transition from Romantic idealism to Expressionism, in which there is no deliverance from the _agon_ of the self.


----------



## Jacck

Arthur Schopenhauer: The first European Buddhist
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/arthur-schopenhauer-footnotes-to-plato/

_"The artist who engaged most deeply with Schopenhauer was Richard Wagner (himself a philosopher of genuine ability). Originally a socialist-anarchist who narrowly escaped execution for his role in the 1848 Revolution, Wagner discovered Schopenhauer in the middle of writing the Ring cycle. The result was a work that begins as an argument in favour of utopian anarchism, and ends by advocating, as Wagner wrote to a friend, "the final negation of the desire for life". This, he wrote, is "the only salvation possible . . . freedom from all dreams is the only final salvation". Wagner's ardent disciple, the youthful Friedrich Nietzsche, dedicated his first book, The Birth of Tragedy, to Wagner and wrote it "in Schopenhauer's spirit and to his honour". The mature Nietzsche's turn against Schopenhauer and towards "life-affirmation" terminated his friendship with Wagner."_

I have some sympathy for Schopenhauer. He was interested in similar things that I am interested and he came quite far on the spiritual path, but not far enough to see the final end. He did not discover that ultimate cause of suffering and the way of ending it (as Buddha did). Nietzsche is far less comprehensible to me than Schopenhauer. It seems like he was subjected to some strict catholoc upbringing in his childhood and the rest of his life (and his philosophy) was a revolt against it, hence his need to declare that "God is dead" and found some recplacement morality.


----------



## Jacck

Larkenfield said:


> It does not work to try to understand someone as deeply philosophical as Mahler through the mishmash of your own beliefs about _his_ beliefs, nor appreciate him on his own terms and the statement he made about the "return." It's poor scholarship with a heaping spoonful of academic hubris. One cannot understand the complexities of Mahler, Friedrich Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer by placing yourself in a superior position to them, personally judging them as weirdos or nuts, and it's also not necessary to personally believe as they do in order to understand them from their point of view. This is what professors are supposed to teach their students if they want them to be good scholars; otherwise, research can turn into condescension.
> 
> _Mahler said with great conviction: "We all return; it is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation." _
> 
> He was clear. None of the above has anything to do with many of the beliefs that you associate with reincarnation.


That quote is quite clear. Mahler believed, that we return after death in the form of a new "incarnation" and that each incarnation has no memory of the previous incarnations. The "great aspiration to the perfect and pure" hints to the evolution of the divine consciousness towards perfection, ie englightment and become one with God again.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem here is internet-wide; there are a lot of "rationalists" out there who jump at the mention of anything remotely "religious," "spiritual," or "metaphysical;" I'd say something, but I was warned by the mods not to.
> 
> We really do need to immerse ourselves in the milieu of the artist, in order to really understand him.
> 
> Yes, I think the "return" refers to Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence.


the theory of eternal recurrence is probably even worse than the theory of reincarnation. And it is demonstrably wrong, as the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows. The universe started 14 billions years ago in Big Bang in a state of low entropy and since that time, entropy has been constantly increasing, till the universe ends in a heat death. And the second laws of thermodynamics was known in Mahler's time. He was a contemporary of Ludwig Boltzmann. But that is the problem with artists. They do not need to respect reality. All they care about is express feelings. But feelings are not about reality. I respect Mahler as an artist (he was a big musical genius), I respect him even as a man of spirituality, who was searching for some form of salvation. But I find his spiritual ideas not that interesting.


----------



## Jacck

Mahler's Third Symphony and the Languages of Transcendence
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/...ancisco_washington_0250O_16182.pdf?sequence=1


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I think the problem here is internet-wide; there are a lot of "rationalists" out there who jump at the mention of anything remotely "religious," "spiritual," or "metaphysical;" I'd say something, but I was warned by the mods not to.
> *
> We really do need to immerse ourselves in the milieu of the artist, in order to really understand him.*
> 
> Yes, I think the "return" refers to Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence.


This is a fair point. It's definitely important to try and understand what currents of thought may have been exerting influence upon a composer (or writer or painter...). It helps with understanding why they may have made certain decisions and with interpretation.

Nevertheless (there's a always a nevertheless ), this doesn't eliminate critique of the ideas they may have followed and absorbed into their work. I don't know much about Mahler's views of epistemology and metaphysics, but he seems to me to have only been 'religious' in a sort of creative sense, because it suited the idea of flashes of creative inspiration. Here's a quote from a letter he wrote before his baptism (but describing his feelings at the funeral of Hans von Bulow):



> "It flashed on me like lightning, and everything became clear in my mind! It was the flash that all creative artists wait for -'conceiving by the holy ghost'."


I can't fathom why he would add the "conceiving by the holy ghost" part. It's as if he is using the ready-made paradigm of divine inspiration to underpin creative inspiration.


----------



## Triplets

Woodduck said:


> A shaman is someone with a job to do, a job defined by his culture. That wasn't Mahler's job. He was simply a serious artist of philosophical disposition, some of whose works purport to be about what he considered life's major issues - his own life's, in any case. His issues are determined by his cultural context and personal psychology, and his take on them, far from being universal, may not be yours or mine. Life and death, of course, is the fundamental "issue" for all of us, and he seems to have had quite a preoccupation that eternal struggle. But he's hardly the first artist, or the first composer, to occupy himself with it. Perhaps he expresses his feelings with such intensity that he convinces those temperamentally disposed that he's uniquely profound. Personally, I don't find his work more "sacred" than that of many other composers, and in fact I sense in his mixture of nervosity, stridency, sentimentality and long-windedness a feeling of self-absorption almost unique among composers. I find nothing Buddhist (or quasi-Buddhist) about him.


"Shamans have a job to do". Are they Unionized? And personally, I think the charges of "mixture of nevosity, stridency, sentimentality, and long winded ness...self absorption " is also an apt description of your idol, Wagner.


----------



## millionrainbows

> If that's your definition of a shaman...But let's admit that the things you mention are not the definition of a shaman.


It's not just my personal definition; Marshall McLuhan and Jung have both suggested such an idea of "artist as shaman" or as the "antenna" of society, being aware of the psychic dimension of the times.



> Similarly, you haven't attributed to Mahler anything particularly Buddhist.


Mahler, as is evident from his work, had a "cosmopolitan" outlook on religion, which was becoming more widespread in nineteenth century Europe, due to the overall intellectual climate. Even Beethoven, earlier, had mentioned the Upanishads, which had been translated.



> Lots of people were "interested" in Schopenhauer. Wagner was, and to a greater extent than Mahler. He actually planned a Buddhist opera, and incorporated some Buddhist philosophy into _Parsifal._ Did Mahler do anything comparable? In which work?


I'm speaking generally of a non-deist outlook which departs from orthodox Christianity. You're using overly-specific criteria as a debate strategy. Again, Mahler was very cosmopolitan in his outlook, and probably saw a non-deistic philosophy as appealing, due to his 'standing' in the 'Christian' Viennese environment.

Mahler virtually took over where Wagner left off, and gave it a different spin, not as Germanic, more cosmopolitan. For many of us, including Leonard Bernstein, Mahler has effectively replaced Wagner, with none of the cultural/nationalistic baggage.



> Mahler is a much different artist than Wagner...


I'm more interested in the similarities: large forces, singers within a symphonic context, grandiose themes, in other words, "Wagnerian" characteristics, so that I, like many other listeners here, can "replace" Wagner with Mahler.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> I'm more interested in the similarities: large forces, singers within a symphonic context, grandiose themes, in other words, "Wagnerian" characteristics, so that I, like many other listeners here, can "replace" Wagner with Mahler.


You can replace anyone with anyone if you focus on similarities. But it seems odd to look at two such distinctive composers as interchangeable.


----------



## millionrainbows

amfortas said:


> You can replace anyone with anyone if you focus on similarities. *But it seems odd to look at two such distinctive composers as interchangeable.*


Odd? The similarities are a historical given.

It is common historical knowledge that two "camps" in music existed back then, the Brahms camp and the Wagner camp. Since Mahler fits into the Wagner camp, in that sense they are similar, in the same camp, if not 'interchangeable.' I myself view Mahler as a good substitute for Wagner.

From WIK:
_Gustav Mahler was devoted to Wagner and his music; aged 15, he sought him out on his 1875 visit to Vienna, became a renowned Wagner conductor, and his compositions are seen by Richard Taruskin as extending Wagner's "maximalization" of "the temporal and the sonorous" in music to the world of the symphony.

The "War of the Romantics" is a term used by some music historians to describe the aesthetic schism among prominent musicians in the second half of the 19th century. Musical structure, the limits of chromatic harmony, and program music versus absolute music were the principal areas of contention. The opposing parties crystallized during the 1850s.

The most prominent members of the conservative circle were Johannes Brahms, Joseph Joachim, Clara Schumann, and the Leipzig Conservatoire which had been founded by Felix Mendelssohn.

Their opponents, the radical progressives in Weimar, were represented by Franz Liszt and the members of the so-called New German School ("Neudeutsche Schule"), and by Richard Wagner.
__________________________________________________________________________
_
As you can see from this, Wagner and Mahler were similar; they both sought new forms and more harmonic innovation; both were radical progressives.

Why do You and Woodduck keep asserting the _differences_ between Wagner and Mahler? Are you going to argue with history? This is already established historical fact. 
Are you both afraid that Mahler may have already outdone Wagner at his own game? I suspect so.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> As you can see from this, Wagner and Mahler were similar; they both sought new forms and more harmonic innovation; both were radical progressives.
> Why do You and Woodduck keep asserting the _differences_ between Wagner and Mahler? Are you going to argue with history? This is already established historical fact.
> Are you both afraid that Mahler may have already outdone Wagner at his own game? I suspect so.


I agree that there are some similarities. They both were products of a similar culture, were influenced by these crazy German philosophers. Mahler admired Wagner. But they composed very different music. Wagner composed opera, Mahler composed symphonies. The operas are much more suited to express complex philosophical ideas, because in addition to music, you have also text and you have the visual aspects. There is nothing like that in a symphony. Not so long ago, there was a thread here stating Stravinski's opinion, that music cant express anything. I agree. It cant. So Mahlers attempts to express some kind of spirituality or philosophy through his symphonies are misguided. It cant be done. I am an amateur and can only report, how the music subjectively affects me. I find nothing spiritual in Mahlers music. I find it meandering, long-winded, disconnected, incoherent. But to be fair, Nietzsches philosophical writings are exactly like that. So he did capture the ghost of Nietzsche in his music  I much prefer the music of Holst or the spiritual music of the past to evoke feelings of sacredness in me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> ...But they composed very different music. Wagner composed opera, Mahler composed symphonies. The operas are much more suited to express complex philosophical ideas, because in addition to music, you have also text and you have the visual aspects. There is nothing like that in a symphony...


Apparrently you have not listened to enough Mahler to know that there is singing all through them. There are poems for the Kindertotenlieder, and The Song of the Earth.



> Mahler's attempts to express some kind of spirituality or philosophy through his symphonies are misguided. It cant be done. I am an amateur and can only report, how the music subjectively affects me. I find nothing spiritual in Mahlers music. I find it meandering, long-winded, disconnected, incoherent.


Then why are you telling this in this thread? Are you a troll?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It's not just my personal definition; Marshall McLuhan and Jung have both suggested such an idea of "artist as shaman" or as the "antenna" of society, being aware of the psychic dimension of the times.
> 
> Mahler, as is evident from his work, had a "cosmopolitan" outlook on religion, which was becoming more widespread in nineteenth century Europe, due to the overall intellectual climate. Even Beethoven, earlier, had mentioned the Upanishads, which had been translated.
> 
> I'm speaking generally of a non-deist outlook which departs from orthodox Christianity. You're using overly-specific criteria as a debate strategy. Again, Mahler was very cosmopolitan in his outlook, and probably saw a non-deistic philosophy as appealing, due to his 'standing' in the 'Christian' Viennese environment.
> 
> Mahler virtually took over where Wagner left off, and gave it a different spin, not as Germanic, more cosmopolitan. For many of us, including Leonard Bernstein, Mahler has effectively replaced Wagner, with none of the cultural/nationalistic baggage.
> 
> I'm more interested in the similarities: large forces, singers within a symphonic context, grandiose themes, in other words, "Wagnerian" characteristics, so that I, like many other listeners here, can "replace" Wagner with Mahler.


If I'm "using overly-specific criteria as a debate strategy" (which made me laugh when I read it), perhaps you're using terms too general and vague to pose an actual subject for discussion. You've made not the slightest progress, after two challenges from me and some from others, in supporting the idea that Mahler's work is either shamanistic or Buddhist in any way that means anything. "Speaking generally of a non-deist outlook which departs from orthodox Christianity" leaves rather a lot of territory, does it not? I suspect that the Buddha, upon being informed that that was what his philosophy was about and that some 2ist century American was applying its name to European music written in 1900, would have a hearty laugh and suggest a very long session under the Bodhi tree.

But the basic problem with your vague attributions is that Mahler's work is music, not religion, philosophy, or medicine. Though you can read into music any meanings you wish, those meanings are your personal fancies. Your Mahler is not my Mahler - or, for that matter, Mahler's Mahler.

As for your dragging Wagner into the discussion, you're dragging him in for the wrong reasons. Your statement that "large forces," "singers within a symphonic context," and "grandiose themes" constitute anything so essential to the art of either Wagner or Mahler that you and "many other listeners here" can "replace" Wagner with Mahler only shows that you lack an understanding of one or another of the two. It's the only possible explanation for the fact that someone as intent as you are on looking for meaning in music would appeal to such superficial points of comparison.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If I'm "using overly-specific criteria as a debate strategy" (which made me laugh when I read it), perhaps you're using terms too general and vague to pose an actual subject for discussion.


Okay, if it's too general, then don't involve yourself.



> But the basic problem with your vague attributions is that Mahler's work is music, not religion, philosophy, or medicine.


But if you go back and look past the YouTube video documentary, "What the Universe Tells Me," Mahler intended his 3rd symphony to be more than just music: he was trying to invoke the forces of the universe. Listen to the introduction:

*"Imagine a work so large that it mirrors the entire world." So said Gustav Mahler, a visionary composer who sought to create a new kind of music of such immensity and scope that it could invoke the very forces that created the cosmos.

*


> As for your dragging Wagner into the discussion, you're dragging him in for the wrong reasons. Your statement that "large forces," "singers within a symphonic context," and "grandiose themes" constitute anything so essential to the art of either Wagner or Mahler that you and "many other listeners here" can "replace" Wagner with Mahler only shows that you lack an understanding of one or another of the two. It's the only possible explanation for the fact that someone as intent as you are on looking for meaning in music would appeal to such superficial points of comparison.


Uhh, what were your differences again? That Mahler was frail and nervous? And that he was "less Buddhistic" than Wagner? At least Mahler was not as narcissistic as Wagner, and was a good family man who loved his children.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> Since Mahler fits into the Wagner camp, in that sense they are similar, in the same camp, if not 'interchangeable.' I myself view Mahler as a good substitute for Wagner.


Perhaps you can elaborate. Which Mahler work should I substitute for _Tristan_? For _Die Meistersinger_? For The Ring?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> I find nothing spiritual in Mahlers music. I find it meandering, long-winded, disconnected, *incoherent*.


I'm no great Mahler fan, but this is unmitigated codswallop. The final accusation in that list is *inchoate*. I have the sneaking suspicion that you have only skipped through bits of Mahler and are rendering your lack of time spent listening to Mahler as his shortfall.



Jacck said:


> But to be fair, Nietzsches philosophical writings are exactly like that. So he did capture the ghost of Nietzsche in his music  I much prefer the music of Holst or the spiritual music of the past to evoke feelings of sacredness in me.


This tells me you just don't realise that Nietzsche wrote like a poet and used aphorisms and his often short passages are polysemic; even though they appear straightforward and even pedestrian. They assume at least passing acquaintance with the cultural ideas he incorporates. That's why it's good to read Nietzsche with notes like those of Kaufman whose translation of _Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft _brings the book's excellence to many readers.

I say you must at least have some acquaintance with what you criticise or it reflects very badly on the critic.


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm no great Mahler fan, but this is unmitigated codswallop. The final accusation in that list is *inchoate*. I have the sneaking suspicion that you have only skipped through bits of Mahler and are rendering your lack of time spent listening to Mahler as his shortfall.
> 
> This tells me you just don't realise that Nietzsche wrote like a poet and used aphorisms and his often short passages are polysemic, even though they appear straightforward and even pedestrian. They assume at least passing acquaintance with the cultural ideas he incorporates. That's why it's good to read Nietzsche with notes like those of Kaufman whose translation of his _Die Fröhliche Wissenschaft _brings the book's excellence to many readers.
> 
> I say you must at least have some acquaintance with what you criticise or it reflects very badly on the critic.


it is true that I have not spent that much time with Mahler, but I have listened to each of his symphonies at least once in its entirety. The most times I have listened to the 8th, which I like the most. As an example of why I used the word incoherent, I would point out to the first movement of the 3rd symphony. First there are some solemn sounds of creation (Pan awakens), then come some marches, which sound out of place to me, and then various musical motives. Add to the mix some childhood songs (Des Knaben Wunderhon) and some excerpts from Thus Spoke Zarathusthra and mix it together. His music seems to me like some strange compilation of various influences, that do not fit together, do not build a coherent and logical whole. The military or funeral marches do not fit together with childhood poetry and that does not fit with Nietzsche. I find the comparison of Mahlers music to the stream of consciousness fitting.

Concerning Nietzsche, I read Zarathustra a long time ago, so my remembrance is not that good. But inspired by this thread, I tried reading one of his books today (just excerpts), and it really reads like poetry. He writes a lot of very skillfully worded text, where he uses a lot of metaphors. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't, sometimes I agree partially. I respect his enormous intellect, but I am not that sure, that his philosophy is completely coherent. It is rather a huge collection of various partial insights and aphorisms. Some of them are brilliant and penetrating, other seem a little crackpot to me. I am unsure if he even created a consistent philosphical system. I believe he did not. My own view of his personality and philosophy is, that he was fighting against his own religious upringing his whole life and his philosophy is a rationalization of this unconscious fight. The whole concept of will as used by Schopenhauer and Nietzsche seems very metaphysical and speculative to me

In general, I would say that all 3 - Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Mahler were pretty troubled personalities with a lot of psychological issues and a lot of suffering. Mahler came from many children, but most of them died. He saw a lot of death in his childhood and he associated it with the funeral marches. So this early traumatization could be the cause of his preoccupation with death and the funeral marches etc. I feel actually some compassion for all 3 of them. All 3 struggled intellectually and emotionally and did not have much mental peace or hapiness


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> Mahler is like a "shaman" in a tribal culture


a "priest" won't do? no?.. a "president" maybe?


----------



## Zhdanov

i say mahler was a batman.


----------



## Zhdanov

on the other hand, his name suggests he was a painter... that is, an artist.

the puzzle solved: he was an *artist*.


----------



## KenOC

Zhdanov said:


> on the other hand, his name suggests he was a painter... that is, an artist.
> 
> the puzzle solved: he was an *artist*.


I figured he was a professional wrestler -- you know, Gustav "The Mauler" Mahler...


----------



## Larkenfield

KenOC said:


> I figured he was a professional wrestler -- you know, Gustav "The Mauler" Mahler...


Lol! I'd like to see him in a match with "Freddie Blassie Bruckner" or Ludwig "The Hammer" Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC

Larkenfield said:


> Lol! I'd like to see him in a battle with 'Freddie Blassy' Bruckner or Ludwig "The Hammer" Beethoven.


Yeah...a few rounds with the Bonn Bruiser and poor Gus's body parts might not fit together so well any more!


----------



## millionrainbows

Paraphrased from WIK:

The artist as a shaman has been a trend in modern art (Picasso, Gauguin)... 
Humanity, with its turn on rationality, is trying to eliminate "emotions" and thus eliminate a major source of energy and creativity in every individual...

Humanity is in an evolving state and as "spiritual" beings we ought to draw on both our emotions and our thinking as they represent the total energy and creativity for every individual...

We must seek out and energize our spirituality and link it to our thinking powers so that our vision of the world can be extended to encompass all the invisible energies with which we have lost contact.

If an artist appears as a kind of shamanistic figure, or alludes to it, he is stressing his belief in other priorities and the need to come up with a completely different plan for working with substances. For instance, on the internet, where so often everyone speaks so rationally, it is necessary for a kind of enchanter to appear.

The artist or composer can use his art as shamanistic and psychoanalytic techniques to both educate and heal the general public.

The artist can use shamanistic and psychoanalytic techniques to "manipulate symbols" and affect his audience.

Many times, severe depression or a personal crisis can cause the artist to question everything in life, which could be called a shamanistic initiation.

Shamanism is related to death and the shaman is the mediator between this world and the "Otherworld".

Shamanism does not necessary _have _to refer to death, but vice versa - through shamanism, the artist can refer to the fatal character of the times we live in, but at the same time point out that the fatal character of the present can be overcome in the future.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> on the internet, where so often everyone speaks so rationally, it is necessary for a kind of enchanter to appear.


and get banned soon, yeah?


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> it is true that I have not spent that much time with Mahler, but I have listened to each of his symphonies at least once in its entirety. The most times I have listened to the 8th, which I like the most. As an example of why I used the word incoherent, I would point out to the first movement of the 3rd symphony. First there are some solemn sounds of creation (Pan awakens), then come some marches, which sound out of place to me, and then various musical motives. Add to the mix some childhood songs (Des Knaben Wunderhon) and some excerpts from Thus Spoke Zarathusthra and mix it together. His music seems to me like some strange compilation of various influences, that do not fit together, do not build a coherent and logical whole. The military or funeral marches do not fit together with childhood poetry and that does not fit with Nietzsche. I find the comparison of Mahlers music to the stream of consciousness fitting.


The variety of influences and incongruities in Mahler's music don't necessarily result in incoherence. One listening is not enough. If an antipathy to Mahler's temperament or sound world isn't a hindrance, you should come to understand him better after longer exposure. This isn't to say that all his works are perfect, but debates about that can come after you've heard them enough to see how they make sense.

That said, the third symphony is a bit problematic for me too. Its programmatic ambitions don't mesh well with the idea of symphonic form, and it's really best understood as a multi-movement tone poem. Its later movements are coherent and concise in a way that its first movement is not, but even viewing it indulgently as program music, I think its reach exceeds its grasp. Mahler's ambition to "contain the world" and evoke the forces of creation is surely a prime case of artistic hubris, and anyone may be forgiven for failing to detect in that vulgar and overextended march the coming of spring.

It occurs to me - since millionrainbows wants to compare Mahler with Wagner and suggest that he "replaces" him - that Wagner's musical response to spring is the "Good Friday Spell" from _Parsifal._ Evidently Mahler's "spirituality" wasn't aroused by the burgeoning of new life, while Wagner was moved to compose music of profound pathos, tenderness, and serenity. For what it's worth...


----------



## Larkenfield

His 3rd Symphony was mentioned. I enjoy its great appeal to the imagination. Mahler has the ability to paint pictures in the mind for those who have an equal imagination. The 1st movement is the challenging one, and the one I enjoy the most is Horenstein's renown 3rd with the LSO because he doesn't drop the momentum. It has a lifeforce, an aliveness that ebbs and flows as Mahler goes beyond just telling a story to actually being there at the beginning of creation as an apparent witness. I consider this one of Mahler's most delightful and colorful symphonies, and it's like hearing him paint each brush stroke on an imaginary landscape.

The problem is that it can be a challenge to find a performance that holds together in the 1st movement or it can drag on too long and sound random or fragmented. But in understanding hands, it can be fun and a delight; then later, of course, it becomes more heartfelt, human and soulful.

I consider Mahler just a fantastic orchestrator and he's not praised enough for being able to paint almost anything in his imagination. Sounds just pour out of him. In this symphony, he _is_ creating the world, like going back to the beginning of time to the birth of the first cell with some miraculous _force of life_ shaping everything. The 2nd movement is more whimsical and lighthearted, etc., etc., but still incredibly vivid and he portrays what sounds to me like the play of Nature... Who did something similar? Sibelius!... But for those more literal-minded, they may not get or enjoy the Mahler 3rd.
_
"Imagination is the voice of daring. If there is anything Godlike about God it is that. He dared to imagine everything." -Henry Miller_

_Had I not created my whole world, I would certainly have died in other people's. -Anais Nin_


----------



## Woodduck

The artist as a shaman has been a trend in modern art (Picasso, Gauguin)...

Picasso and Gaughin are shamans? Really?

Humanity, with its turn on rationality, is trying to eliminate "emotions" and thus eliminate a major source of energy and creativity in every individual...

Are "emotions" different from emotions? Who is trying to eliminate either of those things? Is creativity being eliminated? In every individual?

Humanity is in an evolving state and as "spiritual" beings we ought to draw on both our emotions and our thinking as they represent the total energy and creativity for every individual...

Artists have always drawn on both reason and emotion. Humanity isn't "evolving" in the direction of doing that. Humanity is already there. It's human nature.

We must seek out and energize our spirituality and link it to our thinking powers so that our vision of the world can be extended to encompass all the invisible energies with which we have lost contact.

Which particular "energies" have "we" lost contact with? What "we" are you referring to and speaking for?

If an artist appears as a kind of shamanistic figure, or alludes to it, he is stressing his belief in other priorities and the need to come up with a completely different plan for working with substances. For instance, on the internet, where so often everyone speaks so rationally, it is necessary for a kind of enchanter to appear.

Are you that kind of enchanter? Can you tell us how to "work with substances"? What substances? And where do you find an excess of _rationality_ on the internet? I want to go there!

The artist or composer can use his art as shamanistic and psychoanalytic techniques to both educate and heal the general public.

Can you name an artist who has "healed the general public?" Is that "healing" something different from the normal effect of art on people?

The artist can use shamanistic and psychoanalytic techniques to "manipulate symbols" and affect his audience.

What shamanistic and psychoanalytic techniques? Are these different from artistic techniques?

Many times, severe depression or a personal crisis can cause the artist to question everything in life, which could be called a shamanistic initiation.

Why should it be called that? Depression is depression. It's a common obstacle to be got through. Art is difficult; going inside in search of it can be hard on the artist. When it isn't flowing he can feel hopeless. It comes with the territory. It's only an initiation for the beginner: an initiation into the life of art. I know this first hand, and thoroughly. Do you?

Shamanism is related to death and the shaman is the mediator between this world and the "Otherworld".

What "Otherworld"? What things are not part of this world? What does death have to do with it? Is the "artist as shaman" channeling the dead or something?

Shamanism does not necessary _have _to refer to death, but vice versa - through shamanism, the artist can refer to the fatal character of the times we live in, but at the same time point out that the fatal character of the present can be overcome in the future.

What does "fatal character" mean? Are the times we live in more "fatal" than past times? How could they be, if humanity is "evolving"?

But never mind my impertinent questions, which no doubt show that I'm too "specific" and "rational" when I ought to be "spiritual" and "feely." One more question, though: *What does all this have to do with Mahler?*


----------



## Becca

millionrainbows said:


> We must seek out and energize our spirituality and link it to our thinking powers so that our vision of the world can be extended to encompass all the invisible energies with which we have lost contact.


So THAT'S what the missing dark energy in the universe is all about!


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Mahler is just a _fantastic_ orchestrator and he's not praised enough for saying exactly what he wants to vividly say in sound. In this symphony, he _is_ creating the world, like going back to the beginning of time to the birth of the first cell with some miraculous _Force_ shaping everything...But for those who are more literal-minded, they may not get or enjoy the Mahler 3rd.


Mahler's brilliance at orchestration is one aspect of his art that no one questions. He most certainly _is_ praised enough: virtually universally, in fact.

Why do I not think that in the 3rd Symphony Mahler "is" creating the world? Is it that I just don't know what the creation of the world should sound like? Or is it that writing music that sounds like the creation of the world is simply impossible?

Mahler is expressing some feelings that the idea of creation inspires in him. That's all music can do. It's enough, isn't it? It's really rather insulting to say that someone who doesn't sympathize with Mahler's vision of creation - or believe that the world was "created," for that matter - is "literal-minded." It's possible to be quite "poetic-minded" (or whatever) and not enjoy Mahler's particular take on things or the artistic results he achieved. Dislike of an artist's work is not a personal failing.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> So THAT'S what the missing dark energy in the universe is all about!


Now why didn't I think of that? Maybe Mahler is also the key to the Unified Field Theory.


----------



## KenOC

Becca said:


> So THAT'S what the missing dark energy in the universe is all about!


It's clear to me that the artistic (and of course the musical) geniuses draw freely on the dark energy of the universe. Mostly of course the geniuses who write music I like, maybe not so much those others. :tiphat:


----------



## Larkenfield

Shamanism is an ancient healing tradition and moreover, a way of life. It is a way to connect with nature and all of creation. I doubt if Mahler would have had a problem with that but he might not have seen himself as a spiritual authority or accepted the role.


----------



## Larkenfield

And those who were seen
dancing
Were thought to be insane
by those 
who could not hear
the music.

_-Friedrich Nietzsche_


----------



## eugeneonagain

Larkenfield said:


> Shamanism is an ancient healing tradition and moreover, a way of life. It is a way to connect with nature and all of creation. I doubt if Mahler would have had a problem with that but he might not have seen himself as a spiritual authority or accepted the role.


It is astonishing though, isn't it? How carried away people can get with grandiose ideas. A few observations about the shared aspects of humanity: that we are here; that we have similar thoughts and ideas (and thus can empathise with them); that we suffer similarly and attain joy similarly. The observations are noted and then follows fantastic leaps of imagination based upon very little really and they are presented as: universal interpretation, truth, solution, cure and who knows what else.

The "shaman" is a product of this. As is the self-help guru and the "philosophical therapist" and the religious "prophet" and the political demagogue for that matter. Dry inquiry, experiment, informed observation, failed theories, small facts, unpalatable truths....all these are not quite so sexy and not nearly magisterial enough for those who desire the world of the shaman.

Music, being an emotional thing and a matter of taste and something that is perceived differently according to circumstances and experiences, very easily takes on the guise of some sort of 'pure philosophy' reflecting the sum total of everything ineffable. Techniques that once discovered and developed make you forget that they are the result of deliberate thought and a giant aggregate of effort; of accumulated ideas and performance.

I say it in relation to not only Mahler, but also Wagner and all such others claiming music to be some sort of key to enlightenment.


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> and get banned soon, yeah?


No, things are not quite as bad in this forum (yet) as they are in Russia. I'm going to listen to some Shostakovich, now.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Picasso and Gaughin are shamans? Really? Are "emotions" different from emotions? Who is trying to eliminate either of those things? Is creativity being eliminated? In every individual? Artists have always drawn on both reason and emotion. Humanity isn't "evolving" in the direction of doing that. Humanity is already there. It's human nature. Which particular "energies" have "we" lost contact with? What "we" are you referring to and speaking for? Are you that kind of enchanter? Can you tell us how to "work with substances"? What substances? And where do you find an excess of _rationality_ on the internet? I want to go there! Can you name an artist who has "healed the general public?" Is that "healing" something different from the normal effect of art on people? What shamanistic and psychoanalytic techniques? Are these different from artistic techniques? Why should it be called that? Depression is depression. It's a common obstacle to be got through. Art is difficult; going inside in search of it can be hard on the artist. When it isn't flowing he can feel hopeless. It comes with the territory. It's only an initiation for the beginner: an initiation into the life of art. I know this first hand, and thoroughly. Do you? What "Otherworld"? What things are not part of this world? What does death have to do with it? Is the "artist as shaman" channeling the dead or something? What does "fatal character" mean? Are the times we live in more "fatal" than past times? How could they be, if humanity is "evolving"? But never mind my impertinent questions, which no doubt show that I'm too "specific" and "rational" when I ought to be "spiritual" and "feely." One more question, though: *What does all this have to do with Mahler?*


What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? Woodduck's incessant questioning (which reveals little of what _his_ opinion is, only his opposition) sounds like some sort of academic "company line."

I shudder to think how he would be received in France, or in any number of truly artistic environments, with his rational, academic outlook, which is fully-formed by his "Americanism." What would Boulez, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Nadia Boulanger, or any number of true artists have thought, if they had encountered him in studies of composition or art?

Woodduck has an admirable grasp of music theory, and history, but I think his weakest spot is in the area of aesthetics, on the "artistic" side of things.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> It is astonishing though, isn't it? How carried away people can get with grandiose ideas. A few observations about the shared aspects of humanity: that we are here; that we have similar thoughts and ideas (and thus can empathise with them); that we suffer similarly and attain joy similarly. The observations are noted and then follows fantastic leaps of imagination based upon very little really and they are presented as: universal interpretation, truth, solution, cure and who knows what else.
> 
> The "shaman" is a product of this. As is the self-help guru and the "philosophical therapist" and the religious "prophet" and the political demagogue for that matter. Dry inquiry, experiment, informed observation, failed theories, small facts, unpalatable truths....all these are not quite so sexy and not nearly magisterial enough for those who desire the world of the shaman.
> 
> Music, being an emotional thing and a matter of taste and something that is perceived differently according to circumstances and experiences, very easily takes on the guise of some sort of 'pure philosophy' reflecting the sum total of everything ineffable. Techniques that once discovered and developed make you forget that they are the result of deliberate thought and a giant aggregate of effort; of accumulated ideas and performance.
> 
> I say it in relation to not only Mahler, but also Wagner and all such others claiming music to be some sort of key to enlightenment.


So, I take it from this that you are not a believer in the power of music? that you are a rationalist? Good luck with that; how's it working for you so far?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Now why didn't I think of that? Maybe Mahler is also the key to the Unified Field Theory.


Well, just don't forget; there are people in that unified field. On the other hand, maybe Humanity can devise a "unified hydrogen field bomb."

I guess this thread and its responses show the difference between "rationalists" and what I will call "explorers."

"Rationalists" are basically materialists who need scientific proof of things; they are not interested in 'the forgotten language of the soul' or things which involve the human "soul," being, or whatever you want to call human experience, unless it can be expressed in terms of 'data' or is quantifiable in some way, usually by logical explanation. 
They have a problem recognizing that there are still mysteries about Human existence that we can never grasp logically.

They also have a problem recognizing the artistic side of things, and do not see art as a gateway to the unconscious, or as a 'sacred technology' similar to religion; in fact, they are so hostile to religion, as well as anything which 'smells' of the irrational and metaphysical, that they see and use art and music as simply a diversion, or a way of relaxing their mind, which has been working so hard to rationalize their experience and keep their emotions in check.

They do not 'believe' in art any more than they believe in the spiritual dimension. How can you "invest" your soul in music if you don't even recognize the soul as anything more than brain function?

These are the people for whom art and music would have the greatest, most healing, most beneficial effects; but it remains a diversion, a creation of Man, not a 'gateway' into the realm of being, which resides in them.

Perhaps music, with its connection to mathematics, counting, and number, is the way rationalists can 'connect' with the artistic dimension, if only in a purely rational way. 
I wonder, do these people dream? If so, dreams must be a terrifying experience for them, or are written off as nothing.

Maybe KenOC could do a survey, which would show the connection between a decline in interest in religious and spiritual matters with a corresponding decline in interest in "classical" music and art; because it seem that all music has been reduced to being a utilitarian object of dancing, distraction, and entertainment. "God forbid" that music should be used as a 'spiritual technology' to explore the human 'soul.'


----------



## millionrainbows

Consider another "Gustav," Gustav Holst. About his masterpiece "The Planets," we read in WIK:

The concept of the work is *astrological rather than astronomical* (which is why Earth is not included, although Sun and Moon are also not included while including the non-traditional Uranus and Neptune): *each movement is intended to convey ideas and emotions associated with the influence of the planets on the psyche, *not the Roman deities. The idea of the work was suggested to Holst by Clifford Bax, who introduced him to astrology when the two were part of a small group of English artists holidaying in Majorca in the spring of 1913; Holst became quite a devotee of the subject, and would cast his friends' horoscopes for fun. Holst also used Alan Leo's book What is a Horoscope? as a springboard for his own ideas, as well as for the subtitles (e.g., "The Bringer of...") for the movements.

Not very logical, was he?


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> For instance, on the internet, where so often everyone speaks so rationally . . .


Have you read the internet lately?


----------



## millionrainbows

amfortas said:


> Have you read the internet lately?


I've seen a lot of "rationalists" come out of the woodwork in this forum alone, although they call themselves by another name. They crow about it as if they were proud.

But anyway, enough about me; back on point concerning Beethoven:

Beethoven's role as a _Romantic _is the key to understanding his influence. In the so-called "War of the Romantics," both opposing camps (Brahms vs. Liszt & Wagner) freely acknowledged their debt to Beethoven.

The choral part of the Ninth is an appeal to all of Mankind, while by contrast, Bach's Mass in B minor is intended as a vehicle for the Church. Of course Beethoven's recognition of the importance of the individual is going to inspire many more people who are more secular-oriented and "up to date" in our era.

Also, the Romantic aesthetic is _more Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" _than Mozart's very disciplined and Apollonian classical music, as well as Bach's emphasis on Lutheran religion and Catholic ritual.

Romanticism is more "artistic" than Classicism, in that it relates to the individual in a very direct way, like poetry. Romanticism is more in touch with a secular society, which is not as dominated by the Church or royalty. Romanticism is democratic.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> I've seen a lot of "rationalists" come out of the woodwork in this forum alone, although they call themselves by another name.


I would submit that being a "rationalist" does not guarantee you're rational.

At least, not in the political forum I frequent.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? Woodduck's incessant questioning (which reveals little of what _his_ opinion is, only his opposition) sounds like some sort of academic "company line."
> 
> I shudder to think how he would be received in France, or in any number of truly artistic environments, with his rational, academic outlook, which is fully-formed by his "Americanism." What would Boulez, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Nadia Boulanger, or any number of true artists have thought, if they had encountered him in studies of composition or art?
> 
> Woodduck has an admirable grasp of music theory, and history, but I think his weakest spot is in the area of aesthetics, on the "artistic" side of things.


You have it all wrong. I happen to know that Boulez, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Boulanger, and indeed the whole nation of France would read this thread and wonder why you didn't respond more effectively to Woodduck and why you dragged them into your harangue.

France: A truly artistic environment! Stamp out Americanism now! Beat the Hun! Hang the Kaiser!


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> You have it all wrong. I happen to know that Boulez, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Boulanger, and indeed the whole nation of France would read this thread and wonder why you didn't respond more effectively to Woodduck instead of dragging them into in your harangue. France: A truly artistic environment! Stamp out Americanism now! Beat the Hun! Hang the Kaiser!


I disagree with your assessment. I think Americans are much more interested in football than they are in the arts.
I can't "respond effectively" to Woodduck's constant invalidations, which tell us nothing about his position. Of course, his whole philosophy seems to be based on negation, without any assertion of what he actually supports. What is he, a Humanist, a pragmatician, or what?


----------



## MarkW

Oh, I originally read the thread title as "Mahler as Schumann," and had no idea what it could posssibly be about.


----------



## millionrainbows

MarkW said:


> Oh, I originally read the thread title as "Mahler as Schumann," and had no idea what it could posssibly be about.


Ha ha haa, that's very logical!


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> I guess this thread and its responses show the difference between "rationalists" and what I will call "explorers."
> "Rationalists" are basically materialists who need scientific proof of things; they are not interested in 'the forgotten language of the soul' or things which involve the human "soul," being, or whatever you want to call human experience, unless it can be expressed in terms of 'data' or is quantifiable in some way, usually by logical explanation.
> They have a problem recognizing that there are still mysteries about Human existence that we can never grasp logically.
> They also have a problem recognizing the artistic side of things, and do not see art as a gateway to the unconscious, or as a 'sacred technology' similar to religion; in fact, they are so hostile to religion, as well as anything which 'smells' of the irrational and metaphysical, that they see and use art and music as simply a diversion, or a way of relaxing their mind, which has been working so hard to rationalize their experience and keep their emotions in check.
> They do not 'believe' in art any more than they believe in the spiritual dimension. How can you "invest" your soul in music if you don't even recognize the soul as anything more than brain function?
> These are the people for whom art and music would have the greatest, most healing, most beneficial effects; but it remains a diversion, a creation of Man, not a 'gateway' into the realm of being, which resides in them.
> Perhaps music, with its connection to mathematics, counting, and number, is the way rationalists can 'connect' with the artistic dimension, if only in a purely rational way.
> I wonder, do these people dream? If so, dreams must be a terrifying experience for them, or are written off as nothing.
> Maybe KenOC could do a survey, which would show the connection between a decline in interest in religious and spiritual matters with a corresponding decline in interest in "classical" music and art; because it seem that all music has been reduced to being a utilitarian object of dancing, distraction, and entertainment. "God forbid" that music should be used as a 'spiritual technology' to explore the human 'soul.'


Be careful not to wear spiritualism as a badge to decorate your ego.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> Be careful not to wear spiritualism as a badge to decorate your ego.


How about your ego? You're the one who barged in on this thread to tell us all about your personal convictions. "The artist as shaman" is not my personal view, but a widely shared view about artists.


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> Consider another "Gustav," Gustav Holst. About his masterpiece "The Planets," we read in WIK:
> 
> The concept of the work is *astrological rather than astronomical* (which is why Earth is not included, although Sun and Moon are also not included while including the non-traditional Uranus and Neptune): *each movement is intended to convey ideas and emotions associated with the influence of the planets on the psyche, *not the Roman deities. The idea of the work was suggested to Holst by Clifford Bax, who introduced him to astrology when the two were part of a small group of English artists holidaying in Majorca in the spring of 1913; Holst became quite a devotee of the subject, and would cast his friends' horoscopes for fun. Holst also used Alan Leo's book What is a Horoscope? as a springboard for his own ideas, as well as for the subtitles (e.g., "The Bringer of...") for the movements.
> 
> Not very logical, was he?


Actually, _The Planets_ was the result of Holst's interest in Theosophy, quit popular at the time, including with Scriabin. Both Holst and Alan Leo were serious Theosophists, and the study of astrology as a spiritual science has existed for thousands of years and part of Theosophy... The study of planetary influences, including the phases of the moon, are still used in agriculture for planting gardens or crops and in long-term weather prediction. The earth does not exist in a vacuum and such influences have been studied by very sane and scientifically oriented people despite those who consider it a pseudo science.


----------



## Larkenfield

millionrainbows said:


> Consider another "Gustav," Gustav Holst. About his masterpiece "The Planets," we read in WIK:
> 
> The concept of the work is *astrological rather than astronomical* (which is why Earth is not included, although Sun and Moon are also not included while including the non-traditional Uranus and Neptune): *each movement is intended to convey ideas and emotions associated with the influence of the planets on the psyche, *not the Roman deities. The idea of the work was suggested to Holst by Clifford Bax, who introduced him to astrology when the two were part of a small group of English artists holidaying in Majorca in the spring of 1913; Holst became quite a devotee of the subject, and would cast his friends' horoscopes for fun. Holst also used Alan Leo's book What is a Horoscope? as a springboard for his own ideas, as well as for the subtitles (e.g., "The Bringer of...") for the movements.
> 
> Not very logical, was he?


Actually, _The Planets_ was initially the result of Holst's interest in Theosophy, quite popular at the time, including with Scriabin, Sibelius, Cyril Scott, and earlier, Gustav and Alma Mahler. Both Holst and Alan Leo were serious Theosophists, Leo being a very prominent Victorian astrologer, and the study of astrology as a spiritual science had already existed for thousands of years... The interest in planetary influences, including the phases of the moon, are still used in agriculture - the planting of crops and gardens - and in long-term weather prediction. _(The Old Farmer's Almanac in print for 227 consecutive years.)_ The earth does not exist in a vacuum and planetary influences within the solar system have been studied by very sane and scientifically oriented people, despite those who consider it only a pseudoscience.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> Actually, _The Planets_ was the result of Holst's interest in Theosophy, quit popular at the time, including with Scriabin. Both Holst and Alan Leo were serious Theosophists, and the study of astrology as a spiritual science has existed for thousands of years and part of Theosophy. The study of planetary influences, including the phases of the moon, are still used in agriculture for planting gardens or crops and in long-term weather prediction. The earth does not exist in a vacuum and such influences have been studied by very sane and scientifically oriented people despite those who consider it a pseudo science.


It affects my wife, I can tell you that.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> No, things are not quite as bad in this forum (yet) as they are in Russia.


i never got banned as often back home as in these parts of the world.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> How about your ego? You're the one who barged in on this thread to tell us all about your personal convictions. "The artist as shaman" is not my personal view, but a widely shared view about artists.


It must be really cool to have such a unique acess to the marvellous spiritual dimension through the gateway of you unconscious mind. Especially if it gives you this feeling of exclusiveness and uniqueness and a way to elevate yourself over the superficial rationalists. No matter that the rationalists spend years studying mathematics and logic and laws of nature. I am the clever and the special one. They are fools who lack intuition and access to spirituality.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> So, I take it from this that you are not a believer in the power of music? that you are a rationalist? Good luck with that; how's it working for you so far?


What is this, the Spanish Inquisition? Of course I believe art has power. I believe novels can often develop and communicate ideas far better than non-fiction. That poetry, by means of its rhythms and use of words often seems more than the sum of its parts. Which I can revel in whilst also knowing it is the work of a deliberate mind, an artisan if you will. Music too.

What does 'the power of music' actually mean to you? I can't fathom it. In this thread it seems to be little more than a conduit for a rag-bag of religious ideas and a sort of nebulous ontological theory. I'm not and wasn't attacking you, just adding my view to the discussion.

Why must I be ironically wished 'good luck'? It's not a quest I'm on, not one that seeks some path to enlightenment anyway. In that respect the manner in which I encounter music suits me quite well.


----------



## Red Terror

Zhdanov said:


> i never got banned as often back home as in these parts of the world.


Thankfully.
*********


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> i never got banned as often back home as in these parts of the world.


Well, you should consider returning.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> It must be really cool to have such a unique acess to the marvellous spiritual dimension through the gateway of you unconscious mind. Especially if it gives you this feeling of exclusiveness and uniqueness and a way to elevate yourself over the superficial rationalists. No matter that the rationalists spend years studying mathematics and logic and laws of nature. I am the clever and the special one. They are fools who lack intuition and access to spirituality.


Now that you mention it, it does seem that Mankind has been lost in the darkness for a long time, and things don't seem to be getting much better. I think this is because Man is separated from his essential "being."


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows,
you would be surprised, but I consider myself a spiritual person. Yet I do not feel any kinship to the majority of people who profess themselves to be "spiritual". Most of them are just plain self-deluded, lacking in self-reflection and unable to think critically, and they and not much fun to be around them. Here is one who is starting to get it
https://highexistence.com/10-spiritual-bypassing-things-people-total-********/
never ever fight against science, if you do not want to look like a complete fool. True spirituality is not antithetical to science. And for a true spirituality, your intellectual and emotional sides need to be in ballance.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Now that you mention it, it does seem that Mankind has been lost in the darkness for a long time, and things don't seem to be getting much better. I think this is because Man is separated from his essential "being."


What is his "essential being" and how did humankind become separated from it? I have asked this twice before and there seems to be no answer forthcoming.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> What does 'the power of music' actually mean to you? I can't fathom it. In this thread it seems to be little more than a conduit for a rag-bag of religious ideas and a sort of nebulous ontological theory. I'm not and wasn't attacking you, just adding my view to the discussion.


It sounds like you're gearing up for it.



> It's not a quest I'm on, not one that seeks some path to enlightenment anyway. In that respect the manner in which I encounter music suits me quite well.




It seems to me, though, that if you were truly content and self-contained, that you wouldn't appear on this thread and engage in conflict; rather, if you were truly content, you would tend to lose interest in conflict of any sort.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> What is his "essential being" and how did humankind become separated from it? I have asked this twice before and there seems to be no answer forthcoming.


It might be easier to define what Man's "essential being" is _not:_ it's not a product of his mind, or of thinking.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> Well, you should consider returning.


well i've never left.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Jacck said:


> millionrainbows,
> True spirituality is not antithetical to science. And for a true spirituality, your intellectual and emotional sides need to be in ballance.


So you've said before, but even the name 'true spirituality' reeks of the same 'personal spirituality' professed by every man and his dog. What is so special that separates it from all the others?

Moreover... why do you think there needs to be some sort of spirituality compatible with and complementary to science? It's doing fine as science.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> millionrainbows,
> you would be surprised, but I consider myself a spiritual person. Yet I do not feel any kinship to the majority of people who profess themselves to be "spiritual". Most of them are just plain self-deluded, lacking in self-reflection and unable to think critically, and they and not much fun to be around them. Here is one who is starting to get it
> https://highexistence.com/10-spiritual-bypassing-things-people-total-********/
> *never ever fight against science,* if you do not want to look like a complete fool. True spirituality is not antithetical to science. And for a true spirituality, your intellectual and emotional sides need to be in ballance.


Jacck, I would like to substitute the word "science" with "reality." Spirituality should be all about reality. The problems come when the mind, i.e. the thinking process, becomes identified with what it thinks is "reality." This has nothing to do with our essential "being."


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> It might be easier to define what Man's "essential being" is _not:_ it's not a product of his mind, or of thinking.


Well what is it then? And how do you know that it is not a product of his thinking. In what way is Sartre's 'existence precedes essence' (the latter of which is then _manmade_) wrong?

You have him in your signature quotes, but I don't think you appreciate his view is the polar opposite of yours...unless I have misinterpreted something. But then, I have very little to go on, because you are not forthcoming.


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> well i've never left.


We could start a "go fund me" page.


----------



## EdwardBast

millionrainbows said:


> It might be easier to define what Man's "essential being" is _not:_ it's not a product of his mind, or of thinking.


Well yours clearly isn't. Not sure who canonized you to speak for the rest of us though.


----------



## millionrainbows

I know you're not addressing me, but I'm going to answer, Eugene. (careful with that axe)



eugeneonagain said:


> So you've said before, but even the name 'true spirituality' reeks of the same 'personal spirituality' professed by every man and his dog. What is so special that separates it from all the others?


Nothing. We all share this essential being.



> Moreover... why do you think there needs to be some sort of spirituality compatible with and complementary to science? It's doing fine as science.


It is compatible. The problem arises when science becomes an end in itself, just like any other mind-construct: a political idea, any sort of "attachment" to an idea which becomes an end in itself. Look at all the damage that an idea like "Communism" caused, or Fascism, or racism, or consumerism, if it is not placed in the proper perspective.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Well what is it then? And how do you know that it is not a product of his thinking. In what way is Sartre's 'existence precedes essence' (the latter of which is then _manmade_) wrong?


I'm not sure about this, but I would think that by 'existence' Sartre is referring to what I am calling "being," and that by "essence" he means identity, i.e., who we "think" we are.



> You have him in your signature quotes, but I don't think you appreciate his view is the polar opposite of yours...unless I have misinterpreted something. But then, I have very little to go on, because you are not forthcoming.


Well, I've read his book "Saint Genet," and I think I have an elementary grasp of what he's saying. Genet was "identity-branded" as a thief at a young age, and this caused him to eventually end up in prison; but he was a very talented and brilliant writer.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> It is compatible. The problem arises when science becomes an end in itself, just like any other mind-construct: a political idea, any sort of "attachment" to an idea which becomes an end in itself. Look at all the damage that an idea like "Communism" caused, or Fascism, or racism, or consumerism, if it is not placed in the proper perspective.


Or capitalism or religion-ism or even spiritualism. All things to excess - or interpreted in a vulgar way - are likely not ideal. I don't even think the position science holds in the public mind is the one you are suggesting. The number of people who who display 'magical thinking' far outweighs the number who approach science as 'end in itself' and to be quite frank I don't think scientists operate like that. It is an open-ended enquiry, not closed and it is only the astonishing and widespread power of its results from its application, that gives the impression that it is some sort of intellectual dictatorship.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> Look at all the damage that an idea like "Communism" caused, or Fascism, or racism, or consumerism, if it is not placed in the proper perspective.


I'm trying to think of a "proper," non-damaging perspective for Fascism or racism.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I'm not sure about this, but I would think that by 'existence' Sartre is referring to what I am calling "being," and that by "essence" he means identity, i.e., who we "think" we are.


His position is that existence is a given, that you 'are', not that existing is a moral value or points to a special original state of humanity beyond just actually 'being'. His is a far simpler view than that of Heidegger.



millionrainbows said:


> Well, I've read his book "Saint Genet," and I think I have an elementary grasp of what he's saying. Genet was "identity-branded" as a thief at a young age, and this caused him to eventually end up in prison; but he was a very talented and brilliant writer.


A good book. That is surely his notion of people creating their identities as 'essence'. It is rather in the tradition of Rousseau's notion of a blank slate, informing both the American revolution and the French.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Or capitalism or religion-ism or even spiritualism. All things to excess - or interpreted in a vulgar way - are likely not ideal. I don't even think the position science holds in the public mind is the one you are suggesting. The number of people who who display 'magical thinking' far outweighs the number who approach science as 'end in itself' and to be quite frank I don't think scientists operate like that. It is an open-ended enquiry, not closed and it is only the astonishing and widespread power of its results from its application, that gives the impression that it is some sort of intellectual dictatorship.


Well, what I mean is that science is based on proof; identity is not, nor are all the other metaphysical aspects of human existence.

If you cut open my brain, you would find no soul in there. That does not mean that "there is no soul."

In fact, even the most basic facts of our human experience is "invisible" to others. You can't "prove" that you exist as a consciousness to me; your experience will forever be invisible to me. This may seem simplistic, but think about it: science is "objective", but our consciousness is totally subjective, to the point that it remains invisible to others, impenetrable.
R.D. Laing once said, "Experience is Man's invisibility to Man."


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> If you cut open my brain, you would find no soul in there. That does not mean that "there is no soul."


It also doesn't really mean there is a "soul". It merely indicates that the operations of your brain are not observable as and how they take place.



millionrainbows said:


> In fact, even the most basic facts of our human experience is "invisible" to others. You can't "prove" that you exist as a consciousness to me; your experience will forever be invisible to me. This may seem simplistic, but think about it: science is "objective", but our consciousness is totally subjective, to the point that it remains invisible to others, impenetrable.
> R.D. Laing once said, "Experience is Man's invisibility to Man."


Well this is an old problem, the problem of _dis_proving solipsism. Which you only really need to reject for yourself because if it is true there is no-one else to convince. My _particular _experience is invisible to you, but we are all generally so alike or fall into types, that we have the ability to recognise our experience in others and theirs in us. Simple empathy. We have developed the ability to communicate our feelings enough to understand that we are not as unique as we might think.


----------



## millionrainbows

amfortas said:


> I'm trying to think of a "proper," non-damaging perspective for Fascism or racism.


Well to defend this, I will say that the National Socialists (fascists) probably thought they were doing the right thing, but in retrospect, we see their error. With racism, it does exist, and we are all guilty of it, are we not? If placed in perspective, it's what we do about it, and how we handle it in ourselves, that is important.

BTW, to get this, you must accept the fact that we are all racists as a_ given._


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> It also doesn't really mean there is a "soul". It merely indicates that the operations of your brain are not observable as and how they take place.
> 
> Well this is an old problem, the problem of _dis_proving solipsism. Which you only really need to reject for yourself because if it is true there is no-one else to convince. My _particular _experience is invisible to you, but we are all generally so alike or fall into types, that we have the ability to recognise our experience in others and theirs in us. Simple empathy. We have developed the ability to communicate our feelings enough to understand that we are not as unique as we might think.


Yes, but this is by inference. The other's experience is still invisible to us. The only thing we have is empathy and compassion, which are intentions and actions that _we_ control.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but this is by inference. The other's experience is still invisible to us. The only thing we have is empathy and compassion, which are intentions and actions that _we_ control.


And it's all we've got. I don't think it's a major worry that people can keep their thoughts and experiences private. It' probably a good thing.

I must confess that I don't quite see how this all ties in with Mahler as a 'shaman'. Is it the claim that his music is a universal language speaking some sort of universal truth to the multitudes? Going by the observation that our experiences (of everything) are locked into our heads I can't see how this succeeds.


----------



## Zhdanov

millionrainbows said:


> We could start a "go fund me" page.


you need be funded? why?


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> If you cut open my brain, you would find no soul in there. That does not mean that "there is no soul."


I consider myself spiritual, yet I do not believe in a soul. A soul is just an idea created by thought to give continuity to itself. You are afraid of death, of impermanency and so you imagine, that you have a sou, that is permanentl, that will carry your personality to the next life or to the heaven or to a future reincarnation. The idea of soul is the product of the fear of death. It is an illusion. The whole "me" (ego) is impermanent and created by thought. It has no reality and does not survive death. It is just a bunch of memories and conditionings perpetuating itself through thought. There is no reincarnation, for what would be incarnating? Does this mean materalism? No, it it does not, because materialism is again a concept created by the mind. What matters is finding peace and harmony within yourself and you can do that only through thorough self-knowledge, when you confront and solve all you emotional and psychological problems and all your suffering and fear. Any spirituality, that is an escape from suffering and conflict, is an illusion. God cannot be thought about, because any mental image of God means, that you place the God external to youself and thus seperate yourself from him. Only a mind, that is truly at peace with itself, is living in God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

so as a neuroscientist myself, my spirituality is in no conflict with our knowledge of the brain. The ego, the me, is the product of the brain, of thought, of memory. If the brain is damaged or dies, so does the ego. Nothing survives. Yet I believe in immortality. 
https://jkrishnamurti.org/content/death-immortality


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> And it's all we've got. I don't think it's a major worry that people can keep their thoughts and experiences private. It' probably a good thing.
> 
> I must confess that I don't quite see how this all ties in with Mahler as a 'shaman'. Is it the claim that his music is a universal language speaking some sort of universal truth to the multitudes? Going by the observation that our experiences (of everything) are locked into our heads I can't see how this succeeds.


Look at Mahler's music as the ultimate gift of compassion. Yes, art is the "forgotten language of the soul."


----------



## millionrainbows

Zhdanov said:


> you need be funded? why?


Dang these mosquitos! SLAP!


----------



## Jacck

eugeneonagain said:


> And it's all we've got. I don't think it's a major worry that people can keep their thoughts and experiences private. It' probably a good thing.
> 
> I must confess that I don't quite see how this all ties in with Mahler as a 'shaman'. Is it the claim that his music is a universal language speaking some sort of universal truth to the multitudes? Going by the observation that our experiences (of everything) are locked into our heads I can't see how this succeeds.


I guess that rainbows is influenced by Jung. The idea of the artist as a shaman comes probably from him. And Jung himself was probably an interesting patient
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/side-effects/201005/carl-jungs-frightening-demons


----------



## Granate

If I didn't have masters' coursework and Schubert historical symphony recordings to search... I would gladly read this unexpectedly expanded thread. Well done, whatever happened here.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> What is this? The Spanish Inquisition? Woodduck's incessant questioning (which reveals little of what _his_ opinion is, only his opposition) sounds like some sort of academic "company line."
> 
> I shudder to think how he would be received in France, or in any number of truly artistic environments, with his rational, academic outlook, which is fully-formed by his "Americanism." What would Boulez, Messiaen, Stockhausen, Nadia Boulanger, or any number of true artists have thought, if they had encountered him in studies of composition or art?
> 
> Woodduck has an admirable grasp of music theory, and history, but I think his weakest spot is in the area of aesthetics, on the "artistic" side of things.


Not the Spanish Inquisition, but an inquiry into pretentious horse pucky.

A question of procedure, and of manners: shall we all start referring to each other in the third person now? What are we really doing when we do that? Pleading with people as befogged as ourselves to take our side in a debate we haven't the wit to win?

"Woodduck," third-person Mr. Rainbows should be aware, not only understands art, but has come by his understanding in the most direct way: he has practiced the musical, visual and verbal arts since he could hold a crayon and carry a tune - nigh on to seventy years now - and rather successfully too, if the collectors of his paintings and drawings, the churches who have paid for his singing and organ-playing, and the ballet companies who have benefitted from his pianistic creativity are to be consulted. But unlike some who call themselves "artists," Woodduck has never believed that the artist's deep dive into those layers of the soul which art can bring to light, and which can bring light to others, requires the artist to abandon the uniquely human faculty of reason. In fact, he believes that just as it's wrong to clutter concert halls and art galleries with cheap, poorly-composed music and paintings, it's wrong to clutter bookshelves and internet forums with cheap, poorly conceived ideas. And he believes that the highest purpose of debate is to clear the air of the mental fog such bad ideas produce so that we can breathe unobstructed the clear air of reason.

No ideas are cheaper and more poorly conceived, and more productive of mental fog, than the half-baked pretentions of aesthetes and religionists.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Many years ago I was once called an 'aesthete' by someone because I dipped bread into olive oil.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Many years ago I was once called an 'aesthete' by someone because I dipped bread into olive oil.


I gather that Europe is full of aesthetes of your stripe. Culinary aesthetes are the best kind.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Not the Spanish Inquisition, but an inquiry into pretentious horse pucky.
> 
> A question of procedure, and of manners: shall we all start referring to each other in the third person now? What are we really doing when we do that? Pleading with people as befogged as ourselves to take our side in a debate we haven't the wit to win?
> 
> "Woodduck," third-person Mr. Rainbows should be aware, not only understands art, but has come by his understanding in the most direct way: he has practiced the musical, visual and verbal arts since he could hold a crayon and carry a tune - nigh on to seventy years now - and rather successfully too, if the collectors of his paintings and drawings, the churches who have paid for his singing and organ-playing, and the ballet companies who have benefitted from his pianistic creativity are to be consulted. But unlike some who call themselves "artists," Woodduck has never believed that the artist's deep dive into those layers of the soul which art can bring to light, and which can bring light to others, requires the artist to abandon the uniquely human faculty of reason. In fact, he believes that just as it's wrong to clutter concert halls and art galleries with cheap, poorly-composed music and paintings, it's wrong to clutter bookshelves and internet forums with cheap, poorly conceived ideas. And he believes that the highest purpose of debate is to clear the air of the mental fog such bad ideas produce so that we can breathe unobstructed the clear air of reason.
> 
> No ideas are cheaper and more poorly conceived, and more productive of mental fog, than the half-baked pretentions of aesthetes and religionists.


All of this is simply invalidation. You're not specific about exactly what it is you disagree with or why. Until you are, your responses will continue to appear like personal grudges, not intellectual discourse about ideas. We know you like Wagner, but that's about it. You see yourself as a "clean-up" man for rationality. This sounds like hubris to me, probably of the academic variety. I'm just thankful that you never ran into Philip Glass and insulted him.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Many years ago I was once called an 'aesthete' by someone because I dipped bread into olive oil.


Where was this, at the Olive Garden during the "all-you-can-eat" pasta special?


----------



## SONNET CLV

eugeneonagain said:


> Many years ago I was once called an 'aesthete' by someone because I dipped bread into olive oil.


Next time you dine with this person, dip your bread into motor oil. I'm sure that will modify the person's opinion of you.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> All of this is simply invalidation. You're not specific about exactly what it is you disagree with or why. Until you are, your responses will continue to appear like personal grudges, not intellectual discourse about ideas. We know you like Wagner, but that's about it. You see yourself as a "clean-up" man for rationality. This sounds like hubris to me, probably of the academic variety. I'm just thankful that you never ran into Philip Glass and insulted him.


You made assertions about Mahler. You called him a shaman and a quasi-Buddhist. If these are anything but foggy associations masquerading as profundities, nothing you've said gives any evidence of it. When challenged on your terms you wiggle and wobble and accuse me of being "too specific" - not surprising, since you fail to answer any of my specific objections to a position so full of inaccuracy and vagueness.

You've also made statements about me ("Woodduck has an admirable grasp of music theory, and history, but I think his weakest spot is in the area of aesthetics, on the 'artistic' side of things") which are if anything more off-the-wall than your statements about Mahler. So who is invalidating whom?

Naturally you're going to feel invalidated if your assertions have little validity to begin with.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck, I request that you save your fire for a more difficult target.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I'm just thankful that you never ran into Philip Glass and insulted him.


That would indeed have been shattering.


----------



## Enthusiast

Another long thread of to-ing and fro-ing between Woodduck and millionrainbows, as they bate each other for our amusement. I am probably reading it wrongly but is rainbows really saying anything more than that music and musicians play a role within our societies that is not wholly dissimilar to the role of shamans in primitive cultures? And, if that is the case, what is wrong with his assertion? I ask because I don't think it got discussed, not because I am convinced by it. The problem surely isn't that the rationalism of his premise is in question - after all shamanism does/did exist and can be studied and understood (albeit ideally without recourse to extreme reductionism) - although once bated he tends to bate back his tormentors? Meanwhile, we lose what might have been an interesting discussion about what music does for us and why so many of us are drawn to it and the roles that musicians play in our cultural and spiritual lives and so on.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> Another long thread of to-ing and fro-ing between Woodduck and millionrainbows, as they *bate* each other for our amusement. I am probably reading it wrongly but is rainbows really saying anything more than that music and musicians play a role within our societies that is not wholly dissimilar to the role of shamans in primitive cultures? And, if that is the case, what is wrong with his assertion? I ask because I don't think it got discussed, not because I am convinced by it. The problem surely isn't that the rationalism of his premise is in question - after all shamanism does/did exist and can be studied and understood (albeit ideally without recourse to extreme reductionism) - although once *bated* he tends to *bate* back his tormentors? Meanwhile, we lose what might have been an interesting discussion about what music does for us and why so many of us are drawn to it and the roles that musicians play in our cultural and spiritual lives and so on.


No, 'bait'.

Selective reading I think. If you have really read the entire thread, you'll see I asked a lot of pertinent questions without quarrelling. There is a disconnect between the ideas of the nature of existence and how humanity 'is' and the supposed function of music in 'rebalancing' some implied loss of balance.

That is what is wrong with the assertion and as such I don't find it particularly rational or reasonable as an argument.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Another long thread of to-ing and fro-ing between Woodduck and millionrainbows, as they bate each other for our amusement. I am probably reading it wrongly but is *rainbows really saying anything more than that music and musicians play a role within our societies that is not wholly dissimilar to the role of shamans in primitive cultures? And, if that is the case, what is wrong with his assertion?* I ask because I don't think it got discussed, not because I am convinced by it. The problem surely isn't that the rationalism of his premise is in question - after all shamanism does/did exist and can be studied and understood (albeit ideally without recourse to extreme reductionism) - although once bated he tends to bate back his tormentors? Meanwhile, we lose what might have been an interesting discussion about what music does for us and why so many of us are drawn to it and the roles that musicians play in our cultural and spiritual lives and so on.


I can tell you, having visited primitive cultures in various parts of the world, musicians in our society play a very different role to shamans or witch doctors.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> No, 'bait'.
> 
> Selective reading I think. If you have really read the entire thread, you'll see I asked a lot of pertinent questions without quarrelling. There is a disconnect between the ideas of the nature of existence and how humanity 'is' and the supposed function of music in 'rebalancing' some implied loss of balance.
> 
> That is what is wrong with the assertion and as such I don't find it particularly rational or reasonable as an argument.


Yes, I did see that. But I could not find it in the overall discussion. So much reminded me of an argument that occurred in a lecture in my Anthropology 101 course where the poor lecturer was trying to tell us about beliefs in and practices of witchcraft in various societies and a couple of students wouldn't let her "because witchcraft doesn't work".


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> I can tell you, having visited primitive cultures in various parts of the world, musicians in our society play a very different role to shamans or witch doctors.


OK. But I also have traveled widely and, indeed, lived in a wide variety of African and Asian countries for some 30 years. I don't think we would expect musicians in highly complex modern societies and nations to play identical roles to those played by shamans in tribal societies as such. But you do have to ask how shamanism worked/works - often the power of music was/is harnessed - and what happens to the primitive needs that shamanism exploits or responds to. There are tribal (and more sophisticated) cultures where music - or some forms of music - plays mostly a religious/magical role, sometimes leading to trance like states. But what might matter more in this discussion is how we deal with any more primitive needs we might have that were once addressed by shamanism. Some might have become religion but is it really beyond possibility that music plays roles here?

I also think we might broaden our understanding of what sort of music might be involved here. Jazz, rock, blues as well as a very wide variety of composed classical music.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> OK. But I also have traveled widely and, indeed, lived in a wide variety of African and Asian countries for some 30 years. I don't think we would expect musicians in highly complex modern societies and nations to play identical roles to those played by shamans in tribal societies as such. But you do have to ask how shamanism worked/works - often the power of music was/is harnessed - and what happens to the primitive needs that shamanism exploits or responds to. There are tribal (and more sophisticated) cultures where music - or some forms of music - plays mostly a religious/magical role, sometimes leading to trance like states. But what might matter more in this discussion is how we deal with any more primitive needs we might have that were once addressed by shamanism. Some might have become religion but is it really beyond possibility that music plays roles here?
> 
> I also think we might broaden our understanding of what sort of music might be involved here. Jazz, rock, blues as well as a very wide variety of composed classical music.


I visited some actual shamas too, in Africa (some ethnotourism projects among the Maasai and other tribes) and their function is different from artists. Most of these tribes believe in animism and the goal of the shaman/healer is to banish the evil spirits (causing disease, misfortune etc) and get help from the good spirits. Many of these shamans use psychedelic substances




I tried some of those too, so I know why they believe that they offer a gateway to the spiritual realms
I personally see no connection between music and spirituality whatsoever. Although I listen to church music, I just enjoy the music, it does not transport me to any spiritual realms

On a more general level, there is the question if people do have some spiritual needs, and if those needs are not frustrated in our current society, and what channels people use to satisfy their thirst for spirituality. Art might play this role for some people, for example for millionrainbows or for Mahler. Other people can find spirituality in science and in the laws of nature (for example Einstein), other people are religious in terms of the traditional religions (Christianity) or seek eastern religions. Behind all of this is a thirst for self-transcendence


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You made assertions about Mahler. You called him a shaman and a quasi-Buddhist. If these are anything but foggy associations masquerading as profundities, nothing you've said gives any evidence of it.


Yes, I've made some general statements (which you call "foggy"), but I've backed-up the "Mahler as Shaman" idea with material from WIK, and references to Marshall McLuhan.

Your counter-assertions are basically without content; they are so targeted at invalidating my ideas that they come across as just empty bullying. You're an academic; you need to make a more coherent, less emotionally-based case.



> When challenged on your terms you wiggle and wobble and accuse me of being "too specific" - not surprising, since you fail to answer any of my specific objections to a position so full of inaccuracy and vagueness.


Well, I am making general statements (you call this being "vague") which are general by nature; why should I have to "prove" to you ideas which are speculative explorations of art and music, and aesthetics? This is art, not science.



> You've also made statements about me ("Woodduck has an admirable grasp of music theory, and history, but I think his weakest spot is in the area of aesthetics, on the 'artistic' side of things") which are if anything more off-the-wall than your statements about Mahler. So who is invalidating whom?


You have invalidated me many times, in many worse ways.



> Naturally you're going to feel invalidated if your assertions have little validity to begin with.


Here's specific: You haven't proven that the idea of "the artist as shaman" is invalid, when in fact the material is on WIK, which I merely pulled-down for convenience. I have been aware of "the artist as shaman" since I read Marshall McLuhan back in the early 1970s, when I was listening to The Doors.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> I can tell you, having visited primitive cultures in various parts of the world, musicians in our society play a very different role to shamans or witch doctors.


Jim Morrison of The Doors would have disagreed. He was well aware of the power of music to move crowds. See Elias Cannetti's "Crowds and Power."





[COLOR=#111111 !important]Crowds and Powerhttps://www.amazon.com/Crowds-Power...s=elias+canetti&qid=1551267969&s=books&sr=1-1by Elias Canetti and Carol Stewart

[/COLOR]


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> Jim Morrison of The Doors would have disagreed. He was well aware of the power of music to move crowds. ]


For goodness sake, I was not talking about the power of music to move crowds. I doubt whether Morrison was talking about the same issues as I was anyway.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> For goodness sake, I was not talking about the power of music to move crowds. I doubt whether Morrison was talking about the same issues as I was anyway.


But you did say "...musicians in our society play a very different role to shamans or witch doctors" and I don't think this applies in Jim Morrison's case. BTW, I mentioned nothing about "witch doctors." 
Goodness gracious!


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> I visited some actual shamas too, in Africa (some ethnotourism projects among the Maasai and other tribes) and their function is different from artists. Most of these tribes believe in animism and the goal of the shaman/healer is to banish the evil spirits (causing disease, misfortune etc) and get help from the good spirits. Many of these shamans use psychedelic substances
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried some of those too, so I know why they believe that they offer a gateway to the spiritual realms
> I personally see no connection between music and spirituality whatsoever. Although I listen to church music, I just enjoy the music, it does not transport me to any spiritual realms
> 
> On a more general level, there is the question if people do have some spiritual needs, and if those needs are not frustrated in our current society, and what channels people use to satisfy their thirst for spirituality. Art might play this role for some people, for example for millionrainbows or for Mahler. Other people can find spirituality in science and in the laws of nature (for example Einstein), other people are religious in terms of the traditional religions (Christianity) or seek eastern religions. Behind all of this is a thirst for self-transcendence


I think if you read what I have written again, Jacck, you will see that I am not thinking that shamans and artists have the same function. Clearly they don't but artists are found in more complex and sophisticated societies and are likely to have "taken on" - or at least "to cover" - some of the functions of shamans in more simple and "primitive" societies. If you take the case of very early art - cave paintings by early stone age man, for example - it seems to be true art (some of it is very fine) but it also seems that it probably played roles that we would call magical. As for hallucinogens, I referred to musically induced trance in my post and hallucinogens are just another way. But, indeed, some do have very extreme effects. Did you try mixing them with music? But without such substances _*music changes my moods quite strongly *_... and some composers do so more than others.

Can you really boil down what shamans and witch doctors do to mere spiritual needs? Or, rather, what are the factors that make up spiritual needs? At a community level, spiritual practices bring communities together, "exorcise" bad feelings that are going around as well as addressing uncertainties and difficulties. In some cultures this is a healing process while in others it leads to witch hunts. At a personal level, addressing spiritual needs might also do much to motivate people and help them to make sense of the world. And so on. In a "primitive" setting it probably makes little sense to separate the spiritual from the mundane. In a less magical and more complex world music might play a role in addressing some of what we once thought of as spiritual needs.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Here's specific: You haven't proven that the idea of "the artist as shaman" is invalid, when in fact the material is on WIK, which I merely pulled-down for convenience. I have been aware of "the artist as shaman" since I read Marshall McLuhan back in the early 1970s, when I was listening to The Doors.


The idea of "the artist as shaman" is an idea or a concept and, as such, validity does not need to be proven or disproven. However, as with any concept, it can be disagreed with as being relevant. Anyway, the fact that the material is on WIK or in a Marshall McLuhan book may support the concept, but doesn't 'prove' validity.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Another long thread of to-ing and fro-ing between Woodduck and millionrainbows, as they bate each other for our amusement. I am probably reading it wrongly but *is rainbows really saying anything more than that music and musicians play a role within our societies that is not wholly dissimilar to the role of shamans in primitive cultures? *And, if that is the case, what is wrong with his assertion?...
> 
> Meanwhile, we lose what might have been an interesting discussion about what music does for us and why so many of us are drawn to it and the roles that musicians play in our cultural and spiritual lives and so on.


Let's be clear about what's going on here. The OP said:

_"it's tempting to see Mahler as a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist."
_
_"by the Third he is pondering the great questions of existence."_

_"He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to 'wake us up,' almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a 'sacred technology' to further our spiritual awareness."_

_"In this sense, Mahler is like a 'shaman' in a tribal culture, acting as our artistic guide into the deeper regions of our existence."_

My response was:

"A shaman is someone with a job to do, a job defined by his culture. That wasn't Mahler's job. He was simply a serious artist of philosophical disposition, some of whose works purport to be about what he considered life's major issues - his own life's, in any case. His issues are determined by his cultural context and personal psychology, and his take on them, far from being universal, may not be yours or mine. Life and death, of course, is the fundamental 'issue' for all of us, and he seems to have had quite a preoccupation that eternal struggle. But he's hardly the first artist, or the first composer, to occupy himself with it. Perhaps he expresses his feelings with such intensity that he convinces those temperamentally disposed that he's uniquely profound. Personally, I don't find his work more 'sacred' than that of many other composers, and in fact I sense in his mixture of nervosity, stridency, sentimentality and long-windedness a feeling of self-absorption almost unique among composers. I find nothing Buddhist (or quasi-Buddhist) about him."

I invite you to look at millionrainbows' response to this in post #16.

What is "a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist"? Is that anything meaningful? Why is it "tempting" to view Mahler as one of whatever that is? In what way does Mahler's 3rd "ponder the great questions of existence"? Can a symphony do that? Can music do that? Innumerable works of art are intended by their creators to be "more than entertaining." Why is this remarkable? Why is it necessary to evoke shamanism to describe the function of art? Why is any of this specific to Mahler? Does Mahler's music do anything for people in his culture that shamans do for people in their cultures?

Such questioning is not "baiting." If millionrainbows has to respond to probing questions with personal characterizations of me such as are found in his responses not only to me but to others ("Woodduck is this, Woodduck thinks that"), I am not responsible for it.

Assertions posted on internet forums are subject to challenge and discussion. That's what I've done. If you want to take the discussion in a direction of your choosing, I can't and wouldn't want to prevent you. Go for it, and drop this nonsense about "losing an interesting discussion."


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Go for it, and drop this nonsense about "losing an interesting discussion."


I'm going to have to second this view. The premise (or premises) of the thread is so undefined or ill-defined as to prevent meaningful discussion.

I'm sure millionrainbows knows what he knows for himself, but I'm having a hard time recognising anything that can be pinned-down. As such it looks a lot like quasi-religious, quasi-philosophical special pleading.

In my time I've met enough people who, though in need of what religion offers, are not content with simple religion, because they know it is full of holes and inconsistencies and it insults their and our intelligence. The solution always seems to be the creation of some special, personal religion with whatever name. These uber-pantheists seem able to find 'spirituality' in everything from the Missa Solemnis to a skinny latte, and everything in-between.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Let's be clear about what's going on here. The OP said:
> 
> _"it's tempting to see Mahler as a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist."
> _
> _"by the Third he is pondering the great questions of existence."_
> 
> _"He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to 'wake us up,' almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a 'sacred technology' to further our spiritual awareness."_
> 
> _"In this sense, Mahler is like a 'shaman' in a tribal culture, acting as our artistic guide into the deeper regions of our existence."_
> 
> My response was:
> 
> "A shaman is someone with a job to do, a job defined by his culture. That wasn't Mahler's job. He was simply a serious artist of philosophical disposition, some of whose works purport to be about what he considered life's major issues - his own life's, in any case. His issues are determined by his cultural context and personal psychology, and his take on them, far from being universal, may not be yours or mine. Life and death, of course, is the fundamental 'issue' for all of us, and he seems to have had quite a preoccupation that eternal struggle. But he's hardly the first artist, or the first composer, to occupy himself with it. Perhaps he expresses his feelings with such intensity that he convinces those temperamentally disposed that he's uniquely profound. Personally, I don't find his work more 'sacred' than that of many other composers, and in fact I sense in his mixture of nervosity, stridency, sentimentality and long-windedness a feeling of self-absorption almost unique among composers. I find nothing Buddhist (or quasi-Buddhist) about him."
> 
> I invite you to look at millionrainbows' response to this in post #16.
> 
> What is "a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist"? Is that anything meaningful? Why is it "tempting" to view Mahler as one of whatever that is? In what way does Mahler's 3rd "ponder the great questions of existence"? Can a symphony do that? Can music do that? Innumerable works of art are intended by their creators to be "more than entertaining." Why is this remarkable? Why is it necessary to evoke shamanism to describe the function of art? Why is any of this specific to Mahler? Does Mahler's music do anything for people in his culture that shamans do for people in their cultures?
> 
> Such questioning is not "baiting." If millionrainbows has to respond to probing questions with personal characterizations of me such as are found in his responses not only to me but to others ("Woodduck is this, Woodduck thinks that"), I am not responsible for it.
> 
> Assertions posted on internet forums are subject to challenge and discussion. That's what I've done. If you want to take the discussion in a direction of your choosing, I can't and wouldn't want to prevent you. Go for it, and drop this nonsense about "losing an interesting discussion."


I was not setting myself up as a judge of the disputes between you and millionrainbows. That would be beyond me. I merely hoped that there might be an interesting discussion trying to get out and that this was getting lost in acrimony. It's not my business but these fights can seem like pissing contests from the outside.

My position on the debate is also a bit in the middle. I am not very metaphysical but do believe that metaphysical beliefs can be respectfully pinned down, examined and discussed. I don't get angry about them until they are used to undermine rational truth.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> But you did say "...musicians in our society play a very different role to shamans or witch doctors" and I don't think this applies in Jim Morrison's case. BTW, I mentioned nothing about "witch doctors."
> Goodness gracious!


Shamans and witch doctors are different words for the same thing in the societies I visit!


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> Shamans and witch doctors are different words for the same thing in the societies I visit!


Do you holiday on the set of Live and Let Die or something?!


----------



## DaveM

Enthusiast said:


> *I was not setting myself up as a judge of the disputes between you and millionrainbows. That would be beyond me.* I merely hoped that there might be an interesting discussion trying to get out and that this was getting lost in acrimony. *It's not my business but these fights can seem like pissing contests from the outside. *


Well, you had me fooled:



Enthusiast said:


> *Another long thread of to-ing and fro-ing between Woodduck and millionrainbows, as they bate each other for our amusement. I am probably reading it wrongly but is rainbows really saying anything more than that music and musicians play a role within our societies that is not wholly dissimilar to the role of shamans in primitive cultures? And, if that is the case, what is wrong with his assertion?* I ask because I don't think it got discussed, not because I am convinced by it. *The problem surely isn't that the rationalism of his premise is in question...although once bated he tends to bate back his tormentors? *


----------



## millionrainbows

DaveM said:


> The idea of "the artist as shaman" is an idea or a concept and, as such, validiy does not need to be proven or disproven. However, as with any concept, it can be disagreed with as being relevant. Anyway, the fact that the material is on WIK or in a Marshall McLuhan book may support the concept, but doesn't 'prove' validity.


I'm fine with that. I'm just "probing around" with such ideas. I never "got" Marshall McLuhan until it was suggested that I "read him like poetry."


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Let's be clear about what's going on here. The OP said:
> 
> _"it's tempting to see Mahler as a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist."
> _
> _"by the Third he is pondering the great questions of existence."_
> 
> _"He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to 'wake us up,' almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a 'sacred technology' to further our spiritual awareness."_
> 
> _"In this sense, Mahler is like a 'shaman' in a tribal culture, acting as our artistic guide into the deeper regions of our existence."_
> 
> My response was:
> 
> "A shaman is someone with a job to do, a job defined by his culture. That wasn't Mahler's job. He was simply a serious artist of philosophical disposition, some of whose works purport to be about what he considered life's major issues - his own life's, in any case. His issues are determined by his cultural context and personal psychology, and his take on them, far from being universal, may not be yours or mine. Life and death, of course, is the fundamental 'issue' for all of us, and he seems to have had quite a preoccupation that eternal struggle. But he's hardly the first artist, or the first composer, to occupy himself with it. Perhaps he expresses his feelings with such intensity that he convinces those temperamentally disposed that he's uniquely profound. _Personally, I don't find his work more 'sacred' than that of many other composers, and in fact I sense in his mixture of nervosity, stridency, sentimentality and long-windedness a feeling of self-absorption almost unique among composers. I find nothing Buddhist (or quasi-Buddhist) about him." _


It seems to me that your views are quite similar to mine; the real underlying problem is my use of the term 'shaman' *and the use of the documentary's assertion* that music is a 'psychic tool with real effects, almost like a sorcerer uses incantations and spells and dark forces of the irrational in order to invoke "real world effects: "_He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to 'wake us up,' almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a 'sacred technology' to further our spiritual awareness."..._Then you go on to write-off Mahler as "nothing special." 
This underscores that the real quibble here is that you do not tolerate any references to spirituality or hints of religion.
As far as "this nonsense about losing an interesting discussion," shouldn't you own-up to your part in creating a conflict on this thread, just short of derailing it?


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I'm going to have to second this view. The premise (or premises) of the thread is so undefined or ill-defined as to prevent meaningful discussion.


I don't agree; I brought in material from WIK, and mentioned Elias Cannetti, Schopenhauer, and Marshall McLuhan.



> I'm sure millionrainbows knows what he knows for himself, but I'm having a hard time recognising anything that can be pinned-down. As such it looks a lot like quasi-religious, quasi-philosophical special pleading.


Good, because I'm not a "religious person." What's wrong with Schopenhauer's philosophy?



> In my time I've met enough people who, though in need of what religion offers, are not content with simple religion, because they know it is full of holes and inconsistencies and it insults their and our intelligence. The solution always seems to be the creation of some special, personal religion with whatever name. These uber-pantheists seem able to find 'spirituality' in everything from the Missa Solemnis to a skinny latte, and everything in-between.


So I'm not credible unless I subscribe to a "simple" religion? Oh, brother, give me a break!
Oh, well, I'm not as sensitive about it as Woodduck is about his "quasi-philosophy" which asserts nothing, and denies all.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It seems to me that your views are quite similar to mine; the real underlying problem is my use of the term 'shaman' *and the use of the documentary's assertion* that music is a 'psychic tool with real effects, almost like a sorcerer uses incantations and spells and dark forces of the irrational in order to invke "real world effects: "_He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to 'wake us up,' almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a 'sacred technology' to further our spiritual awareness."..._Then you go on to write-off Mahler as "nothing special."
> This underscores that the real quibble here is that you do not tolerate any references to spirituality or hints of religion.
> As far as "this nonsense about losing an interesting discussion," shouldn't you own-up to your part in creating a conflict on this thread, just short of derailing it?


I will try to offer some thoughts in the new thread "Music and the Ineffable" which will clarify my views.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> I was not setting myself up as a judge of the disputes between you and millionrainbows. That would be beyond me. It's not my business but these fights can seem like pissing contests from the outside. My position on the debate is also a bit in the middle. I am not very metaphysical but do believe that metaphysical beliefs can be respectfully pinned down, examined and discussed. *I don't get angry about them until they are used to undermine rational truth.*


Oh, give me a break! This is art & aesthetics, not science!



> ...I merely hoped that there might be an interesting discussion trying to get out and that this was getting lost in acrimony.


Never worry, this discussion might continue in the "Music and the ineffable" thread which MarkW was gracious enough to create; or maybe not. We'll see.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Good, because I'm not a "religious person." What's wrong with Schopenhauer's philosophy?


Nothing wrong with it as it is. I have the _World as Will_.... right next to me. Really, the abridged Everyman edition. I read it around 22 years ago and I've gone back to it ever since. The R.J Hollingdale edition is good too.

What is it in Schopenhauer that you are subscribing to? His general positivism, which hardly differs from all the British Empiricist philosophers, or his claim to have broken through the world of appearances to the 'thing-in-itself'? 
His will to life seems to me now as something arrived at in ignorance of genetic determinism and the problem of free-will in relation to it. When finally he sets out the world as 'idea' he ends up pretty much back in the position of Bishop Berkley, the only difference is that Berkley calls his reality 'God' and Schopenhauer doesn't.



millionrainbows said:


> So I'm not credible unless I subscribe to a "simple" religion? Oh, brother, give me a break!


No, not that. It's not that the other 'philosophies' are worse, they may well be better, but I'd like have at least something to be able to discuss; not wispy, nebulous ideas. I know these things may be hard to define, but if it is to be discussed it is a requirement.


----------



## Enthusiast

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, give me a break! This is art & aesthetics, not science!


You felt my point was aimed at you or something you said? It wasn't. It was merely setting a limit to my interest in the mystical and metaphysical. Too many people seem to feel that mere mention of metaphysical idea is an affront to our rationality. But to me it is their view that is such an affront. But I do have limits in this and these led me to post very negatively about new ageism recently.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> You felt my point was aimed at you or something you said? It wasn't. It was merely setting a limit to my interest in the mystical and metaphysical.


Yeah, on _this thread!
_


> Too many people seem to feel that mere mention of metaphysical idea is an affront to our rationality. But to me it is their view that is such an affront. But I do have limits in this and these led me to post very negatively about new ageism recently.


Well, Lord knows we wouldn't want to infringe on your right to deny all belief, while affirming nothing. I'm more worried about "old-age-ism." :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahler was very interested in Nietzsche's notion that the Greeks combined art with religion.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Good for him. Let's first remember what the Greeks meant by 'religion' and then also remember that believing in something doesn't make it a reality.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Good for him. Let's first remember what the Greeks meant by 'religion' and then also remember that believing in something doesn't make it a reality.


We shall do that, sir. 
But this fact adds to my case that Mahler was interested in things which normally religion deals with. That's a reality.
Rationality is too secular and scientific to be able to be this inclusive. So eugeneonagain's and Woodduck's rational stances are ill-suited for application to art. 
I can't believe that none of you rationalists even seem to _care_ about what Mahler's concerns were in his Third Symphony. 
I doubt that either of you would even be able to write a credible review of this work, knowing what gaping holes you have left in your assertions of what Mahler was doing.
What is your strategy here, to just ignore Mahler's intentions and concerns?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Why are you so put out? I can gladly accept (should it be shown) that Mahler had these concerns in his mind when writing his music. What it doesn't do is make the motivations either true or meaningful. It means a man who was very skilled and an artist also occupied his mind with these things.

It doesn't mean it makes his music 'shamanistic' or magical or mystical or a route to 'being'.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> *Why are you so put out?* I can gladly accept (should it be shown) that Mahler had these concerns in his mind when writing his music. What it doesn't do is make the motivations either *true or meaningful.*


*When did I (or Mahler) ever say that any religious dogma was true?* Nowhere.

And if you had familiarized yourself with the symphony itself, or had watched the YouTube documentary, you'd know that Mahler, in the Fifth and final part, was espousing an awareness of a sacred sense of "being," which is what I've been asserting all along, while suffering insults of this as being "new age," or "pantheistic dribble."
*
"Meaningful?"* You and other 'rationalists' here are so busy 'defending the fort' that you seem to have lost the capacity to discuss Mahler's music, and what it was he intended to say with it. No, I'm not 'put out,' but just bored with the tedium of dealing with rationalists who failed to do their homework.



> It means a man who was very skilled and an artist also occupied his mind with these things. It doesn't mean it makes his music 'shamanistic' or magical or mystical or a route to 'being'.


The idea of "the artist as shaman" has already been defended, with sources. See this thread.

It makes his music a "spiritual tool" for those aspiring to a state of 'being,' because Mahler was already there. Religion is not 'mystical' either, unless you ask Messiaen. All of these things are simply fingers pointing the way.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> *When did I ever say that any religious dogma was true?* Nowhere. And if you had familiarized yourself with the symphony itself, or had watched the YouTube documentary, *you'd know that Mahler, in the Fifth and final part, was espousing an awareness of a sacred sense of "being,'* which is what I've been asserting all along, while suffering insults of being "new age," or pantheistic dribble."


And no-one knows what this is supposed to mean. Because it has no meaning, of which you seem indignantly proud. It's baffling. Hence the accusations of obfuscation.



millionrainbows said:


> *"Meaningful?"* You and other 'rationalists' here are so busy 'defending the fort' that you seem to have lost the capacity to discuss Mahler's music, and what it was he intended to say with it. No, I'm not 'put out,' but just bored with the tedium.


I can't change the music or Mahler's intentions (and I don't want to), but I don't listen to Mahler to be enlightened. You may think that a great pity.



millionrainbows said:


> The idea of "the artist as shaman" has already been defended, with sources. See this thread.


It hasn't. It has been merely stated.



millionrainbows said:


> It makes his music a "spiritual tool" for those aspiring to a state of 'being,' because Mahler was already there. Religion is not 'mystical' either, unless you ask Messiaen. All of these things are simply fingers pointing the way.


That's probably true. The same art is used in all sorts of ways. Not sure about your claim that he was 'already there' (wherever that is supposed to be). There is plenty of mysticism in religion. Sufism for a start explicitly, but throughout the lot of it.


----------



## isorhythm

This thread could benefit greatly from clearer answers to two questions:

1) What makes Mahler, specifically, like a shaman, compared to other composers?

2) Why shaman, as opposed to priest, rabbi, psychoanalyst, magician, or, you know, artist? What is meant by this specific concept?

I'm having a lot of trouble grasping what is being discussed.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> This thread could benefit greatly from clearer answers to two questions:
> 
> 1) What makes Mahler, specifically, like a shaman, compared to other composers?


"The artist as Shaman" is an extant idea, already cited from WIK. Try google, Joseph Beuys, Marshall McLuhan. This concept is to be taken as a "given," not to be questioned by those who have not done their homework.



> 2) Why shaman, as opposed to priest, rabbi, psychoanalyst, magician, or, you know, artist? What is meant by this specific concept?


Here are some reasons, but this is for your information, not as argument fodder. Of course. I know there are two kinds of people on the internet: those who take chances and post real ideas for discussions, and those who lay back and take pot-shots.

"Shaman" is a more primal idea than "priest" or '"rabbi," which are also loaded with doctrinal religious baggage.

[/QUOTE]I'm having a lot of trouble grasping what is being discussed.[/QUOTE]

Try google. Do your homework. It's not my job to educate you.

Besides, I suspect you are feigning ignorance in order to launch an attack.


----------



## MaxKellerman

millionrainbows said:


> Besides, I suspect you are feigning ignorance in order to launch an attack.


No one is feignining anything. It's not our fault that most readers can't seem to make heads or tails out of your inchorent torrent of words.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> And no-one knows what this is supposed to mean. Because it has no meaning, of which you seem indignantly proud. It's baffling. Hence the accusations of obfuscation.


_*Right back atcha, mister rational.*_



> I can't change the music or Mahler's intentions (and I don't want to), but I don't listen to Mahler to be enlightened. You may think that a great pity.


*What do you care about Mahler's music? You haven't said two words about it.*

_



MR said The idea of "the artist as shaman" has already been defended, with sources. See this thread.

Click to expand...

_


> It hasn't. It has been merely stated.


Meaning, *"The Artist as Shaman" is an idea that is already out there; I did not create it. It's EXISTENCE as an idea has already been stated, with sources, and thus, defended as existing. *



> Not sure about your claim that he was 'already there' (wherever that is supposed to be).


Mahler had already achieved a sacred sense of "being" by his Summers in nature, composing from his little cottage in the mountains. *This is what I mean when I say "he was already there" and was thud qualified to try to impart this knowledge, through music, to us.*


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> "The artist as Shaman" is an extant idea, already cited from WIK. Try google, Joseph Beuys, Marshall McLuhan. This concept is to be taken as a "given," not to be questioned by those who have not done their homework.


I'm not asking about "the artist," I'm asking about Mahler, specifically. The reason I'm asking about Mahler is that you made a thread called "Mahler as shaman."



millionrainbows said:


> Here are some reasons, but this is for your information, not as argument fodder. Of course. I know there are two kinds of people on the internet: those who take chances and post real ideas for discussions, and those who lay back and take pot-shots.
> 
> "Shaman" is a more primal idea than "priest" or '"rabbi," which are also loaded with doctrinal religious baggage.


OK, this comes close to a direct answer to my question. Thank you.



millionrainbows said:


> Try google. Do your homework. It's not my job to educate you.
> 
> Besides, I suspect you are feigning ignorance in order to launch an attack.


I'm not feigning ignorance, I'm trying to pull something out of this thread that is specific enough to talk about in an interesting way.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Meaning, *"The Artist as Shaman" is an idea that is already out there; I did not create it. It's EXISTENCE as an idea has already been stated and thus, defended as existing.*


Why are you putting everything in bold now. It seems quarrelsome. Whether or not you created the idea - or whomever created it - it just makes it a statement. Just existing doesn't mean much for the purposes of applying as part of an argument. That isn't 'meaning'. I don't care much about what Marshall McLuhan said, he babbled a lot.



millionrainbows said:


> Mahler had already achieved a sacred sense of "being" by his Summers in nature, composing from his little cottage in the mountains. *This is what I mean when I say "he was already there" and was thud qualified to try to impart this knowledge, through music, to us.*


That's a very big leap. I spent quite a few summers in a cabin in Devon in the 1990s. I was "there"...in Devon. You have an unusually irrational habit of taking naked, ordinary facts and drawing enormous, conclusions from them that aren't suggested at all.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> I'm not asking about "the artist," I'm asking about Mahler, specifically. The reason I'm asking about Mahler is that you made a thread called "Mahler as shaman."


This thread was started on the premise that *Mahler* acted as a shaman through his music, specifically the Third Symphony, and the accompanying YouTube documentary. Did you ever watch it?



> I'm not feigning ignorance, I'm trying to pull something out of this thread that is specific enough to talk about in an interesting way.


Well, what are you waiting for me to do? Spoon-feed you the information?

https://brianasaussy.com/the-artist-as-shaman-the-shaman-as-artist-the-inspiration-for-both/

https://www.academia.edu/1981865/The_artist_as_shaman_the_work_of_Joseph_Beuys_and_Marcus_Coates

https://shamaniceducation.org/the-role-of-art-in-shamanism/

https://www.evalewarne.com/blog/artists-as-shamans-in-contemporary-society

https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/b...an_and_Primitivism.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2905090?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.artnews.com/2015/03/20/a...joseph-beuys-on-his-mystical-objects-in-1970/


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Mahler was interested in things which normally religion deals with. That's a reality.
> Rationality is too secular and scientific to be able to be this inclusive. So *eugeneonagain's and Woodduck's rational stances are ill-suited for application to art.*
> I can't believe that *none of you rationalists even seem to care about what Mahler's concerns were in his Third Symphony. *
> *I doubt that either of you would even be able to write a credible review of this work, knowing what gaping holes you have left in your assertions of what Mahler was doing.*
> What is your strategy here, to just ignore Mahler's intentions and concerns?


This is presumptuous codswallop. Where do you get off making judgments of what other people here can and can't do? Your personal remarks are beyond disgusting. I suggest you remove them.


----------



## Bulldog

millionrainbows said:


> Besides, I suspect you are feigning ignorance in order to launch an attack.


You are really in your comfort zone now. :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This concept is to be taken as a "given," not to be questioned by those who have not done their homework.
> 
> ...this is for your information, not as argument fodder.
> 
> Of course, _I know_...
> 
> Do your homework. It's not my job to educate you.
> 
> I suspect you are feigning ignorance in order to launch an attack.


The high priest, guardian of the mysteries, has spoken. How deeply should we bow? Should our foreheads be touching the floor?


----------



## jenspen

millionrainbows said:


> I've seen a lot of "rationalists" come out of the woodwork in this forum alone, although they call themselves by another name. They crow about it as if they were proud.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Also, the Romantic aesthetic is _more Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" _than Mozart's very disciplined and Apollonian classical music, as well as Bach's emphasis on Lutheran religion and Catholic ritual.
> 
> Romanticism is more "artistic" than Classicism, in that it relates to the individual in a very direct way, like poetry. Romanticism is more in touch with a secular society, which is not as dominated by the Church or royalty. Romanticism is democratic.


The Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" appeal to the individual which you describe can have (has had) dangerous consequences for societies and for individuals. I'm all for a modern secular society and its concern for reason and the common good but, surely, that's what the rational old Enlightenment bequeathed to us?

For what it's worth, Mahler died with the name of Mozart on his lips.


----------



## Larkenfield

I would not have proposed that anyone put Mahler in the position of being considered a Shaman among those who have no interest or background in it, not without his permission, and he wasn’t in a position to give it, because he might not have wanted to defend that position himself though he obviously had a very special connection with nature and was deeply interested in certain spiritual, philosophical, or metaphysical teachings. I think that’s apparent in his interest in reincarnation and exposure to Buddhism or other metaphysical subjects that were never going to be understood by the skeptics... I do not believe that he would have wanted to be put in that awkward, perhaps even indefensible position, not that he wouldn’t have been sensitive to the idea of having to defend himself when his music already possesses the essence of that and need not be defended but only understood and appreciated.

Strangely enough, it’s not surprising that the subject of the A-bombs has come up with regard to Japan and WW2 in the “ineffable” thread when the terrifying harmonic dissonances in Mahler’s 10th Symphony seemed to point to some type of cataclysm that would be up ahead during the 20th century. Had not the bombs been dropped on Japan to see their utter devastation and destruction, the rest of humanity might never have known how terrible they were and use the horror of those events to prevent even worse horrors in the coming years during the Cold War and even now. Those bombings are probably the only thing that is preventing it from happening again, as catastrophic as they were, and it was up to that generation to decide whether those bombs were to be used because they were the ones dying and paying the price in the horrible devastation of that war.


----------



## Woodduck

jenspen said:


> The Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" appeal to the individual which you describe can have (has had) dangerous consequences for societies and for individuals. I'm all for a modern secular society and its concern for reason and the common good but, surely, that's what the rational old Enlightenment bequeathed to us?


Well observed.

History shows that the sleep of reason is more likely to be invaded by demonic nightmares than by angelic dreams.


----------



## Guest

Well, I'm not so familiar with the idea of "artist as shaman", but it isn't a thing invented by millionrainbows. Whether it's an idea with anything going for it, I'm not sure.

Anyone heard of Paul Levy? I'm assuming millionrainbows has.



> When there is an unconscious imbalance or disturbance in the field, a co-responding and reflex-ive compensatory process becomes activated in the underlying unifying field, invariably resulting in an archetypal, healing figure incarnating in human form - whether we call this figure artist, shaman, healer, seer, or poet. The intuitive human beings who become channels for this process are tuned into and sensitive to the underlying unified field in a way that helps the field to unify. To quote Jung, "Whenever conscious life becomes one-sided or adopts a false attitude, these images 'instinctively' rise to the surface in dreams and in the vision of artists and seers to restore the psychic balance, whether of the individual or of the epoch."


https://www.awakeninthedream.com/articles/the-artist-as-healer-of-the-world

It doesn't do much for me (being a nihilo-rationalist and what have you :lol , but someone might like to pursue it further.


----------



## Larkenfield

jenspen said:


> The Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" appeal to the individual which you describe can have (has had) dangerous consequences for societies and for individuals. I'm all for a modern secular society and its concern for reason and the common good but, surely, that's what the rational old Enlightenment bequeathed to us?
> 
> For what it's worth, Mahler died with the name of Mozart on his lips.


Oh, you mean that Mahler didn't die shouting out his own name instead of Mozart's? The rationalists are just as necessary to this world as anyone else. But the problem is that they can't imagine a world or ineffable dimension beyond the rational mind and the limitations of their own ego or personal self. It doesn't exist for them as they gather knowledge, calculate figures, create atom bombs, and tell everybody else that they're crazy. They never consider that the rational mind can be small and provincial, strictly materialistic, or that music is not something that's just thought up through logic.


----------



## isorhythm

MacLeod said:


> Well, I'm not so familiar with the idea of "artist as shaman", but it isn't a thing invented by millionrainbows. Whether it's an idea with anything going for it, I'm not sure.
> 
> Anyone heard of Paul Levy? I'm assuming millionrainbows has.
> 
> https://www.awakeninthedream.com/articles/the-artist-as-healer-of-the-world
> 
> It doesn't do much for me (being a nihilo-rationalist and what have you :lol , but someone might like to pursue it further.


^Now this really is classic woo-woo. Undefined "fields" of energy, archetypes...maybe there's some way to use this stuff metaphorically.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

*woo* is an invitingly hopeful word . Said twice , a reassuring spirit is present .


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Why are you putting everything in bold now. It seems quarrelsome. Whether or not you created the idea - or whomever created it - it just makes it a statement. Just existing doesn't mean much for the purposes of applying as part of an argument. That isn't 'meaning'. I don't care much about what Marshall McLuhan said, he babbled a lot.
> 
> That's a very big leap. I spent quite a few summers in a cabin in Devon in the 1990s. I was "there"...in Devon. You have an unusually irrational habit of taking naked, ordinary facts and drawing enormous, conclusions from them that aren't suggested at all.


*Eugene, if you'd taken the time to watch the documentary "What The Universe Tells Me" on YouTube, you'd know exactly what I am referring to by Mahler "being there" in a new state of awareness.

In the meantime, stop trolling me on this point, as if I made it up. It's very tedious. You can be very bothersome and troll-like.*


----------



## millionrainbows

jenspen said:


> The Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" appeal to the individual which you describe can have (has had) dangerous consequences for societies and for individuals. I'm all for a modern secular society and its concern for reason and the common good but, surely, that's what the rational old Enlightenment bequeathed to us?
> 
> For what it's worth, Mahler died with the name of Mozart on his lips.


*Do some homework! *If you'd look at the documentary and the YouTube links, you'd see that music and art were "robbed" of the Dionysian aspects until Romanticism finally brought back the artist's former and original role as shaman, dating all the way back to cave paintings.

If Mahler died with Mozart's name on his lips, he was probably pleading with him to "break on through to the other side" of Romanticism and join him.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> I would not have proposed that anyone put Mahler in the position of being considered a Shaman among those who have no interest or background in it, not without his permission, and he wasn't in a position to give it, because he might not have wanted to defend that position himself though he obviously had a very special connection with nature and was deeply interested in certain spiritual, philosophical, or metaphysical teachings. I think that's apparent in his interest in reincarnation and exposure to Buddhism or other metaphysical subjects that were never going to be understood by the skeptics... I do not believe that he would have wanted to be put in that awkward, perhaps even indefensible position, not that he wouldn't have been sensitive to the idea of having to defend himself when his music already possesses the essence of that and need not be defended but only understood and appreciated.


Did you watch the documentary "What the Universe Tells Me?" It doesn't sound like it.



> Strangely enough, it's not surprising that the subject of the A-bombs has come up with regard to Japan and WW2 in the "ineffable" thread when the terrifying harmonic dissonances in Mahler's 10th Symphony seemed to point to some type of cataclysm that would be up ahead during the 20th century. Had not the bombs been dropped on Japan to see their utter devastation and destruction, the rest of humanity might never have known how terrible they were and use the horror of those events to prevent even worse horrors in the coming years during the Cold War and even now. Those bombings are probably the only thing that is preventing it from happening again, as catastrophic as they were, and it was up to that generation to decide whether those bombs were to be used because they were the ones dying and paying the price in the horrible devastation of that war.


I think Mahler was reading the tea-leaves of the time, and was actually predicting World War one clairvoyantly. Carl Jung has said this is possible, and by God, if Carl Jung said it, it's good enough for me. I'd go into battle by his side any day.


----------



## millionrainbows

_Jenspen proclaimed: The Dionysian and irrationally "artistic" appeal to the individual which you describe can have (has had) dangerous consequences for societies and for individuals. I'm all for a modern secular society and its concern for reason and the common good but, surely, that's what the rational old Enlightenment bequeathed to us?_



Woodduck said:


> Well observed.
> 
> History shows that the sleep of reason is more likely to be invaded by demonic nightmares than by angelic dreams.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Enlightenment

What are y'all talking about? The Enlightenment had its detractors, as well.

One particular concern to early Romantic writers was *the allegedly anti-religious nature of the Enlightenment...*








The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters

By the middle of the 19th century, the memory of the French Revolution was fading and so was the influence of Romanticism. In this optimistic age of science and industry, there were few critics of the Enlightenment, and few explicit defenders. Friedrich Nietzsche is a notable and highly influential exception. After an initial defence of the Enlightenment in his so-called 'middle period' (late-1870s to early 1880s), Nietzsche turned vehemently against it.

When Enlightenment "swept away" religion, replacing it with sterile rationality, Romanticism stepped-in the replace what was missing. Thus, another justification of "Artist as Shaman."


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Well, I'm not so familiar with the idea of "artist as shaman", but it isn't a thing invented by millionrainbows. Whether it's an idea with anything going for it, I'm not sure.


*My God, thank you, McLeod, for finally acknowledging this!
*


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> What are y'all talking about? The Enlightenment had its detractors, as well.
> 
> One particular concern to early Romantic writers was *the allegedly anti-religious nature of the Enlightenment...*Some historians, such as Hamann, nevertheless contend that this view of the Enlightenment as an age hostile to religion is common ground between these Romantic writers and many of their conservative Counter-Revolutionary predecessors.


The Enlightenment (and earlier though it was easily suppressed) was justifiably anti-religion after almost 1.5 millennia of everyone being under its yoke. It's also telling that the period is termed 'the Enlightenment' as opposed to what went before. I think anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the majority of the populations remained religious to roughly the same extent throughout the 'Enlightenment' and later.

The period's importance lies in the development of the idea of the individual person, rather than being subsumed into a group. Also, obviously, for the promotion of individual reason above mere acceptance of belief and the incantations of witch doctors and your 'shaman'.

I'd be interested to know why you keep on erecting the straw-man of 'evil and dangerous reason' as if it has inhabited a world akin to that of a dictatorship. This has never happened. Even the highly technological-industrial world of today has people with their feet in the 'rational' present and their head in the world of the dark ages and every variety of irrationality you can shake a stick at. These great oppositions you are sketching out are dead battles.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> The Enlightenment (and earlier though it was easily suppressed) was justifiably anti-religion after almost 1.5 millennia of everyone being under its yoke. It's also telling that the period is termed 'the Enlightenment' as opposed to what went before. I think anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that the majority of the populations remained religious to roughly the same extent throughout the 'Enlightenment' and later.


I agree; The Enlightenment put things which needed to be in the category of reason, and took religion out of it (Earth as center, Creation in 7 days, etc), but it also took things away which art had to replace, via Romanticism.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; The Enlightenment put things which needed to be in the category of reason, and took religion out of it (Earth as center, Creation in 7 days, etc), but it also took things away which art had to replace, via Romanticism.


Yes, I can go with that. Which things do you have in mind?


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Yes, I can go with that. Which things do you have in mind?


Like some of the things Mahler was dealing with as covered in the documentary. *You did watch the documentary, didn't you?*


----------



## eugeneonagain

I did, but I want to know what you think.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I did, but I want to know what you think.


Well, I think this YouTube video will tell you. What* I *think seems to be target-practice for you. Besides, I'm not convinced that you've seen this, or any of the other material which I provided links to.


----------



## Becca

A somewhat different take on the Mahler 3rd, this time by Iván Fischer...

https://www.digitalconcerthall.com/en/interview/22400-2


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I think this YouTube video will tell you. What* I *think seems to be target-practice for you. Besides, I'm not convinced that you've seen this, or any of the other material which I provided links to.


Target practise? That's not what is happening. You have put forward several questionable claims and have made some very obscure and vague remarks. I ask what you mean, you then don't explain anything without using yet more obfuscating riddles and I dismiss it as hopeless. You then claim to be harassed and attacked and misunderstood.

I watched the materials you posted when this thread started.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Target practise? That's not what is happening. You have put forward several questionable claims and have made some very obscure and vague remarks. I ask what you mean, you then don't explain anything without using yet more obfuscating riddles and I dismiss it as hopeless. You then claim to be harassed and attacked and misunderstood.
> 
> I watched the materials you posted when this thread started.


Go over to the "Music and the Ineffable" thread if you want more outrageous speculation from me.


----------



## millionrainbows

Balinese music has a repetitive element, and repetition tends to resonate with the consciousness of the listener, as in "trance" music and minimalism, and also some ritual practices, such as chanting, counting beads, etc. 
"The Old Rugged Cross" has, for me, emotional associations with my mother, which are probably specific to me (maybe not, if we consider all Southern Baptist-raised men). But the hymn itself, as a musical form, does not have any of the universal structural devices (repetition, drone, ethereal atmosphere) that other "spiritual" music might have. 

The Baptist hymn is not in the same category as what I see as "spiritually inducing" music, because it is a typical form. It is "religious" music because of its lyrical content, and it shares the rudimentary form of other hymns. Its purpose is utilitarian, to be used in a certain environment, under certain conditions. Its persuasion is to remind the pious of certain religious principles and stories, and to make a point conceptually. 
The music itself does not transform the consciousness of the individual, and was not designed to do so. In this sense, hymns like this are not so much "musical" in their power, but are simply utilitarian songs which carry a simple message. I doubt that these sorts of hymns would translate into a transcendent experience in other cultures, but then again, I heard this sort of harmony in the hands of Africans which sounded quite powerful; in that case, I think the inherent "spirituality" of the people did the transforming to the hymn form, not the other way around. In other words, the "spiritual" element is in people, not music. The music is ideally a "tool" or form of "spiritual technology" which is designed to evoke and enhance these 'spiritual reactions' in the listener.
"Spirituality" as I mean it is not an idea, but an essence which exists in all people. If these ideas "invalidate" anyone's idea of what is "spiritual" (as a universal quality of humanity), then that person is too attached to an idea, and risks "invalidating" the universal birthright of a large segment of mankind.

I make a distinction between music which is religious by tradition and utility, and music which evokes "sacred" responses from the listener. The latter kind of music will have a more universal, less specific/utilitarian effect, by tapping-in to the human responses we all share by simply being human. I do think that there is "spiritual" music which accomplishes its effect despite its immersion in cultural norms, and does this in a direct way. This is what makes good art universally appealing. It transcends cultural limitations, and whatever other limitations it was supposedly intended for. This can probably be blamed on the artists who created it, and their desire to "connect" with humanity. Think of Beethoven's Ninth; he was "feeling" it when he used the Ode to joy. In this sense, The Ninth is definitely "spiritual" music because of its universal effect and appeal. This is obvious.

What is the meaning of music which does not include the human elements of "resonance" and empathy? It seems that it would be on the verge of being emblematic or simply an agreed-upon term, with no real connection to human psychology or the fact that "God gave us brains."

In my view, "psychological phenomena" can be linked to music and to spirituality, or a sacred sense of being, before it has to be connected to any religion, which in my view comes after the fact.

Music does not work by itself apart from our psychology as humans. 

"Real" religious music, is music whose effect is audible, structural, and "in the music itself." Whereas other religious music seems to rely more on text, the setting, the belief and faith of the listener,etc, which are not universal or transferrable to all people. Perhaps users of the religious music forum feel more comfortable with that more restricted, less universal interpretation, so that my 'spiritual music' becomes 'mumbo-jumbo' compared to real religious music like theirs.

The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.


----------



## Larkenfield

[Reposted from the Catholic thread as relevant here:]



DavidA said:


> It is pretty certain that Mahler's 'conversion' was one of convenience. Throughout his life his was agnostic.


I seriously doubt that Gustav Mahler was an "agnostic" or "atheist" throughout his life, though he of course was tested and sometimes had his doubts. But as a presumed "agnostic" he writes his _Ressurection_ Symphony? Who does that? The idea of resurrection is spiritual or religious in nature whether he was a practicing Jew, Christian, or not. When Mahler participated in a performance of Symphony No. 2 by Ernst von Schuch in Dresden, he further filled out his religious vision at that time in the program notes:

_"Softly there rings out a chorus of the holy and the heavenly. 'Risen again, yea thou shalt be risen again!' There appears the glory of God! A wonderful gentle light permeates us to our very heart - all is quiet and blissful! - And behold there is no judgement. - There is no sinner, no righteous man - no great and no small-There is no punishment and no reward! An almighty feeling of love illumines us with blessed knowing and being."_

"There appears the glory of God" suggests otherwise that he was not a lifelong agnostic or atheist for those not satisfied with a simple answer to his spiritual convictions. How many agnostics or atheists espouse a stated belief in reincarnation, which could be considered another form of resurrection?-

_"We all return. It is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation."_

Nor does hearing his music, at least to those who understand him better, suggest anything disconnected with the spiritual forces of nature and life, the energy of agnosticism, such as his 3rd Symphony which suggests Divine Creation from the ground up.

He was not a simple but a complex man who explored many spiritual avenues and cannot be conveniently pigeonholed as being one thing or another. Sometimes one has to ponder and read between the lines... but the problem is that some appear incapable of doing that because they may have no spiritually-based convictions of their own-_they're _the agnostics, skeptics, and atheists-and are unable to recognize those convictions in someone such as Mahler.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> [Reposted from the Catholic thread as relevant here:]
> 
> I seriously doubt that Gustav Mahler was an "agnostic" or "atheist" throughout his life, though he of course was tested and sometimes had his doubts. But as a presumed "agnostic" he writes his _Ressurection_ Symphony? Who does that? The idea of resurrection is spiritual or religious in nature whether he was a practicing Jew, Christian, or not. When Mahler participated in a performance of Symphony No. 2 by Ernst von Schuch in Dresden, he further filled out his religious vision at that time in the program notes:
> 
> _"Softly there rings out a chorus of the holy and the heavenly. 'Risen again, yea thou shalt be risen again!' There appears the glory of God! A wonderful gentle light permeates us to our very heart - all is quiet and blissful! - And behold there is no judgement. - There is no sinner, no righteous man - no great and no small-There is no punishment and no reward! An almighty feeling of love illumines us with blessed knowing and being."_
> 
> "There appears the glory of God" suggests otherwise that he was not a lifelong agnostic or atheist for those not satisfied with a simple answer to his spiritual convictions. How many agnostics or atheists espouse a stated belief in reincarnation, which could be considered another form of resurrection?-
> 
> _"We all return. It is this certainty that gives meaning to life and it does not make the slightest difference whether or not in a later incarnation we remember the former life. What counts is not the individual and his comfort, but the great aspiration to the perfect and the pure which goes on in each incarnation."_
> 
> Nor does hearing his music, at least to those who understand him better, suggest anything disconnected with the spiritual forces of nature and life, the energy of agnosticism, such as his 3rd Symphony which suggests Divine Creation from the ground up.
> 
> He was not a simple but a complex man who explored many spiritual avenues and cannot be conveniently pigeonholed as being one thing or another. Sometimes one has to ponder and read between the lines... but the problem is that some appear incapable of doing that because they may have no spiritually-based convictions of their own-_they're _the agnostics, skeptics, and atheists-and are unable to recognize those convictions in someone such as Mahler.


I agree with most of what you've said, with one caveat: don't emphasize the traditional elements of Christian religion too much. In the Third Symphony, the V movement, with the women's & children's chorus, their fervent joyousness is depicted by Mahler as being naive; but he is gracious enough to give them a nod, and recognize their validity...refer to the "What the Universe Tells Me" doc. A truer expression of what Mahler really believes is part VI, the finale, where he has reached spiritual awareness via nature.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Balinese music has a repetitive element, and *repetition tends to resonate with the consciousness of the listener, as in "trance" music and minimalism*, and also some ritual practices, such as chanting, counting beads, etc.
> 
> *"The Old Rugged Cross" has, for me, emotional associations* with my mother, which are probably specific to me (maybe not, if we consider all Southern Baptist-raised men). *But the hymn itself, as a musical form, does not have any of the universal structural devices (repetition, drone, ethereal atmosphere) that other "spiritual" music might have. * *It is "religious" music because of its lyrical content, and it shares the rudimentary form of other hymns. Its purpose is utilitarian, to be used in a certain environment, under certain conditions. Its persuasion is to remind the pious of certain religious principles and stories, and to make a point conceptually. *
> 
> *The music itself does not transform the consciousness of the individual, and was not designed to do so.
> *
> *I make a distinction between music which is religious by tradition and utility, and music which evokes "sacred" responses from the listener.
> *
> The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what *common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions,* and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.


The distinction you draw between music which is "spiritual" because its structure is such as to induce certain states of consciousness, and music which serves "spiritual" purposes simply by its employment in ritual or cultural contexts, is understandable, although there is certainly plenty of middle ground, overlap, and variety among the many kinds of music involved in these functions. I'm sure that a more thorough exploration of this subject would have to recognize and describe these possibilities.

What occurs to me in the context of this thread is the question of where the music of our putative subject, Mahler, fits into your paradigm. To what extent is Mahler's music "spiritual" in either the intrinsic or the functional sense? What specific musical structures does he employ to induce "spiritual" states and/or associations in the listener?


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> How many agnostics or atheists espouse a stated belief in reincarnation, which could be considered another form of resurrection?-
> 
> Nor does hearing his music, at least to those who understand him better, suggest anything disconnected with the spiritual forces of nature and life, the energy of agnosticism, such as his 3rd Symphony which suggests Divine Creation from the ground up.
> 
> He was not a simple but a complex man who explored many spiritual avenues and cannot be conveniently pigeonholed as being one thing or another. Sometimes one has to ponder and read between the lines... but the problem is that some appear incapable of doing that because they may have no spiritually-based convictions of their own-_they're _the agnostics, skeptics, and atheists-and are unable to recognize those convictions in someone such as Mahler.


I would say three things here.

Reincarnation, as a concept, has no necessary relation to theism. An agnostic or atheist can believe in it.

Does the music of Mahler's 3rd actually suggest divine creation? Can music do that without a program instructing us in the composer's extramusical inspiration?

I would be very careful with assumptions about the spiritual lives of those you call agnostics, atheists and skeptics. We don't need to be theists in order to have spiritual lives. We need only be human. Mahler's spiritual life, as you yourself imply, can't be neatly pigeonholed. I suspect you yourself may be doing a bit of pigeonholing by assuming that people of certain philosophical convictions can't understand "someone such as Mahler."


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

_ You have put forward several questionable claims and have made some very obscure and vague remarks. I ask what you mean, you then don't explain anything without using yet more obfuscating riddles and I dismiss it as hopeless. You then claim to be harassed and attacked and misunderstood._

The above writing example may illustrate the condition of broken language . It'd take a shaman to explain it . Healing it might be easier - even 5000 years broken .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> _ You have put forward several questionable claims and have made some very obscure and vague remarks. I ask what you mean, you then don't explain anything without using yet more obfuscating riddles and I dismiss it as hopeless. You then claim to be harassed and attacked and misunderstood._
> 
> The above writing example may illustrate the condition of broken language . It'd take a shaman to explain it . Healing it might be easier - even 5000 years broken .


You popping up with this nugget is like Jack the Ripper launching a critique of serial murder. I don't need a pedlar of koans and fortune-cookie proverbs, with eccentric punctuation, to provide commentary on my posts. Thanks all the same.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

When I have no idea what you need , it must be that I am not trying to communicate with you .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> When I have no idea what you need , it must be that I am not trying to communicate with you .


Shush then..........


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

It's for you to be deaf , and safe . Look out ! Broken record , broken record ....


----------



## eugeneonagain

You can put your other disguise back on now.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Ah , you know irrationalism . The pure rationalist would rationalize genocide . The prophet shaman is innocent of any of this categorical thinking , which is hardly horrific .


----------



## Woodduck

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Ah , you know irrationalism . The pure rationalist would rationalize genocide . The prophet shaman is innocent of any of this categorical thinking , which is hardly horrific .


"Rationalist" is a weasel word. A "pure rationalist" is a nonexistent weasel. Rationalization is not rational.

Three strikes and you're out.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Rationalism is not rational . Ok . So you speak of existence . Go on .


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The distinction you draw between music which is "spiritual" because its structure is such as to induce certain states of consciousness, and music which serves "spiritual" purposes simply by its employment in ritual or cultural contexts, is understandable, although there is certainly plenty of middle ground, overlap, and variety among the many kinds of music involved in these functions. I'm sure that a more thorough exploration of this subject would have to recognize and describe these possibilities.
> 
> What occurs to me in the context of this thread is the question of where the music of our putative subject, Mahler, fits into your paradigm. To what extent is Mahler's music "spiritual" in either the intrinsic or the functional sense? What specific musical structures does he employ to induce "spiritual" states and/or associations in the listener?


Thank you, Woodduck, for answering without the usual...oh, nevermind.

I think that to a large extent, with Mahler, we have to go outside the bounds of strictly formal musical elements, and "intuit" and sense his intent by inference, i.e., empathize with his intention, gathered circumstantially by the musical landscape he has immersed us within.
Not my idea, but something I read in a book by Robert Henri called "The Art Spirit." There are two approaches to analyzing art: the formal, which deals only with the objective qualities of art, and a more subjective approach which infers things like "Was the artist sincere?" 
My attempts to formulate some formal characteristics which make art "spiritual" were only rudimentary first-attempts, probings.

Your question to another member, "Does the music of Mahler's 3rd actually suggest divine creation? Can music do that without a program instructing us in the composer's extramusical inspiration?" was answered, if vaguely, in the YouTube documentary, by pointing out an "oscillating" figure which suggested phase or vibration. Vibration being the nature of the universe on some level. 
Frank Zappa suggested the same thing in 1967's Lumpy Gravy ballet suite, in which the characters are discussing cosmic subject matter: "Everything in the universe is made of one element, which is a note, a single note...atoms are really vibrations, you know...which are extensions of THE BIG NOTE." Listen at 20 seconds in...


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> You popping up with this nugget is like Jack the Ripper launching a critique of serial murder. I don't need a pedlar of koans and fortune-cookie proverbs, with eccentric punctuation, to provide commentary on my posts. Thanks all the same.


Oh, to the contrary; I think Tiko Tuba has been a very valuable presence on this, and especially on the "Music and the Ineffable" thread which drifted off-topic. Can you guess why?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, to the contrary; I think Tiko Tuba has been a very valuable presence on this, and especially on the "Music and the Ineffable" thread which drifted off-topic. Can you guess why?


Oh, don't be so cute. You must L_O_V_E the Tuba's sheer ineffability. I wouldn't be surprised if you're his ghost writer - or if you're writing him checks for his services.

I was just thinking aloud, of course...


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Not my idea, but something I read in a book by Robert Henri called "The Art Spirit." There are two approaches to analyzing art: the formal, which deals only with the objective qualities of art, and a more subjective approach which infers things like "Was the artist sincere?"


I'd say most people do this, even when not actively asking the question. Especially with artists like Mahler, Wagner, Beethoven, whose music is considered to be more than just pretty noises and entertainment. If you think an artist didn't believe in his own work, it's hard to believe in it yourself (even if you agree or disagree with the ideas).

I don't think a single person who comes to listen to Mahler actually has no notion of Mahler as trying to express his ideas through his music. Whether it is successfully communicated or if the ideas he is trying to express have any substance to them is another question, but valid nonetheless.

I see Mahler as a man giving himself psychological release through his music, as much as trying to communicate something 'ineffable' to other people.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Thank you, Woodduck, for answering without the usual...oh, nevermind.
> 
> *I think that to a large extent, with Mahler, we have to go outside the bounds of strictly formal musical elements, and "intuit" and sense his intent by inference*, i.e., empathize with his intention, gathered circumstantially by the musical landscape he has immersed us within.
> Not my idea, but something I read in a book by Robert Henri called "The Art Spirit." There are two approaches to analyzing art: the formal, which deals only with the objective qualities of art, and *a more subjective approach which infers things like "Was the artist sincere?*"
> My attempts to formulate some formal characteristics which make art "spiritual" were only rudimentary first-attempts, probings.


Don't be so sure that I answered "without the usual." My usual is to ask rational questions. The most rational question not yet asked was: does Mahler's music actually express the sacred or the spiritual or Being or whatever you're calling that thing or stuff you keep talking about, and if so, how does it do that? Your description of some ways music can do it seemed a clear invitation to ask the question.

Your answer appears to be: I dunno. Ya just gotta feel it.

Honestly, I think I could answer my own question better than that, but it's your thread that's making claims for Mahler as "shaman." Is it "too rational" of me to expect you to try to support your thesis with something concretely and specifically musical?


----------



## Guest

Is there a notable 'drone' component to Mahler's 3rd? I'm sorry, but I think I missed it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

MacLeod said:


> Is there a notable 'drone' component to Mahler's 3rd? I'm sorry, but I think I missed it.


Well it does tend to drone on.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Is there a notable 'drone' component to Mahler's 3rd? I'm sorry, but I think I missed it.


I don't recall any drones in Mahler's Third either, but his First Symphony begins with a deep, prolonged pedal point, which is sort of like a drone. It underlies various mysterious utterances in brasses and winds, and creates a tone painting suggesting night giving way to daylight and the awakening of life - a sort of "pastoral symphony" with a spooky introduction. It's poetic, but I don't hear or feel anything especially "spiritual," if that's taken to mean something different than poetic.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> Well it does tend to drone on.


Naughty boy. .......


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Is there a notable 'drone' component to Mahler's 3rd? I'm sorry, but I think I missed it.


No, but there is in the First Symphony, the whole first movement is virtually a drone.


----------



## millionrainbows

_WIK: Mahler was a "late Romantic," part of an ideal that placed Austro-German classical music on a higher plane than other types, _*through its supposed possession of particular spiritual and philosophical significance.
*
The whole Romantic aesthetic seems "spiritual" to me. I think that most Romantic and Post-Romantic composers had reached a higher state of consciousness by this time, and manifest this not in religious terms, but in a new form of secular awareness.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Don't be so sure that I answered "without the usual." My usual is to ask rational questions. The most rational question not yet asked was: does Mahler's music actually express the sacred or the spiritual or Being or whatever you're calling that thing or stuff you keep talking about, and if so, how does it do that? Your description of some ways music can do it seemed a clear invitation to ask the question....Your answer appears to be: I dunno. Ya just gotta feel it.


No, this is a well-known characteristic of the Post-Romantic aesthetic.

From WIK: Mahler was a "late Romantic," part of an ideal that placed Austro-German classical music on a higher plane than other types, through *its supposed possession of particular spiritual and philosophical significance.*

Pay attention, Woodduck. I did direct you to the documentary in my post #201:

_Your question to another member, "Does the music of Mahler's 3rd actually suggest divine creation? Can music do that without a program instructing us in the composer's extramusical inspiration?" was answered, if vaguely, in the YouTube documentary, by pointing out an "oscillating" figure which suggested phase or vibration. Vibration being the nature of the universe on some level.
_


> Honestly, I think I could answer my own question better than that, but *it's your thread that's making claims for Mahler as "shaman." Is it "too rational" of me to expect you to try to support your thesis with something concretely and specifically musical?*


Apparently, most classical music listeners don't like the term "shaman" because they see the correspondence with a "primitive" shaman and a German composer unsettling.

If this is too "primitive" for some people, it is because they don't understand modern art's interest in the "primitive:" Debussy and Javanese Gamelon music, Picasso's interest in African masks, Gaugin, Varese's interest in alchemy and South American cultures & percussion, Stravinsky's evocation of a "primitive" sacrifice; in fact a general lack of background in art, especially visual art.

You're always saying how Wagner's music expresses longing of the characters, etc. and that seems to satisfy you. Mahler's Third Symphony is not an opera, so its musical message is not as clear, except in the singing parts. You are aware, are you not, that music does not make explicit meanings?

You are probably skeptical of the YouTube documentary _"What the Universe Tells Me"_ as well. Did you watch it? How do you explain the several experts on that documentary, who are saying essentially the same thing as I am, and bringing in all sorts of extra-musical associations? I think that some research on your part is in order, before you shred this idea again.

The documentary, and its expert testimony, makes _your_ view seem anomalous, as against the grain, as ultra-conservative, as uninformed, as too rational, with not enough artistic sensibility.

Ever heard of Scriabin's "Mystic Chord?" I suppose you'd want a rational explanation of that, too.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...it's your thread that's making claims for Mahler as "shaman." Is it "too rational" of me to expect you to try to support your thesis with something concretely and specifically musical?


Yes; because you are being argumentative.

As DaveM said, T_he idea of "the artist as shaman" is an idea or a concept and, as such, validity does not need to be proven or disproven. However, as with any concept, it can be disagreed with as being irrelevant. Anyway, the fact that the material is on WIK or in a Marshall McLuhan book may support the concept, but doesn't 'prove' validity._

I've already listed these sources:

https://brianasaussy.com/the-artist-...tion-for-both/

https://www.academia.edu/1981865/The..._Marcus_Coates

https://shamaniceducation.org/the-ro...-in-shamanism/

https://www.evalewarne.com/blog/arti...porary-society

https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar/bi...=1&isAllowed=y

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2905090...n_tab_contents

http://www.artnews.com/2015/03/20/ac...jects-in-1970/
















Apparently, most classical music listeners don't like the term "shaman" because they see the correspondence with a "primitive" shaman and a German composer unsettling.

If this is too "primitive" for some people, it is because they don't understand modern art's interest in the "primitive:" Debussy and Javanese Gamelon music, Picasso's interest in African masks, Gaugin, Varese's interest in alchemy and South American cultures & percussion, Stravinsky's evocation of a "primitive" sacrifice; in fact a general lack of background in art, especially visual art.

I urge all listeners here to: Go to these links. Do your homework. Read some art books. Go to WIK.


----------



## Woodduck

From WIK: Mahler was a "late Romantic," part of an ideal that placed Austro-German classical music on a higher plane than other types, through its supposed possession of particular spiritual and philosophical significance.

"Supposed."

Pay attention, Woodduck.

Don't worry.

Apparently, most classical music listeners don't like the term "shaman" because they see the correspondence with a "primitive" shaman and a German composer unsettling.

No. If "most listeners" (have you polled them?) don't like it, that probably isn't why.

If this is too "primitive" for some people, it is because they don't understand modern art's interest in the "primitive:" Debussy and Javanese Gamelon music, Picasso's interest in African masks, Gaugin, Varese's interest in alchemy and South American cultures & percussion, Stravinsky's evocation of a "primitive" sacrifice; in fact a general lack of background in art, especially visual art.

There are no grounds for assuming this about "some people." There is also no connection between your notion of Mahler as shaman and primitivism in art. There is nothing remotely primitive - genuine or ersatz - about Mahler's music.

You're always saying how Wagner's music expresses longing of the characters, etc. and that seems to satisfy you. 

I'm not always saying that, and it wouldn't "satisfy" me if I were.

Mahler's Third Symphony is not an opera, so its musical message is not as clear, except in the singing parts. You are aware, are you not, that music does not make explicit meanings?

Give me a break, Rainbow.

How do you explain the several experts on that documentary, who are saying essentially the same thing as I am, and bringing in all sorts of extra-musical associations? I think that some research on your part is in order, before you shred this idea again.

I'm not asking you what "experts" think. You presented a thesis. You back it up.

The documentary, and its expert testimony, makes _your_ view seem anomalous, as against the grain, as ultra-conservative, as uninformed, as too rational, with not enough artistic sensibility.

Blah blah blah... Are you a painter, a composer, a singer, a pianist? Have you been admired and paid for your accomplishments in those fields? I am and have. Don't b******t me about "artistic sensibility."

Ever heard of Scriabin's "Mystic Chord?" I suppose you'd want a rational explanation of that, too.

I haven't asked for a rational explanation of music. I've asked how Mahler's music makes him a shaman and how it relates to the ideas of "spiritual" and "sacred" music you've presented on numerous occasions. Will you tell us or not?

As DaveM said, The idea of "the artist as shaman" is an idea or a concept and, as such, validity does not need to be proven or disproven. However, as with any concept, it can be disagreed with as being irrelevant. Anyway, the fact that the material is on WIK or in a Marshall McLuhan book may support the concept, but doesn't 'prove' validity.


Hoooooo-wheeeee!


----------



## eugeneonagain

I think there's a perfectly good rational explanation of Scriabin's 'mystic chord'. It's just a chord. Referring to it as 'mystic' is a metaphysical adjunct..


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I think there's a perfectly good rational explanation of Scriabin's 'mystic chord'. It's just a chord. Referring to it as 'mystic' is a metaphysical adjunct..


I agree, but I think Scriabin himself called it that. Of course we know he was loony.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I think there's a perfectly good rational explanation of Scriabin's 'mystic chord'. It's just a chord. Referring to it as 'mystic' is a metaphysical adjunct..


Is that all you've got to say, Eugene? I'm sorely disappointed in your, and Woodduck's participational efforts on this thread. You both seem focussed exclusively on _me._ It is flattering, in a way...


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Is that all you've got to say, Eugene? I'm sorely disappointed in your, and Woodduck's participational efforts on this thread. You both seem focussed exclusively on _me._ It is flattering, in a way...
> 
> View attachment 114035


Jeez! What makes you think we'd be interested in YOU?

I'm interested in what Mahler's music is and isn't. You're just the sap who brought it up.

(Nice photo, btw. He should have kept the beard.)


----------



## eugeneonagain

With that beard he looks a lot like my Uncle Colin when he was younger. I'll tell him he looked like Mahler.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Is that all you've got to say, Eugene? I'm sorely disappointed in your, and Woodduck's participational efforts on this thread. You both seem focussed exclusively on _me._ It is flattering, in a way...


What do you mean is it _all _I have to say? It is the answer. It may not be the one you want, or the one that pleases you, but it is the answer. C minor is C minor. It may _sound_ like a funeral march, but for reasons other than the nature of C minor.

I am disappointed that you answer me by simply sidestepping this.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> ...does Mahler's music actually express the sacred or the spiritual or Being or whatever you're calling that thing or stuff you keep talking about, and if so, how does it do that? Your description of some ways music can do it seemed a clear invitation to ask the question....your thread that's making claims for Mahler as "shaman." Is it "too rational" of me to expect you to try to support your thesis with something concretely and specifically musical?


I'm skeptical of your intent, Woodduck... 
It's well-known that most Post-Romantic music contained and expressed ideas about the philosophical and spiritual dimension, including Mahler's; 
...and the idea of the artist as shaman is also a well-documented idea (especially in the visual arts, which apparently is your blind spot). 
These are discussion ideas, not my "thesis." So why do you keep insisting that I "prove my thesis?" It's not my fault if people are unfamiliar with these ideas; perhaps they should do their own investigating.

Also, this is why I question your sincerity; your focus seems to be on _me personally_ to prove something; I call this trolling, in an attempt to disrupt, create conflict, and derail the thread.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> ...and the idea of the artist as shaman is also a well-documented idea (especially in the visual arts, which apparently is your blind spot).
> These are discussion ideas, not my "thesis." So why do you keep insisting that I "prove my thesis?" It's not my fault if people are unfamiliar with these ideas; perhaps they should do their own investigating.


The point is not that the idea hasn't already been posited, but that just because it _has_ been posited does not mean that it is either a meaningful idea or that it especially applies to Mahler.

Since you originated this thread and with, presumably, the intention of furthering this claim, it actually _is_ incumbent upon you to fully state the case and explain it and defend it from counterargument.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> The point is not that the idea hasn't already been posited, but that just because it _has_ been posited does not mean that it is either a meaningful idea or that it especially applies to Mahler.


Well, then, that's your opinion for discussion; not that I have to "prove" to you or anyone that it is a viable idea.



> Since you originated this thread and with, presumably, the intention of furthering this claim, it actually _is_ incumbent upon you to fully state the case and explain it and defend it from counterargument.


No, that's a distortion. And anyway, I've provided much, much more reference information than you or Woodduck have, as you two seem to be more interested in invalidation which borders on, if not crosses, ad hominem lines.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Quotations : Gustav Mahler

But it's peculiar, as soon as I am in the midst of nature and by myself, everything that is base and trivial vanishes without trace. On such days nothing scares me; and this helps me again and again.

That which draws us by its mystical force; what every created thing, even the very stones, feels with absolute certainty as the center of its being... is the force of love. Christians call this "eternal blessedness." It is a necessity of man for growth and joy.

Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.

You must renounce all superficiality, all convention, all vanity and delusion.

The impressions of the spiritual experiences gave my future life its form and content.

_I am in the midst of nature _


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Well, then, that's your opinion for discussion; not that I have to "prove" to you or anyone that it is a viable idea.


That's not right though is it? You made a claim (with some supplementary material). At the core of the material upon which you rely is a mere statement that doesn't validate itself by having been uttered or defined in some way.

A 'shaman' is a name for what? Someone who channels certain currents of thought through their art? What kinds of thought, of what nature and type? Is Schulhoff's music based upon the Communist Manifesto the work of shamanry or a 'consciousness-raiser? Are they different? How then do these differ?



millionrainbows said:


> No, that's a distortion. And anyway, I've provided much, much more reference information than you or Woodduck have, as you two seem to be more interested in invalidation which borders on, if not crosses, ad hominem lines.


It's not a distortion and I think you know very well that it isn't. Supporting a claim is not done merely by referring to someone else's claims in the same vein. Once you adopt the argument + conclusions - as you must have done or why the thread? - you need to explain it. How it works, what it means.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I'm skeptical of your intent, Woodduck...
> It's well-known that most Post-Romantic music contained and expressed ideas about the philosophical and spiritual dimension, including Mahler's;
> ...and the idea of the artist as shaman is also a well-documented idea (especially in the visual arts, which apparently is your blind spot).
> These are discussion ideas, not my "thesis." So why do you keep insisting that I "prove my thesis?" It's not my fault if people are unfamiliar with these ideas; perhaps they should do their own investigating.
> 
> Also, this is why I question your sincerity; your focus seems to be on _me personally_ to prove something; I call this trolling, in an attempt to disrupt, create conflict, and derail the thread.


My motive in challenging your assertions is exactly the same as my motive for challenging anyone else's - and, in case you haven't noticed, I do a lot of that around here. I haven't singled you out; you are not special, except in the sense that you are an exceptionally fertile, and if I may say so a creative, source of assertions that invite challenge. I mean that as both a compliment and a critical assessment.

For every clear and useful idea in the world there are a hundred vague and misleading ones, and anyone who believes that ideas matter is going to have to spend a lot of time sifting through imprecisions and fallacies and asking their propagators for specificity. No one sincerely interested in truth shrinks from the conversations that arise.

When you say that "Post-Romantic music contained and expressed ideas about the philosophical and spiritual dimension" (to address an idea you've just posted), you invite questions such as: Do Romantic and pre-Romantic music also contain and express such ideas? In what way do various kinds of music do that? Is containing and expressing ideas something music can do at all? What is the "philosophical and spiritual dimension"? How is it different from other "dimensions" music might contain and express? Then, to bring us back around to Mahler, the putative subject of this thread, we have to ask how our answers to the above questions apply to his music in particular, and how the particular manifestation of the spiritual dimension you've imputed to Mahler, shamanism, is "contained and expressed" in his work.

The questions proliferate.

It may be that your concept of a forum is one of a place where you can throw complex ideas into the air and have everyone catch and gobble them up gratefully as manna from heaven. If so, I regret to inform you that not everyone shares that concept. I certainly don't. I want to know what the ideas falling from the sky actually mean, and whether they have any value. I know of only one way to find out.

Challenging people's assertions is not trolling, and, far from derailing a conversation, it's the best way I know to ensure that a real conversation, as opposed to a festival of egotistical bloviation, is actually being had.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> A 'shaman' is a name for what? Someone who channels certain currents of thought through their art? What kinds of thought, of what nature and type? Is Schulhoff's music based upon the Communist Manifesto the work of shamanry or a 'consciousness-raiser? Are they different? How then do these differ?


I've already provided plenty of information to answer your questions, and am not going to go hunt them down to repost them.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

The Jewish Shaman : affects the physical world by playing in the three spirit worlds above . In our physical world the practicing shaman would touch the people with art .

_The impressions of the spiritual experiences gave my future life its form and content._ G.Mahler


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I've already provided plenty of information to answer your questions, and am not going to go hunt them down to repost them.


That's not what is being asked for. You are simply relying on other people's work and a video and expecting other people here to go through them with a fine-toothed comb; that is if they are inclined to question the premises and the conclusion.

Earlier on, in the groups, I posted some paragraphs about a book I'm reading. Would it have been correct for me to just post the title, a couple of links to reviews and a link to Amazon, and a sentence claiming: 'this is the greatest sociology book of all time'? Should I not expect some questions as to why I believe this? Some explanations and a fairly convincing argument?


----------



## Becca

eugeneonagain said:


> Supporting a claim is not done merely by referring to someone else's claims in the same vein. Once you adopt the argument + conclusions - as you must have done or why the thread? - you need to explain it. How it works, what it means.


But ... but ... but ... that's too rational.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> My motive in challenging your assertions is exactly the same as my motive for challenging anyone else's - and, in case you haven't noticed, I do a lot of that around here. I haven't singled you out; you are not special, except in the sense that you are an exceptionally fertile, and if I may say so a creative, source of assertions that invite challenge. I mean that as both a compliment and a critical assessment.


I appreciate that, Woodduck; but this is not in evidence in many of your replies, which seem to lack content, and are what I would characterize as "laying back and waiting for a target, then taking pot-shots."



> For every clear and useful idea in the world there are a hundred vague and misleading ones, and anyone who believes that ideas matter is going to have to spend a lot of time sifting through imprecisions and fallacies and asking their propagators for specificity. No one sincerely interested in *truth* shrinks from the conversations that arise.


The problem with this attitude is that it is being applied to aesthetic and artistic concepts, which are not provable, are not "truths." Especially on the subject of "spirituality," your rational anti-religious stance brings the burden of scientific proof, which is inappropriate when applied to art.



> When you say that "Post-Romantic music contained and expressed ideas about the philosophical and spiritual dimension" (to address an idea you've just posted), you invite questions such as: Do Romantic and pre-Romantic music also contain and express such ideas? In what way do various kinds of music do that? Is containing and expressing ideas something music can do at all? What is the "philosophical and spiritual dimension"? How is it different from other "dimensions" music might contain and express? Then, to bring us back around to Mahler, the putative subject of this thread, we have to ask how our answers to the above questions apply to his music in particular, and how the particular manifestation of the spiritual dimension you've imputed to Mahler, shamanism, is "contained and expressed" in his work. The questions proliferate.


Yes, but this has a much more civil tone than what you've been using on me. This sounds like a probing and explorational approach, unlike your, and Eugene's "OK so prove your codswallop" approach.



> It may be that your concept of a forum is one of a place where you can throw complex ideas into the air and have everyone catch and gobble them up gratefully as manna from heaven. If so, I regret to inform you that not everyone shares that concept. I certainly don't. I want to know what the ideas falling from the sky actually mean, and whether they have any value. I know of only one way to find out.


Again, you are masquerading as a "truth crusader" when in reality, you are being a bully.



> Challenging people's assertions is not trolling, and, far from derailing a conversations, it's the best way I know to ensure that a real conversation, as opposed to a festival of egotistical bloviation, is actually being had.


As far as I am concerned, your past "tone" on this thread renders the above to be a "nice" version of what has otherwise has been repeated attempts to do just that: derail the head, and invalidate my identity as a participant.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> That's not what is being asked for. You are simply relying on other people's work and a video and expecting other people here to go through them with a fine-toothed comb; that is if they are inclined to question the premises and the conclusion.
> 
> Earlier on, in the groups, I posted some paragraphs about a book I'm reading. Would it have been correct for me to just post the title, a couple of links to reviews and a link to Amazon, and a sentence claiming: 'this is the greatest sociology book of all time'? Should I not expect some questions as to why I believe this? Some explanations and a fairly convincing argument?


I've already provided my personal views on the validity of the thread idea.


----------



## Jacck

Tikoo Tuba said:


> _The impressions of the spiritual experiences gave my future life its form and content._ G.Mahler


it seems that poor Gustav really believed that he is going to be reborn/reincarnated in some future life


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> unlike your, and Eugene's "OK so prove your codswallop" approach.


I have not used the word 'prove' anywhere in this thread. I am not asking you to 'prove' anything, I am asking you to explain it in terms that are comprehensible, but you won't.

It has merely been set on its easel and I am being told to admire it. That's not good enough.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I've already provided my personal views on the validity of the thread idea.


No you have not.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> I have not used the word 'prove' anywhere in this thread. I am not asking you to 'prove' anything, I am asking you to explain it in terms that are comprehensible, but you won't.
> 
> It has merely been set on its easel and I am being told to admire it. That's not good enough.


I've already provided plenty of explanation of the idea of "artist as Shaman." I do not intend to hunt it down for reposting. Sorry if you're a rationalist who happens to listen to music, and has very little apparent knowledge of artistic concepts which are common knowledge to those with a deeper, more wide-ranging interest in the arts than yourself.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I appreciate that, Woodduck; but this is not in evidence in many of your replies, which seem to lack content, and are what I would characterize as "laying back and waiting for a target, then taking pot-shots."
> 
> The problem with this attitude is that it is being applied to aesthetic and artistic concepts, which are not provable, are not "truths." Especially on the subject of "spirituality," your rational anti-religious stance brings the burden of scientific proof, which is inappropriate when applied to art.
> 
> Yes, but this has a much more civil tone than what you've been using on me. This sounds like a probing and explorational approach, unlike your, and Eugene's "OK so prove your codswallop" approach.
> 
> Again, you are masquerading as a "truth crusader" when in reality, you are being a bully.
> 
> As far as I am concerned, your past "tone" on this thread renders the above to be a "nice" version of what has otherwise has been repeated attempts to do just that: derail the head, and invalidate my identity as a participant.


I can't take responsibility for your feeling of "invalidation." Sorry.

There's an adage about staying out of the kitchen...


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I've already provided plenty of explanation of the idea of "artist as Shaman." I do not intend to hunt it down for reposting. *Sorry if you're a rationalist who happens to listen to music, and has very little apparent knowledge of artistic concepts which are common knowledge to those with a deeper, more wide-ranging interest in the arts than yourself.*


If you can say this to eugeneonagain, you have no right to whine about feeling "invalidated."


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> No you have not.


----------Yes I have.


----------



## Becca

Why is it that rational seems to have taken on the same derogatory implications as 'liberal' now has to those who aren't?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If you can say this to eugeneonagain, you have no right to whine about feeling "invalidated."


Then nobody else does, either. We can either agree to be civil to each other, or continue as we have been.


----------



## Jacck

millionrainbows said:


> I've already provided plenty of explanation of the idea of "artist as Shaman." I do not intent to hunt it down for reposting. Sorry if you're a rationalist who happens to listen to music, and has very little apparent knowledge of artist concepts which are common knowledge to those interested in the arts.


no, you have just fallen in love with an idea that appeals to you, and refuse to let it go, despite the fact, that the idea is absurd.


----------



## millionrainbows

Becca said:


> Why is it that rational seems to have taken on the same derogatory implications as 'liberal' now has to those who aren't?


Because "Mahler as Shaman" is an aesthetic concept, not a rational one. Rationality, the way it is being used on this thread, is more like a bludgeon.


----------



## millionrainbows

Jacck said:


> no, you have just fallen in love with an idea that appeals to you, and refuse to let it go, despite the fact, that the idea is absurd.


No it isn't. I do admit, however, that I'm in love with this idea.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I can't take responsibility for your feeling of "invalidation." Sorry.
> 
> There's an adage about staying out of the kitchen...


Woodduck, if you can't grasp the simple concept of "The Artist as Shaman," there's no hope for you at all and you may as well give up trying to talk about the aesthetics of music. I will only say that music is full of ideas related to the spiritual, and I recommend that you go looking for such ideas forthwith and report back with your findings. But don't start with Mahler; his case may not be as obvious for you at this stage. Try a visual artist, such as Picasso or Gottlieb first.

I haven't the means here to lead you by the hand through artistic and aesthetic concepts to show you how Mahler does what he does. I wish I did; I'd love to be able to make these ideas concrete, and it would be fascinating and enlightening to us both.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Then nobody else does, either. We can either agree to be civil to each other, or continue as we have been.


I have never complained about feeling "invalidated." No one can invalidate me, not even when they (you) sneeringly call me a "rationalist" or an "atheist" who "lacks artistic sensibility." As far as I'm concerned, such off-the-wall aspersions only prove the ignorance, and the appalling presumptuousness, of those who propagate them.

As a matter of record, you have been throwing such personal characterizations at me and others for years. Your response to my very first post in this thread consisted partly of analyzing my "attitudes" or "motives" and telling me what I think and what sort of person you think I am. I've pointed out this habit of yours repeatedly, and occasionally gotten sufficiently sick of it to report it.

Perhaps a rational (sorry to use a bad word!) first step in achieving the civility you speak of is to make a distinction between ideas and the people who utter them. You may argue with my ideas as vigorously as you wish, as I argue vigorously with yours. But presume to tell me who and what I am, and things are bound to go badly.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Woodduck, if you can't grasp the simple concept of "The Artist as Shaman," there's no hope for you at all and you may as well give up trying to talk about the aesthetics of music. I will only say that music is full of ideas related to the spiritual, and I recommend that you go looking for such ideas forthwith and report back with your findings. But don't start with Mahler; his case may not be as obvious for you at this stage. Try a visual artist, such as Picasso or Gottlieb first.
> 
> I haven't the means here to lead you by the hand through artistic and aesthetic concepts to show you how Mahler does what he does. I wish I did; I'd love to be able to make these ideas concrete, and it would be fascinating and enlightening to us both.


The "artist as shaman" is not a "simple concept." One would have to be simple-minded to suggest that it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> I have never complained about feeling "invalidated." No one can invalidate me, not even when they (you) sneeringly call me a "rationalist" or an "atheist" who "lacks artistic sensibility." As far as I'm concerned, such off-the-wall aspersions only prove the ignorance, and the appalling presumptuousness, of those who propagate them.


Then how do you explain the increase in teen suicide, brought on by internet bullying of the same brand as you and Eugene have been exhibiting?



> As a matter of record, you have been throwing such personal characterizations at me and others for years. Your response to my very first post in this thread consisted partly of analyzing my "attitudes" or "motives" and telling me what I think and what sort of person you think I am. I've pointed out this habit of yours repeatedly, and occasionally gotten sufficiently sick of it to report it.


Granted, but I think your invalidations in your replies far outweigh mine, in both intensity and number.



> Perhaps a rational (sorry to use a bad word!) first step in achieving the civility you speak of is to make a distinction between ideas and the people who utter them. You may argue with my ideas as vigorously as you wish, as I argue vigorously with yours. But presume to tell me who and what I am, and things are bound to go badly.


I've made many efforts to refrain from making personal comments, by pointing out this exact same thing during the course of the thread. Does this mean that you are now ready to call a truce? 
Perhaps in the future, I can post my thread ideas to you as PMs, and you can pre-screen them before I post.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> The "artist as shaman" is not a "simple concept." One would have to be simple-minded to suggest that it is.


It seems to me that "simplicity" is irrelevant in the case of an aesthetic concept such as this, but simply a matter of whether one is willing to consider it or not in a civil way.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> It seems to me that "simplicity" is irrelevant in the case of an aesthetic concept such as this, but simply a matter of whether one is willing to consider it or not in a civil way.


You write "the simple concept of the artist as shaman," and when I challenge that idea you respond that simplicity is irrelevant to the concept. Brilliant!

What are you trying to do here? Gaslight us? We're not stupid, million.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Though I've not read this entire thread, here's my $0.02 on the subject. 

Starting from a more general perspective, I think the reason many hear more Shaman-esque spirituality in Romanticism probably has to do with the major change in philosophy that happened during that period. The best description I've heard of what that was came from the literary critic MH Abrams, who wrote a book called The Mirror and the Lamp. The major change, as he saw it, was that artists in previous centuries primarily approached art as a mirror reflecting reality. Perhaps the most direct statement of this was in Hamlet, where Hamlet flat-out says that the purpose of theater is to hold a mirror up to nature. Romanticism, however, saw art as more of a lamp, reflecting the inner light of the artist onto the world, perhaps best expressed by Wordsworth who said: "Therefore am I still / A lover of... / all the mighty world / Of eye, and ear,—both what they half create, / And what perceive." In Romanticism there was a growing realization that the individual is as much responsible for creating the world we perceive as the world itself, and, in that realization, a growing interest in exploring this "half-created" region of individual perception, feeling, and expression.

It's more difficult to discuss this with a medium like music where the language is abstract. However, what could be said is that you can see the formalism of past generations--the fugues of Bach, the sonata form of Haydn and Mozart--as an attempt to replicate in music the kind of order that was seen in nature; the "music of the spheres," so to speak. In breaking away from these forms, or, at the very least, pushing at their boundaries, it does seem as if many of the romantics were moving more towards personal expression rather than just looking outward. By the time we get to Mahler it's at the breaking point; we're not yet into the new formalism of Modernism, but the older classicism is almost imperceptible. For some, at least, it may appear that we're at the zenith of the artist as a lamp, as projecting their inner "spirit" onto the music as much as possible. I do not think Mahler was alone in this, however. To me, Wagner would fit just as well, as would someone like Liszt, Schumann and Chopin. The only thing Mahler has over them--Wagner excepted--was a grandness of vision, which perhaps is needed for many to have that spiritual/shaman-esque experience. 

When we speak of spirituality in this way, I find the German sense most interesting, as the word Geistes in German can be translated as both spirit and mind (as in Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind), so what we're really talking about is both the expression of mind, and the mental perception and experience of the audience of that expression. So there is a huge component of subjectivity that comes into play here, as it requires that the audience hear/feel something that they interpret as being spiritual. I don't think it's something that can be proved beyond an "X made me feel Y," and even when you can say that, it's another matter entirely to explain why it had that effect. Classical music is hardly unique in this, though. The reclusive singer/songwriter Mark Hollis recently passed away, and I've said I find his last two albums with Talk Talk, as well as his solo record, to be incredibly moving, spiritual experiences. I've played/shared his music with other people, and many hear nothing but random noises and incomprehensible mumbling. How am I to explain rationally why I feel what I feel listening to him, or Mahler for that matter? All I know is that there are people who feel similarly, and people who feel differently... and once again we're back to the subjectivity component of music. Still, I do think there are some plausible reasons why certain music--be it Mahler or Hollis--seems to have this affect more than most artists/composers do, and I think it has something to do with a strong unique, personality pushing against conventional form in a very serious, often grand, way.

As for the Shaman aspect, it makes sense because Shaman were typically people who had visions and utilized those visions to enlighten the world as they saw it. So Shamanism basically fits into the aforementioned "artist as lamp" metaphor. Perhaps the only difference would be that we no longer believe that Shamans have some special insight into reality itself, or that they're being spoken to by god(s), or have special powers over external reality; it's more often just that they're in tune, or seem to be at least, with that intersection of world and mind/self/experience. William Blake essentially saw all artists as modern shaman, as the people that used visions, dreams, metaphor, allegory, etc. to enlighten us about our place in the world and, at their strongest, even become leading figures of spiritual, philosophical, or political change.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Then nobody else does, either. We can either agree to be civil to each other, or continue as we have been.


And what have I written that isn't 'civil'? Is lack of civility me disagreeing and asking you to properly explain your position without recourse to obfuscation?

I've seen a dozen or so complaints from you about 'ad hominem' replies, but then you get upset and do that very thing. Am I to gather that 'understanding artistic concepts means: not being able to render them comprehensible for the purposes of discussion?

That doesn't appear very sophisticated to me at all.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In Romanticism there was a growing realization that the individual is as much responsible for creating the world we perceive as the world itself, and, in that realization, a growing interest in exploring this "half-created" region of individual perception, feeling, and expression...


I'd agree with that. Late romanticism in particular. Much of it was, however, just a return to deliberate irrationality, to mythology and flat-out religion, especially of the pre-Christian variety, which is always seen as more earthy and 'authentic' for some reason. Whilst I agree that that is what they were pursuing, I rather object to it being stated as though it refers to something meaningful beyond subjectivity.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> When we speak of spirituality in this way, I find the German sense most interesting, as the word Geistes in German can be translated as both spirit and mind (as in Hegel's "Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind), so what we're really talking about is both the expression of mind, and the mental perception and experience of the audience of that expression. So there is a huge component of subjectivity that comes into play here, as it requires that the audience hear/feel something that they interpret as being spiritual. I don't think it's something that can be proved beyond an "X made me feel Y," and even when you can say that, it's another matter entirely to explain why it had that effect. Classical music is hardly unique in this, though.


It is always interesting that mind/spirit now often has separate connotations in English, though it really refers to the same thing as the German (the Germans just haven't defined it further, in the same way they haven't bothered to update the word for oxygen). Spirit/mind refers to the essence of being (a human being/existing) in the world. In English, in German, In Greek...

There has always been a problem of being able to render feelings into thoughts, but over the millennia we've done a pretty good job. Things can often be much more 'ineffable' when people would prefer it to be so.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> As for the Shaman aspect, it makes sense because *Shaman were typically people who had visions and utilized those visions to enlighten the world as they saw it*. So Shamanism basically fits into the aforementioned "artist as lamp" metaphor. Perhaps the only difference would be that we no longer believe that Shamans have some special insight into reality itself, or that they're being spoken to by god(s), or have special powers over external reality; it's more often just that they're in tune, or seem to be at least, with that intersection of world and mind/self/experience. William Blake essentially saw all artists as modern shaman, as the people that used visions, dreams, metaphor, allegory, etc. to enlighten us about our place in the world and, at their strongest, even become leading figures of spiritual, philosophical, or political change.


Great. So now you know this, how did they do it? It seems to me that if someone can point to something and say it is so, there must be something they can also identify and talk about. I think that at bottom, once it starts being described, the 'magic' as-it-were starts to collapse somewhat. 
We know how a novelist can combine the same metaphor, dreams, allegory; plunges into nostalgia and shared culture; gtrand ideas to stir up emotions. It is often seen as the insight and intelligence of the particular novelist rather than the novelist being some sort of conduit for some extra-reality. The latter is what is really implied by 'shaman'.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *As for the Shaman aspect, it makes sense because Shaman were typically people who had visions and utilized those visions to enlighten the world as they saw it.* So Shamanism basically fits into the aforementioned "artist as lamp" metaphor. Perhaps the only difference would be that we no longer believe that Shamans have some special insight into reality itself, or that they're being spoken to by god(s), or have special powers over external reality; it's more often just that they're in tune, or seem to be at least, with that intersection of world and mind/self/experience. William Blake essentially saw all artists as modern shaman, as the people that used visions, dreams, metaphor, allegory, etc. to enlighten us about our place in the world and, at their strongest, even become leading figures of spiritual, philosophical, or political change.


Having visions and using them to enlighten the world is a rather widespread human endeavor. Philosophers, religious leaders, artists, politicians, and even scientists call it a regular day's work. That makes for an awful lot of "shamans," doesn't it?

Wiki says: "A shaman is someone who is regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of benevolent and malevolent spirits, who typically enters into a trance state during a ritual, and practices divination and healing." Not a very widespread occupation.

I enjoyed your lengthy essay. But I don't think it supports the premise of the thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> You write "the simple concept of the artist as shaman," and when I challenge that idea you respond that simplicity is irrelevant to the concept. Brilliant!
> 
> What are you trying to do here? Gaslight us? We're not stupid, million.


I don't think "simplicity" or "complexity" of the idea is relevant as a criticism as to whether or not the idea is valid for consideration; it depends on, as I said, whether one is willing to consider it or not in a civil way; and this boils down to your mindset, and what you consider worth considering. That is your opinion, and has no direct bearing on the validity of the idea, especially since the idea is not mine alone, and has been documented in all the sources I have given previously.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> And what have I written that isn't 'civil'? Is lack of civility me disagreeing and asking you to properly explain your position without recourse to obfuscation?


As the old saying goes, it's not what you say, but how you say it.



> I've seen a dozen or so complaints from you about 'ad hominem' replies, but then you get upset and do that very thing.


Am I to take this to mean you can dish it out, but you can't take it? When in Rome...



> Am I to gather that 'understanding artistic concepts means: not being able to render them comprehensible for the purposes of discussion?


I've provided plenty of comprehensible information; and speaking of, Eva Yojimbo's observations are an excellent addition to the large body of information which has accumulated on this thread. I guess you'll 'get it' when it causes a landslide and covers you up.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Am I to take this to mean you can dish it out, but you can't take it? When in Rome...


No, I was thinking more along the lines of hypocrisy. Accusing others of (falsely) doing something, then actually doing that thing.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I've provided plenty of comprehensible information; and speaking of, Eva Yojimbo's observations are an excellent addition to the large body of information which has accumulated on this thread. *I guess you'll 'get it' when it causes a landslide and covers you up.*


You have not, but it will never be admitted to.

The bit I bolded is actually very amusing and creative. It's strange how you can be so clear when being shirty, but are otherwise trapped in a smog when called upon to explain one of these metaphysical flights of fancy.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Eva Yojimbo's observations are an excellent addition to the large body of information which has accumulated on this thread. I guess you'll 'get it' when it causes a landslide and covers you up.


Eva's essay is a nice discussion of art, but it doesn't support the idea of Mahler (or "the artist") as a shaman. What has really emerged over the course of the thread is the fancifulness of the whole notion. All "shaman" amounts to here is a vague conceit meant to confer a sort of new-agey, "spiritual" aura on a composer to bring him into alignment with your personal preoccupations. In reality, Mahler did not talk to malevolent and benevolent spirits, conduct rituals, fall into or induce trances, or practice divination and healing. Of course, if you want to imagine that he is doing those things with or to you as you listen to the "Resurrection Symphony" or "spring marching in," that's your prerogative.

Btw, it's not very civil to wish a "landslide" on someone for his efforts at clear thinking.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Having visions and using them to enlighten the world is a rather widespread human endeavor. Philosophers, religious leaders, artists, politicians, and even scientists call it a regular day's work. That makes for an awful lot of "shamans," doesn't it?
> 
> Wiki says: "A shaman is someone who is regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of benevolent and malevolent spirits, who typically enters into a trance state during a ritual, and practices divination and healing." Not a very widespread occupation.
> 
> I enjoyed your lengthy essay. But I don't think it supports the premise of the thread.


WIK also defines shamanism as "a practice that involves a practitioner reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world," which puts a different spin on it.

This would exclude politicians, and perhaps include only those scientists who are super intelligent, like Hawking, and those espousing black holes, string theory, and other dimensions of existence. *For all intents and purposes, these other dimensions might as well be the modern equivalent of 'spirit worlds.'*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> After looking at the YouTube documentary about the Third (What the Universe Tells Me), it's tempting to see Mahler as a sort of non-deistic quasi-Buddhist. Lots of new religious and philosophical ideas were floating around in the nineteenth century. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were two of the most important thinkers. Schopenhauer's philosophy has been compared to Eastern philosophy, and he was indeed influenced by it. His has been called "Buddhism without the joy," as it gave a rather grim reading of existence.
> Mahler's ouvre starts out with that "droning" movement of the First Symphony, and by the Third he is pondering the great questions of existence. I definitely see him as an artist who realized the "sacred" nature of being and existence. He intended for the Third, according to the documentary, to be more than simply entertaining music; he wanted it to be a catalyst, for it to "wake us up," almost like religious music, at its best, acts as a "sacred technology" to further our spiritual awareness.
> In this sense, Mahler is like a "shaman" in a tribal culture, acting as our artistic guide into the deeper regions of our existence.


Not sure about the Buddhist aspect, maybe more of a "pantheist" idea? Did not Beethoven express the same?
Otherwise, I'm back at this juncture to support MillionRainbows for holding out. 
X
TalkingHead


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Jacck said:


> it seems that poor Gustav really believed that he is going to be reborn/reincarnated in some future life


I'm free enough to let Mahler communicate via oracle . So this afternoon I've made inquiry . He replies with : Time , and yours is beyond and above me , and it seems wild nonsense . About an hour later I call on the psychic phone again . The reply : the beyond is positive .

The shaman composer is an artist of One time . Should it be the future music is shamanistic , the one playing it for you is all the sense of it , touching the world with an art of transformation . I don't believe any recording can hold this . It may engage , yet does not touch . You are invited to reach for something .

Do you need Mahler to speak with you ? Some will cry out for authority .


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Eva's essay is a nice discussion of art, but it doesn't support the idea of Mahler (or "the artist") as a shaman.


God, how specific does one have to be to satisfy you? Eva mentioned all these things:
1. shaman-esque spirituality in Romanticism
2. major changes in philosophy that happened during that period
3. the book called _The Mirror and the Lamp
_4. how Romanticism saw art as a lamp reflecting the inner light of the artist onto the world
5. and the growing realization that the individual is as much responsible for creating the world we perceive as the world itself.

And further, Eva Yojimbo thinks that 
6. Mahler was not alone in this; that Wagner would fit, as would Liszt, Schumann and Chopin;
7. A shaman for modern-era Westerners would therefore be people (artists) who had visions and utilized those visions to enlighten the world as they saw it
8. They're in tune with that intersection of world and mind/self/experience. 
9. William Blake essentially saw all artists as modern shamans, as the people that used visions, dreams, metaphor, allegory, etc. to enlighten us about our place in the world and, at their strongest, even become leading figures of spiritual, philosophical, or political change.

*A total of nine very good points!*



> What has really emerged over the course of the thread is the fancifulness of the whole notion. All "shaman" amounts to here is a vague conceit meant to confer a sort of new-agey, "spiritual" aura on a composer to bring him into alignment with your personal preoccupations.


There you go again, attributing this whole idea of The Artist As Shaman to me personally.



> In reality, Mahler did not talk to malevolent and benevolent spirits, conduct rituals, fall into or induce trances, or practice divination and healing.


*I never did say that Mahler did. You're distorting the idea, and making all of this up, in your zeal to invalidate me personally.
*


> Of course, if you want to imagine that he is doing those things with or to you (such as talking to malevolent and benevolent spirits, conducting rituals, falling into or induce trances, or practicing divination and healing as you listen to the "Resurrection Symphony" or "spring marching in," that's your prerogative.


*That's ridiculous. I never said that Mahler's music could do that, or did that to me.
*


> Btw, it's not very civil to wish a "landslide" on someone for his efforts at clear thinking.


Here comes Woodduck, defender of the weak!


----------



## millionrainbows

TalkingHead said:


> Not sure about the Buddhist aspect, maybe more of a "pantheist" idea? Did not Beethoven express the same?


Yes, that's correct, and adds to my, admittedly, general statement. Looking at it now, in quotes, it really does seem more of an innocent, viable idea than Woodduck would have us believe it is. I think he totally missed the 'general musing' I was putting out there for interesting discussion fodder. Apparently there is some aspect of this idea that he takes as a serious attack on his paradigm.



> Otherwise, I'm back at this juncture to support MillionRainbows for holding out.
> X
> TalkingHead


Thank you, TalkingHead, I appreciate that word of encouragement more than you know.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> WIK also defines shamanism as "a practice that involves a practitioner reaching altered states of consciousness in order to perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world and channel these transcendental energies into this world," which puts a different spin on it.
> 
> This would exclude politicians, and perhaps include only those scientists who are super intelligent, like Hawking, and those espousing black holes, string theory, and other dimensions of existence. *For all intents and purposes, these other dimensions might as well be the modern equivalent of 'spirit worlds.'*
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle


_
"Reaching altered states of consciousness"?_ Hey, my consciousness alters many times a day. Which altered states are "shamanic" and which are not? _"Perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world"?_ Is that what artists think they're doing? _"Channel these transcendental energies into this world"?_ Transcendental energies? Are energies transcendental? Do they come from another world? What world is that? How is it different from this one?

No, it's not a very different spin, and it's pretty question-begging. It really skirts the specifics of shamanic practice - i.e., what makes shamans shamans, and different from the rest of us, including artists. But then you loathe specifics.

_"For all intents and purposes, these other dimensions might as well be the modern equivalent of 'spirit worlds"?_ Very far from all intents and purposes. I feel safe in assuming that most artists do not think that what they're exhibiting for our enjoyment is the "equivalent" of a (nonexistent) spirit world. In fact I would suggest that you've got it precisely backwards - that what a primitive consciousness attributes to "spirits" (gods, demons, nature spirits, etc.) are imaginary externalizations of subjective states. Art may, of course, express some of these states; humans have mental and emotional structures and functions in common, but they can conceptualize them very differently and express them through very different mediums and activities. Art and shamanism are different activities with different goals which, in the modern world, generally involve very different conceptualizations of inner experience. It won't do to obscure the differences behind perfumed clouds of "spiritual" vebiage.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's correct, and adds to my, admittedly, general statement. Looking at it now, in quotes, it really does seem more of an innocent, viable idea than Woodduck would have us believe it is. I think he totally missed the 'general musing' I was putting out there for interesting discussion fodder.* Apparently there is some aspect of this idea that he takes as a serious attack on his paradigm.*


Can't resist the personal, can you? Still talking about "Woodduck" in the third person to anyone you hope to win to your "side"? Paradigm, schmaradigm.

Buddhism an "innocent, viable idea"? A "general musing"? "Fodder"? Gee, I thought it was a great religious and philosophical tradition which ought to be invoked with a sense of responsibilty, not tossed around with hippie-dippy abandon.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Here comes Woodduck, defender of the weak!


I don't think he is defending you.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Can't resist the personal, can you? Still talking about "Woodduck" in the third person to anyone you hope to win to your "side"? Paradigm, schmaradigm.


There's no difference in that and the way you obliquely address me, as in your post #260 above.



> Buddhism an "innocent, viable idea"? A "general musing"? "Fodder"? Gee, I thought it was a great religious and philosophical tradition which ought to be invoked with a sense of responsibilty, not tossed around with hippie-dippy abandon.


It's non-deistic, and breaks with the Western notion of religion, which should be your focus.


----------



## eugeneonagain

You seem to be trapped in the late 1960s-early 1970s. Everything, it seems, was also purple (or violet, or indigo).


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Woodduck said:


> _
> "Reaching altered states of consciousness"?_ Hey, my consciousness alters many times a day. Which altered states are "shamanic" and which are not? _"Perceive and interact with what they believe to be a spirit world"?_ Is that what artists think they're doing? _"Channel these transcendental energies into this world"?_ Transcendental energies? Are energies transcendental? Do they come from another world? What world is that? How is it different from this one?


The Jewish shaman/artist Mahler said civilization is not his inspiration , oh , 
but he needs aplenty of high clarinets and piccolos .


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> You seem to be trapped in the late 1960s-early 1970s. Everything, it seems, was also purple (or violet, or indigo).


Or blood-red. Remember, there was a war going on. Actually, I was thinking more "Warhol."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> [Buddhism is] non-deistic, and breaks with the Western notion of religion, which should be your focus.
> 
> View attachment 114082


Those features have no necessary relation to shamanism. I am also non-deistic and have broken with etc. etc.

Very hippie-dippy picture, btw. Was that taken at Woodstock?


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Those features have no necessary relation to shamanism. I am also non-deistic and have broken with etc. etc.


Yeah, but all you've done is broken-with and denied, without, apparently, affirming anything (that I've heard). I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere that Man has a spiritual essence, which I call "being," which preceded all religion, but is recognized by it to varying degrees, and with various doctrinal requirements.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Or blood-red. Remember, there was a war going on.


Or rather an attempted coup gone wrong. Something for another thread, somewhere else.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere that Man has a spiritual essence, which I call "being," which preceded all religion, but is recognized by it to varying degrees, and with various doctrinal requirements.


This is the thing that kills me. A semi-religious, pseudo-philosophy with silly denotations, constructed out of ordinary facts: that we are here, that we exist. All hiding behind vague concepts like: 'being'.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Yeah, but all you've done is broken-with and denied, without, apparently, affirming anything (that I've heard). I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere that Man has a spiritual essence, which I call "being," which preceded all religion, but is recognized by it to varying degrees, and with various doctrinal requirements.


Man is conscious, and the contents and functions of his consciousness are various. That is his "spiritual essence." There are no doctrinal requirements.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> This is the thing that kills me. A semi-religious, pseudo-philosophy with silly denotations, constructed out of ordinary facts: that we are here, that we exist. All hiding behind vague concepts like: 'being'.


That's all I need. What do you expect, a cracker, a glass of wine, and a song? :lol:


----------



## Larkenfield

Millions, you're courageously trying to point that 'inner essence of being' to others who may have no background in that area and who are not interested or seeking an explanation or teachings along those lines. It's harder when someone is not looking for it, and that can lead to a great number of misunderstandings. But as you know, there have been many teachings down through the centuries that there is that essence of light within everyone but it cannot be understood through the mind; it can only be sensed and felt, and the rational mind that wants to understand everything and break it down and put a name on it or put a label on it, can't do it. It doesn't work that way. So the mention of such a state of 'being' can look irrational to the rational mind where most people are coming from. They want proof like the proof of a mathematical theorem, and certain things in life just do not work that way. Such a world of light that's part of everyone's essential nature has to be understood through sensing it within oneself what is an ineffable state of consciousness beyond words. This state of consciousness has been written about and thought about for centuries, but it can't really be felt when the mind is so busy that it covers up that sense of inner peace. In Christian teachings, it's expressed as: "Be _still_, and know that I am God." Without that inner stillness nothing beyond logic can be perceived. 
.


----------



## KenOC

TalkingHead said:


> Not sure about the Buddhist aspect, maybe more of a "pantheist" idea? Did not Beethoven express the same?


----------



## Woodduck

TalkingHead said:


> Not sure about the Buddhist aspect, maybe more of a "pantheist" idea? Did not Beethoven express the same?


"Pantheism" - the belief that some sort of "spirit" is immanent and all-pervasive in nature - certainly comes closer to the "spirit world" of the shaman than does Buddhism, although shamans tended to be from cultures that believed in a multiplicity of spirits inherent in natural objects and forces, so that "animism" might describe their conception of things better than "pantheism."

Pantheism as a philosophical position - as more than a "feeling" - is a curiosity. I think of pantheism in the modern world as akin to deism in being a last-ditch attempt to preserve the existence of an externally existing spiritual entity or god when conventional religious doctrine appears unacceptable. I think many of the Romantics, finding themselves in a culture losing its Christian doctrinal roots, were attracted to a pantheistic view; we see it in their exaltation of the "sublime" in dramatic natural phenomena such as mountains, oceans and storms, which in earlier times were viewed as merely fightening, ugly, or obstacles to everyday living. There's plenty of this "nature worship" in Romantic art, and in music - songs, operas, tone poems - from Schubert through Wagner to Mahler and Sibelius.

A "pantheistic" sense of nature as "sublime," with or without an actual belief in an indwelling "soul," is still a powerful force in our culture, and, curiously, it still meets with opposition from certain conventional religious elements who condemn the "paganism" of environmental activists and anyone who speaks of the need to revere and preserve life on earth. But I digress...


----------



## eugeneonagain

....................................


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> I'd agree with that. Late romanticism in particular. Much of it was, however, just a return to deliberate irrationality, to mythology and flat-out religion, especially of the pre-Christian variety, which is always seen as more earthy and 'authentic' for some reason. Whilst I agree that that is what they were pursuing, *I rather object to it being stated as though it refers to something meaningful beyond subjectivity.*


I wouldn't claim it refers to something beyond subjectivity either, which is why I was trying to connect Romanticism/shamanism/spirituality to the mind rather than to anything external. The connection to anything external would only be in a kind of metaphoric sense, as in the "oneness" one can feel to the universe during meditation or under the influence of drugs.



eugeneonagain said:


> There has always been a problem of being able to render feelings into thoughts, but over the millennia we've done a pretty good job. Things can often be much more 'ineffable' when people would prefer it to be so.


The problem isn't so much rendering feelings into thoughts--though there can be a problem when it comes to extremely unique and powerful experiences that are quite out of the ordinary--but rather in, one, making someone who hasn't felt those things understand and, two, trying to explain why a certain work of art or artist caused that effect. The latter, IMO, is more the crux of the issue than the former. If Mahler (or any composer/artist) provokes the sort of spiritual reaction in me that I would interpret as being metaphorically akin to a shaman, how could I convince you Mahler was a metaphorical shaman if you don't have that same reaction? Now, it's certainly an interesting question to ask as to why and how Mahler (or any artist) is capable of provoking that reaction, but all any of us could do is guess, and our guesses could be wrong. I offered some (what I felt was) plausible answers in my last post, but I could be wrong as well.



eugeneonagain said:


> Great. So now you know this, how did they do it? It seems to me that if someone can point to something and say it is so, there must be something they can also identify and talk about. I think that at bottom, once it starts being described, the 'magic' as-it-were starts to collapse somewhat.
> We know how a novelist can combine the same metaphor, dreams, allegory; plunges into nostalgia and shared culture; gtrand ideas to stir up emotions. It is often seen as the insight and intelligence of the particular novelist *rather than the novelist being some sort of conduit for some extra-reality. The latter is what is really implied by 'shaman'.*


Wait, but I was very clearly describing in my post exactly what you say here, that the whole "dreams, metaphor/allegory, connection to shared culture" (and/or a kind of Jungian collective unconscious) basically IS the role of shaman. I don't think anyone in this thread believes in shaman powers in the literal sense, as them being a conduit for "extra-reality" entities/spirits. The question is what did shaman actually do, what was their social role, and could that social role and what they actually did be akin to what certain artists/composers did. I think the answer is a qualified yes. Qualified because there are certainly differences, but yes because I feel there are some important similarities.

Once you move past fundamentalist interpretations of religion and religious practices and start trying to explain what is actually going on, it's always seemed to me that the closest analog is typically the arts; or, at least, most everything else discussed, be it history, law, morality, science, etc. seems underpinned by the art. Altogether it's what Wallace Stevens called the Supreme Fiction. In a secular world, art is very much the thing that's closest to replicating the role of religion and its practices.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Having visions and using them to enlighten the world is a rather widespread human endeavor. Philosophers, religious leaders, artists, politicians, and even scientists call it a regular day's work. That makes for an awful lot of "shamans," doesn't it?
> 
> Wiki says: "A shaman is someone who is regarded as having access to, and influence in, the world of benevolent and malevolent spirits, who typically enters into a trance state during a ritual, and practices divination and healing." Not a very widespread occupation.
> 
> I enjoyed your lengthy essay. But I don't think it supports the premise of the thread.


Yes and no. All of those other fields go about it in distinctly different ways than artists or shamans did. Not to dissect each one, but, eg, a scientist might have a vision, but then will have to answer to the rigors of experiment and the scientific method; a politician might have a vision, but, in the west at least, will have to answer to the voting public and usually to other politicians.

As I said in my above post, I don't think anyone here believes in the literal sense of shamans as people having access to/power over an external world of spirits. So, eliminate the "fundamentalist" interpretation and ask what shaman are actually doing and what their social role is. I think if you answer that, and then ask what secular profession comes closest to filling that role, the answer would be artists, including composers. If we probe further to ask if there are specific artists, or specific time periods, that are more shaman-esque than others, I'd also say yes, which is what I touched on in my first post regarding romanticism, breaking of form, the importance of the mind, etc.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

from The New Music by Aaron Copland

It is impossible to understand the music of Mahler without keeping 
in mind he was by nature a profoundly child-like artist , yet heir to 
all the problematical complexities of the modern world . The special 
poetry of his music comes from this naiveté ....


----------



## Guest

wagner's music is about chromaticism and mythological drama. mahler's music is about a holistic vision of the world


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Von der Schönheit (Beauty) by Gustav Mahler

Young girls picking flowers,
Picking lotus flowers at the riverbank.
Amid bushes and leaves they sit,
gathering flowers in their laps and calling
one another in raillery.
Golden sun plays about their form
reflecting them in the clear water.
The sun reflects back their slender limbs,
their sweet eyes,
and the breeze teasing up the warp
of their sleeves, directs the magic
of perfume through the air.
O see, what a tumult of handsome boys
there on the shore on their spirited horses.
Yonder shining like the sun's rays
between the branches of green willows
trot along the bold companions.
The horse of one neighs happily on
and shies and rushes there,
hooves shaking down blooms, grass,
trampling wildly the fallen flowers.
Hei! How frenzied his mane flutters,
and hotly steam his nostrils!
Golden sun plays about their form
reflecting them in the clear water.
And the most beautiful of the maidens sends
long looks adoring at him.
Her proud pose is but a pretense;
in the flash of her big eyes,
in the darkness of her ardent gaze
beats longingly her burning heart.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *If Mahler (or any composer/artist) provokes the sort of spiritual reaction in me that I would interpret as being metaphorically akin to a shaman,* how could I convince you Mahler was a metaphorical shaman if you don't have that same reaction? *Now, it's certainly an interesting question to ask as to why and how Mahler (or any artist) is capable of provoking that reaction,* but all any of us could do is guess, and our guesses could be wrong.
> 
> I was very clearly describing in my post exactly what you say here, that *the whole "dreams, metaphor/allegory, connection to shared culture" (and/or a kind of Jungian collective unconscious) basically IS the role of shaman. *I don't think anyone in this thread believes in shaman powers in the literal sense, as them being a conduit for "extra-reality" entities/spirits. *The question is what did shaman actually do, what was their social role, and could that social role and what they actually did be akin to what certain artists/composers did. I think the answer is a qualified yes.* Qualified because there are certainly differences, but yes because I feel there are some important similarities.
> 
> Once you move past fundamentalist interpretations of religion and religious practices and start trying to explain what is actually going on, it's always seemed to me that *the closest analog is typically the arts; *or, at least, most everything else discussed, be it history, law, morality, science, etc. seems underpinned by the art. Altogether it's what Wallace Stevens called the Supreme Fiction. *In a secular world, art is very much the thing that's closest to replicating the role of religion and its practices.*


Sentence by sentence you make some good observations, but I think your attempt to draw a parallel between art and religion - or art and shamanism, which is an expression of beliefs and rituals we would call religious - is incomplete and overworked.

The symbolic nature of art has made it a useful tool of religion, but it is not even close to being a replacement for it, not even in a secular world. I've sometimes thought of religion as a sort of collective art work in the way its myths and symbols express man's perceptions and feelings about himself and his world, but then I'm an artist for whom my work is virtually a "religion" in the way it has dominated and directed my life. It's natural for me see the world "aesthetically" - to be preoccupied by musical sounds, visual forms, verbal felicities. But I recognize this as a personal quirk and private indulgence which non-artists (and even other artists) might not share or understand. I have no illusions about art transforming my personality or showing me how to live. Religion purports to do precisely those things, and sometimes it succeeds in doing them - for good or for ill - for individuals devoted to its doctrines and practices.

An artist who imagines himself performing the role of any sort of religious functionary - and that is basically what a shaman is - is a dreamer, a megalomaniac, or both. The experience of art can be powerful, in the moment seemingly all-consuming, but when the concert is over and we go home to bed we can expect to wake up next morning more or less the same schmuck we always were. We may remember that the night before we felt transported to a finer reality; we may feel determined to experience that again; and we may, as the years pass, feel that we are better for having let such beauty into our lives. As an artist I'd be the last to undervalue that experience. But I have no illusion that Wagner and Michelangelo and George Balanchine and Robinson Jeffers have provided me with the keys to the kingdom.

Religion proposes to help humans live better lives (whether or not it does that, or does the opposite, is for another place and time). Art, qua art - apart, that is, from its use to convey an explicit message, a function primarily of the verbal arts - is far more a blessed respite from the problems of life than a solution to them. This is probably most true of music, which is by nature unable to teach us anything and which every listener will experience in his own way regardless of the intentions of the composer.


----------



## Woodduck

marc bollansee said:


> wagner's music is about chromaticism and mythological drama. mahler's music is about a holistic vision of the world


Wagner's music (some of it) is chromatic; it is not "about" chromaticism, any more than Bach's music is "about" counterpoint.

Mahler said he wanted his work to "contain the world." No music can do that. Mahler's may express most of his own emotional life. That's bound to leave out a great deal of the world.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think anyone here believes in the literal sense of shamans as people having access to/power over an external world of spirits. So, eliminate the "fundamentalist" interpretation and ask what shaman are actually doing and what their social role is.


I can see the shaman having access to a selfless power of communion . It's a very open mind , not at all literally defined . Who would the shaman say teaches this ? Don't ask -- never mind -- ol' shaman's mouth has a flute in it .


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think anyone in this thread believes in shaman powers in the literal sense, as them being a conduit for "extra-reality" entities/spirits. The question is what did shaman actually do, what was their social role, and could that social role and what they actually did be akin to what certain artists/composers did. I think the answer is a qualified yes*.* Qualified because there are certainly differences, but yes because I feel there are some important similarities.


Put that way I'd say there's very little function at all. So the answer is a qualified 'no'. If we go down this path then so many producers of art and culture could equally be labelled a 'shaman' to the point of silliness.

It's really just an attempt to put a layer of quasi-religious interest over the process of expressing views (philosophical and psychological) about the world through art.


----------



## Jacck

we can of course ask what the function of art in the world is, and then consider if there are any overlaps with shamanism. For me personally, the best kind of art is such an art, that takes some universally valid human experience, translates it into art, and shows it as a mirror back on us, and thus makes us reflect our lives, potentially even make us see new things. And the art most suited for this role is either a book or a film. Books like The Brothers Karamazov or some deep movies such as Akahige can do that. I do not have this experience with pure music (without lyrics or opera). It does not make me reflect my life or the world and serves mostly as an escapism. I do not find music spiritual, it does not lead to self-reflection or self-awareness, does not make me see the world in a new light. It has nothing in common with shamanism.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> Sentence by sentence you make some good observations, but I think your attempt to draw a parallel between art and religion - or art and shamanism, which is an expression of beliefs and rituals we would call religious - is incomplete and overworked.
> 
> The symbolic nature of art has made it a useful tool of religion, but it is not even close to being a replacement for it, not even in a secular world. I've sometimes thought of religion as a sort of collective art work in the way its myths and symbols express man's perceptions and feelings about himself and his world, but then I'm an artist for whom my work is virtually a "religion" in the way it has dominated and directed my life. It's natural for me see the world "aesthetically" - to be preoccupied by musical sounds, visual forms, verbal felicities. But I recognize this as a personal quirk and private indulgence which non-artists (and even other artists) might not share or understand. I have no illusions about art transforming my personality or showing me how to live. Religion purports to do precisely those things, and sometimes it succeeds in doing them - for good or for ill - for individuals devoted to its doctrines and practices.
> 
> An artist who imagines himself performing the role of any sort of religious functionary - and that is basically what a shaman is - is a dreamer, a megalomaniac, or both. The experience of art can be powerful, in the moment seemingly all-consuming, but when the concert is over and we go home to bed we can expect to wake up next morning more or less the same schmuck we always were. We may remember that the night before we felt transported to a finer reality; we may feel determined to experience that again; and we may, as the years pass, feel that we are better for having let such beauty into our lives. As an artist I'd be the last to undervalue that experience. But I have no illusion that Wagner and Michelangelo and George Balanchine and Robinson Jeffers have provided me with the keys to the kingdom.
> 
> Religion proposes to help humans live better lives (whether or not it does that, or does the opposite, is for another place and time). Art, qua art - apart, that is, from its use to convey an explicit message, a function primarily of the verbal arts - is far more a blessed respite from the problems of life than a solution to them. This is probably most true of music, which is by nature unable to teach us anything and which every listener will experience in his own way regardless of the intentions of the composer.


The only real difference I see between our views is that you're focusing on the differences between art and religion/shamanism and I'm focusing on the similarities. I would readily admit there are differences, though I'm not in complete agreement with all the things you mention here.

The biggest problem with art functioning as a replacement for religion is less, in my opinion, that art isn't up to task, and more that nothing is; religion included. In previous centuries, religion basically served as an all-in-one culture dump: history, philosophy, law, science, art... it was all-inclusive: your one-stop-shop for the answers to life and the universe. Over time, all these elements were overtaken by secular institutions--especially science--and, in that takeover, the flaws of religion were exposed. There are still many who seek that approach and embrace religion more, I think, because of the comfort in thinking that there can be a one-stop-shop for such answers rather than the difficulty of learning everything that a multitude of different and often difficult institutions can teach us.

But if we ask what discipline in a secular society comes closest to this melding of history, philosophy, and science... it would be art. Art is capable of addressing or, at least, depicting or making use of all of these institutions in meaningful ways, especially experientially, which is tremendously valuable in itself. The big thing I disagree with you on is in the notion that art can't have the transformative power of religion. I say this as someone who's felt that transformative power in ways that lasted much longer than the initial experience, and in which the effect on me was strong enough that I was most decidedly not the same schmuck the next day as I was before, or even the day after. Art has provoked me to think more deeply about subjects than I ever would've had I not encountered that art, and that thinking has absolutely changed me in the same profound ways that many claim religion has changed them. Now, one major difference is that most art is provocative rather than prescriptive; it can provoke you to think and change, but unlike religion it doesn't offer a "do this" guide on how to live. Though how many today find religion's prescriptions 100% adequate? There are plenty of laws in The Bible, eg, that no contemporary Christians abide by either.

All that said, I do agree with you that music, being abstract, can't really teach us even to the extent that literature or poetry or film or drama can. However, what music is particularly--I dare say even uniquely--good at is evoking those kind of mystical/religious/spiritual experiences in listeners. By that I mean a kind of dissolution of the ego with the feeling of being connected to something much larger than yourself--whether one calls it "God" or "the universe" or "nature" or whatever seems inconsequential to me next to the power of the experience itself. As someone who was deeply religious for the first 13 years of my life and who had such experiences with religion, and then as someone who's spent the last ~20 years as either agnostic or atheist, I can affirm that music is really the only thing--art or otherwise--that has evoked those same kinds of experiences and feelings. Perhaps the two works that do this most readily is the finale of Mahler's 2nd, and Wagner's Liebestod. Is it mere coincidence that both of these works are dealing with traditionally religious subject matter?

Speaking of Wagner, and knowing you're a huge fan, perhaps I should leave the last words to him: "One might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal representation." Then again, perhaps you aren't excepting Wagner from being a megalomaniac.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> Put that way I'd say there's very little function at all. So the answer is a qualified 'no'. If we go down this path then so many producers of art and culture could equally be labelled a 'shaman' to the point of silliness.
> 
> It's really just an attempt to put a layer of quasi-religious interest over the process of expressing views (philosophical and psychological) about the world through art.


Even were we to open up the metaphorical definition so that many producers of art and culture could "equally be labelled as shaman" (I doubt the truth of that, but for the sake of argument...), so what? As I've said, the all-in-one institution of religion has basically been splintered into many different, often unrelated, disciplines already and nobody objects; so why could not the role of "shaman" be similarly splintered into many different producers of art? I see no problem with this even if it were the case. In truth, I think we would tend to limit such a claim to those producers of art that seem to provoke reactions we feel are closest to what shamans used to. Though the claim then becomes highly subjective, I don't think we'll see many people labeling Taylor Swift as a modern shaman.

The attempt is probably being made because many (including myself) see meaningful and substantial parallels between art and religion. This is hardly a new thing either, philosophically speaking. Blake, Jung, Campbell, Wagner, Frye, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Stevens, Santayana, Peterson... a very short list of thinkers and artists who've been interested in the intersection between art and religion.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Even were we to open up the metaphorical definition so that many producers of art and culture could "equally be labelled as shaman" (I doubt the truth of that, but for the sake of argument...), so what?


Well obviously it would render the term 'shaman' even more meaningless, as some sort of nebulous, superfluous synonym for 'doing art' and it doesn't really help people to understand what an artist is doing any better than actually describing their thoughts, views, aims. 
Very few people I have encountered actually deduce all these extra-musical meanings merely from listening. Rather it is gleaned from reading about them and then reflected back onto further listening. In that respect it could be said that the initial communication rather failed. That's what.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> As I've said, the all-in-one institution of religion has basically been splintered into many different, often unrelated, disciplines already and nobody objects;...


Plenty people object. I object. Mostly to all those splintered bits and pieces being used to add false lustre to ordinary things and thereby draw them closer to the central metaphysical idea to which the splinters once belonged.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> so why could not the role of "shaman" be similarly splintered into many different producers of art? I see no problem with this even if it were the case. In truth, I think we would tend to limit such a claim to those producers of art that seem to provoke reactions we feel are closest to what shamans used to. Though the claim then becomes highly subjective, I don't think we'll see many people labeling Taylor Swift as a modern shaman.


I see a problem if you don't. I recommend better spectacles. Rather the larger the artwork and the more serious the reputation of the artist, the more people like to attribute layers of profundity in their exegeses.

I don't know who Taylor Swift is.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> *The attempt is probably being made because many (including myself) see meaningful and substantial parallels between art and religion.* This is hardly a new thing either, philosophically speaking. Blake, Jung, Campbell, Wagner, Frye, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Stevens, Santayana, Peterson... a very short list of thinkers and artists who've been interested in the intersection between art and religion.


That's precisely the issue at hand. It's why I thought it best to reframe the original claim as not: 'Mahler is a shaman', but rather: 'Mahler possibly thought he was some sort of shaman' (or better still: some other people have decided that Mahler is a shaman). Since shaman is just an ancient term for a sort of function within a world-view that employed witch doctors, oracles, druids, astrologers...etc...etc

Of the names you dropped, they do not all approach the relation in the same way. And even if they did it wouldn't necessarily mean the conclusion was right.


----------



## Woodduck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The only real difference I see between our views is that you're focusing on the differences between art and religion/shamanism and I'm focusing on the similarities. I would readily admit there are differences, though I'm not in complete agreement with all the things you mention here.
> 
> The biggest problem with art functioning as a replacement for religion is less, in my opinion, that art isn't up to task, and more that nothing is; religion included. In previous centuries, religion basically served as an all-in-one culture dump: history, philosophy, law, science, art... it was all-inclusive: your one-stop-shop for the answers to life and the universe. Over time, all these elements were overtaken by secular institutions--especially science--and, in that takeover, the flaws of religion were exposed. There are still many who seek that approach and embrace religion more, I think, because of the comfort in thinking that there can be a one-stop-shop for such answers rather than the difficulty of learning everything that a multitude of different and often difficult institutions can teach us.
> 
> But if we ask what discipline in a secular society comes closest to this melding of history, philosophy, and science... it would be art. Art is capable of addressing or, at least, depicting or making use of all of these institutions in meaningful ways, especially experientially, which is tremendously valuable in itself. The big thing I disagree with you on is in the notion that art can't have the transformative power of religion. I say this as someone who's felt that transformative power in ways that lasted much longer than the initial experience, and in which the effect on me was strong enough that I was most decidedly not the same schmuck the next day as I was before, or even the day after. Art has provoked me to think more deeply about subjects than I ever would've had I not encountered that art, and that thinking has absolutely changed me in the same profound ways that many claim religion has changed them. Now, one major difference is that most art is provocative rather than prescriptive; it can provoke you to think and change, but unlike religion it doesn't offer a "do this" guide on how to live. Though how many today find religion's prescriptions 100% adequate? There are plenty of laws in The Bible, eg, that no contemporary Christians abide by either.
> 
> All that said, I do agree with you that music, being abstract, can't really teach us even to the extent that literature or poetry or film or drama can. However, what music is particularly--I dare say even uniquely--good at is evoking those kind of mystical/religious/spiritual experiences in listeners. By that I mean a kind of dissolution of the ego with the feeling of being connected to something much larger than yourself--whether one calls it "God" or "the universe" or "nature" or whatever seems inconsequential to me next to the power of the experience itself. As someone who was deeply religious for the first 13 years of my life and who had such experiences with religion, and then as someone who's spent the last ~20 years as either agnostic or atheist, I can affirm that music is really the only thing--art or otherwise--that has evoked those same kinds of experiences and feelings. Perhaps the two works that do this most readily is the finale of Mahler's 2nd, and Wagner's Liebestod. Is it mere coincidence that both of these works are dealing with traditionally religious subject matter?
> 
> Speaking of Wagner, and knowing you're a huge fan, perhaps I should leave the last words to him: "One might say that where Religion becomes artificial, it is reserved for Art to save the spirit of religion by recognizing the figurative value of the mythic symbols which the former would have us believe in their literal sense, and revealing their deep and hidden truth through an ideal representation." Then again, perhaps you aren't excepting Wagner from being a megalomaniac.


You make some good points with which I agree. If I came across as seeming to underestimate the power of art or to overestimate the utility of religion, I was perhaps standing only as far left of center as I felt you to be standing right of it (no politics implied). I was also thinking of art mainly in terms of its aesthetic, as opposed to its didactic, aspects; this thread does after all propose something about a composer, not a poet, a novelist, a dramatist, or a painter of chapel ceilings. Inarguably, art which contains a verbal, pictorial or theatrical element can add to its aesthetic impact ideological content which can powerfully affect the consciousness of its audience, bringing the art closer to functioning as religion purports to function. But only in certain respects, and generally more incidentally than by anyone's intention.

I'm no apologist for religion, and I recognize in it all the difficulties you mention. Religions are diverse, however; they embody, in some ways, man's highest aspirations and conceptions, and we must acknowledge and respect some of their goals and disciplines. Most important among these are the emphasis on the moral life (common to most major religions, though moral codes differ) and on the overcoming of limiting concepts of the self (a concern mainly of Eastern religions). These represent what I'll call the instrumental aspect of religion - the things which, ideally, it exists to accomplish. They are not, by and large, things that art exists to accomplish, and I dare say that even art which purports to enlighten its audience generally fails to do so to any great extent, if only because that audience, unlike the penitent, the reader of scripture, or the meditator, doesn't come to it looking to be transformed. We tend to get out of things what we seek from them, and most of art's power, such as it is, lies _in potentia,_ waiting for our brains to make of it what they can. As I observe humanity, what it makes of even great art is generally not very much. Wagner, that dreamer and megalomaniac, may have hoped that his symbolic tales of salvation, grand amalgams of the arts bathed in sensuous, mystical harmony, would improve the world, but he ended up being adopted by Hitler and then more or less banned from the concert halls of Israel.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Even were we to open up the metaphorical definition so that many producers of art and culture could "equally be labelled as shaman" (I doubt the truth of that, but for the sake of argument...), so what? As I've said, the all-in-one institution of religion has basically been splintered into many different, often unrelated, disciplines already and nobody objects; so why could not the role of "shaman" be similarly splintered into many different producers of art? I see no problem with this even if it were the case. In truth, I think we would tend to limit such a claim to those producers of art that seem to provoke reactions we feel are closest to what shamans used to. Though the claim then becomes highly subjective, I don't think we'll see many people labeling Taylor Swift as a modern shaman.
> 
> The attempt is probably being made because many (including myself) see meaningful and substantial parallels between art and religion. This is hardly a new thing either, philosophically speaking. Blake, Jung, Campbell, Wagner, Frye, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Stevens, Santayana, Peterson... a very short list of thinkers and artists who've been interested in the intersection between art and religion.


That's a good point, because many diverse disciplines became charged with new meaning after the decline of formal religion, and we can look at it in those terms, or in terms of it being 'man's search for meaning' or the power of the 'spirit' formerly held by religion. This seems to me to be the reason that it is so hard to define 'atheism;' it can manifest as almost anything. In the book 'The Age of Atheists' by Peter Watson, everything from Hitler's modifed white Christianity to groups of poets is discussed.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Is that another way of saying people (at least those honest enough to realise when something has lost credibility) lost the ability to store all their 'spiritual meanings' in one official, convenient place and so looked to other human activities to replace it?

Is this really true? Is it not actually the case that these sorts of beliefs spilled into (or infused) a great deal of ordinary human activity for most of civilisation? Before the organisation of the great religions? The religious or belief backdrop merely offered a sort of confirmation that the infused beliefs were legitimate and had meaning. Once the rug was pulled from underneath you suddenly see all sorts of 'crises'. Yet crises of what? Not of belief, because people seemed to have gone on desiring the same things, but a crises of legitimacy and conformation of the beliefs.

Plus a crisis of attempting to rebuild a huge accumulation of irrational beliefs on top of ordinary human activity. Whereas previously the solidity of religions made this seem easy, now it's a battle.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Is that another way of saying people (at least those honest enough to realise when something has lost credibility) lost the ability to store all their 'spiritual meanings' in one official, convenient place and so looked to other human activities to replace it?


Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.



> Is this really true? Is it not actually the case that these sorts of beliefs spilled into (or infused) a great deal of ordinary human activity for most of civilisation? Before the organisation of the great religions? The religious or belief backdrop merely offered a sort of confirmation that the infused beliefs were legitimate and had meaning.


Religion (as an iconic presence of one religion) had power over the individual, and when the Enlightenment came, neither royalty nor religion could supersede the individual; remember, the Enlightenment did more than simply bring reason; it also elevated the individual, was the genesis of women's rights, human rights. So the Enlightenment gave new credibility and power to non-religious areas such as poetry, other forms of religion, philosophy, etc.



> Once the rug was pulled from underneath you suddenly see all sorts of 'crises'. Yet crises of what? Not of belief, because people seemed to have gone on desiring the same things, but a crises of legitimacy and conformation of the beliefs.


I don't think everyone saw it as a crisis. Some were perfectly content.



> Plus a crisis of attempting to rebuild a huge accumulation of irrational beliefs on top of ordinary human activity. Whereas previously the solidity of religions made this seem easy, now it's a battle.


I don't think everything got eradicated; other things simply gained more power and legitimacy. Remember that with the Enlightenment came religious tolerance; it was now a secular world (especially in America), so other religions and other belief systems were expected to coexist in relative freedom for all.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, that's basically what I'm saying.


Okay.



millionrainbows said:


> Religion (as an iconic presence of one religion) had power over the individual, and when the Enlightenment came, neither royalty nor religion could supersede the individual; remember, *the Enlightenment did more than simply bring reason; it also elevated the individual*, was the genesis of women's rights, human rights. So the Enlightenment gave new credibility and power to non-religious areas such as poetry, other forms of religion, philosophy, etc.


Yes, I said as much pages back in this thread. When you write: "gave new credibility to..." do you mean elevated them as non-religious forms of culture or just: shifted religious/'spiritual' ideas over to a new halfway house?



millionrainbows said:


> I don't think everyone saw it as a crisis. Some were perfectly content.


Well of course I mean those people who felt they had lost something integral to their lives.



millionrainbows said:


> I don't think everything got eradicated; other things simply gained more power and legitimacy. Remember that with the Enlightenment came religious tolerance; it was now a secular world (especially in America), so other religions and other belief systems were expected to coexist in relative freedom for all.


I wouldn't say especially in America, though that might have been the intention.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

Jacck said:


> I do not find music spiritual, it does not lead to self-reflection or self-awareness, does not make me see the world in a new light. It has nothing in common with shamanism.


Shaman music has only one context , a vitality of the moment . It's like when nuns play their angelic harps at the bedside of the dying child .

_How many shamans does it take to enlighten a bulb_ ?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> Well obviously it would render the term 'shaman' even more meaningless, as some sort of nebulous, superfluous synonym for 'doing art' and it doesn't really help people to understand what an artist is doing any better than actually describing their thoughts, views, aims.
> Very few people I have encountered actually deduce all these extra-musical meanings merely from listening. Rather it is gleaned from reading about them and then reflected back onto further listening. In that respect it could be said that the initial communication rather failed. That's what.


What you're describing is the term changing meaning, not becoming meaningless. This is a historically common occurrence.

I guess you're talking to someone now who "deduced all these extra-musical meanings merely from listening," given that I knew nothing of these interpretations surrounding Mahler or Wagner before listening to them and still had reactions I described as spiritual. Besides, someone must've had such an experience to begin with to ever write about it to start, and others must've had it to have agreed with them.



eugeneonagain said:


> Plenty people object. I object. Mostly to all those splintered bits and pieces being used to add false lustre to ordinary things and thereby draw them closer to the central metaphysical idea to which the splinters once belonged.


I'm not sure you get my meaning. What I meant is that, eg., the kind of science described in religion--statements about the way reality and the universe is--was overtaken by the discipline of science, and, in fact, splintered into a great many different scientific disciplines. The only people who complain about this splintering are fundamentalists who want to believe their holy books are scientifically inerrant. All I'm suggesting is that if the shaman-esque practices and experiences of religion split and splintered into anything, the closest analog would be the arts.



eugeneonagain said:


> I see a problem if you don't. I recommend better spectacles. Rather the larger the artwork and the more serious the reputation of the artist, the more people like to attribute layers of profundity in their exegeses.
> 
> I don't know who Taylor Swift is.


Well, you're not really describing anything that I would consider a problem. I do agree, though, that the "larger the artwork... the more people... attribute layers of profundity," but, again, I don't see the problem with that, and it kinda contradicts your idea that doing any/all art would become synonymous with being a shaman. Not all artworks are large, and not all artists have such a serious reputation! So now we're limiting the shaman-esque qualities to largeness and seriousness. Though I still suspect it has more to do with the subjective effect it has on people than anything else.

RE Taylor Swift; what's the weather like under your rock? 



eugeneonagain said:


> That's precisely the issue at hand. It's why I thought it best to reframe the original claim as not: 'Mahler is a shaman', but rather: 'Mahler possibly thought he was some sort of shaman' (or better still: some other people have decided that Mahler is a shaman). Since shaman is just an ancient term for a sort of function within a world-view that employed witch doctors, oracles, druids, astrologers...etc...etc
> 
> Of the names you dropped, they do not all approach the relation in the same way. And even if they did it wouldn't necessarily mean the conclusion was right.


Well, yeah, again, I don't think anyone here thinks Mahler was a _literal_ shaman. It's like some people around here don't get metaphor. You know if I started a thread saying "Mozart is king," that I don't mean we should be literally worshiping the guy and obeying what he said as law, yes?

Of course I'm aware all of those thinkers approached the relation differently. The point was just to show that this discussion isn't exactly anything new or not worth having.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

millionrainbows said:


> That's a good point, because many diverse disciplines became charged with new meaning after the decline of formal religion, and we can look at it in those terms, or in terms of it being 'man's search for meaning' or the power of the 'spirit' formerly held by religion. This seems to me to be the reason that it is so hard to define 'atheism;' it can manifest as almost anything. In the book 'The Age of Atheists' by Peter Watson, everything from Hitler's modifed white Christianity to groups of poets is discussed.


I've always said that you can debunk, deny, or even eliminate religion, but you won't and can't eliminate the aspects of humanity that drove them to create, seek out, and follow religion to begin with. So, yes, in the absence of religion people will naturally turn to other things to find meaning, purpose, and answers to the universe. I do think that, if they're careful and conscientious about this, what they'll find will probably be better than most religions, but it's a more difficult path that's fraught with peril.

As far as atheism goes, to me it's mostly just a rejection of fundamentalism, the rejection that the stories contained in religion are literally true (or, at least, completely true; one might be an atheist who believes Jesus existed, but deny that he performed miracles). To me, even a term like "Christian atheism" isn't incoherent, as one can deny the fundamentalist interpretations of The Bible, but think Jesus was a pretty cool dude who set a good example of how to live and act and choose to follow that example, so religion just becomes synonymous with a chosen philosophy.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What you're describing is the term changing meaning, not becoming meaningless. This is a historically common occurrence.
> 
> I guess you're talking to someone now who "deduced all these extra-musical meanings merely from listening," given that I knew nothing of these interpretations surrounding Mahler or Wagner before listening to them and still had reactions I described as spiritual. Besides, someone must've had such an experience to begin with to ever write about it to start, and others must've had it to have agreed with them.


One of the few eh? Of course some must have started it. People tend to be quite lazy and willing to accept such theories rather than actually think it through. You say you had a 'spiritual' reaction, but I don't know what that entails or means and I don't think you or anyone alse saying it does either; apart from repeatedly saying: 'It's a feeling'.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I'm not sure you get my meaning. What I meant is that, eg., the kind of science described in religion--statements about the way reality and the universe is--was overtaken by the discipline of science, and, in fact, splintered into a great many different scientific disciplines. The only people who complain about this splintering are fundamentalists who want to believe their holy books are scientifically inerrant. All I'm suggesting is that if the shaman-esque practices and experiences of religion split and splintered into anything, the closest analog would be the arts.


That's likely true (see previous exchange with MR), yet all it has done is falsely give the impression that music such as that of Mahler is another sort of specially profound version of religious thinking/communication. Rather than some musicians using a human cultural activity as a vehicle for their beliefs. I suppose though, once these charlatans are closed down in one venue, they open up somewhere else.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well, you're not really describing anything that I would consider a problem. I do agree, though, that the "larger the artwork... the more people... attribute layers of profundity," but, again, I don't see the problem with that, and it kinda contradicts your idea that doing any/all art would become synonymous with being a shaman. Not all artworks are large, and not all artists have such a serious reputation! So now we're limiting the shaman-esque qualities to largeness and seriousness. Though I still suspect it has more to do with the subjective effect it has on people than anything else.
> 
> RE Taylor Swift; what's the weather like under your rock?


It in no way 'contradicts' that idea. It points to the idea that shamanism is a dead idea from a world of spirits in every nook and cranny and that the 'new shamanism' in the aftermath of the collapse of religious authority in the West - because that's all it is - is really desperate self-delusion.

I looked-up Taylor Swift on YT. I'm no wiser, the examples were not my cup of tea. I don't listen to much current chart music.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Well, yeah, again, I don't think anyone here thinks Mahler was a _literal_ shaman. It's like some people around here don't get metaphor. You know if I started a thread saying "Mozart is king," that I don't mean we should be literally worshiping the guy and obeying what he said as law, yes?
> 
> Of course I'm aware all of those thinkers approached the relation differently. The point was just to show that this discussion isn't exactly anything new or not worth having.


If it's only a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? If you can tell me that, then I'm wondering why you aren't using that term rather than furthering a lot of foggy references to vague ideas of 'shamanry'. Of course I know it's because it sexes-up the idea of well-written music infused with the personality and thoughts of a composer. Referring to it as a composer able to put his thought into his art...basically an 'artist'! is too pedestrian for the ever-seeking brothers and sisters of 'spirituality'.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Woodduck said:


> You make some good points with which I agree. If I came across as seeming to underestimate the power of art or to overestimate the utility of religion, I was perhaps standing only as far left of center as I felt you to be standing right of it (no politics implied). I was also thinking of art mainly in terms of its aesthetic, as opposed to its didactic, aspects; this thread does after all propose something about a composer, not a poet, a novelist, a dramatist, or a painter of chapel ceilings. Inarguably, art which contains a verbal, pictorial or theatrical element can add to its aesthetic impact ideological content which can powerfully affect the consciousness of its audience, bringing the art closer to functioning as religion purports to function. But only in certain respects, and generally more incidentally than by anyone's intention.
> 
> I'm no apologist for religion, and I recognize in it all the difficulties you mention. Religions are diverse, however; they embody, in some ways, man's highest aspirations and conceptions, and we must acknowledge and respect some of their goals and disciplines. Most important among these are the emphasis on the moral life (common to most major religions, though moral codes differ) and on the *overcoming of limiting concepts of the self *(a concern mainly of Eastern religions). These represent what I'll call the instrumental aspect of religion - the things which, ideally, it exists to accomplish. *They are not, by and large, things that art exists to accomplish,* and I dare say that even art which purports to enlighten its audience generally fails to do so to any great extent, if only because that audience, unlike the penitent, the reader of scripture, or the meditator, doesn't come to it looking to be transformed. We tend to get out of things what we seek from them, and most of art's power, such as it is, lies _in potentia,_ waiting for our brains to make of it what they can. As I observe humanity, what it makes of even great art is generally not very much. Wagner, that dreamer and megalomaniac, may have hoped that his symbolic tales of salvation, grand amalgams of the arts bathed in sensuous, mystical harmony, would improve the world, but he ended up being adopted by Hitler and then more or less banned from the concert halls of Israel.


Great post, Woodduck, and I find very little here with which I can disagree with or argue against. Regarding the bold, it is worth noting that that's very close to what Schopenhauer thought was art's greatest attribute; that in contemplating art, man was able to, at least temporarily, remove the limiting (and, ultimately, painful) concepts of self (including will/desire) through the contemplation of the world as representation (symbols, images), and he also felt music was the best at this. Of course, Schopenhauer himself was heavily influenced by Eastern religions.



> ...I dare say that even art which purports to enlighten its audience generally fails to do so to any great extent, if only because that audience, unlike the penitent, the reader of scripture, or the meditator, doesn't come to it looking to be transformed. We tend to get out of things what we seek from them, and most of art's power, such as it is, lies _in potentia,_ waiting for our brains to make of it what they can.


This is a crucial point that we agree strongly on, but I would note that it relies on a strong subjective component in which to work. Meaning that people tend to put religion and art into mentally separate categories; the former is for enlightenment, the latter is for entertainment. Thus, as you suggest, they get out what they go into them expecting to get out. However, it's just as possible for an open mind, especially one disillusioned by religion's inability to be a "one-stop-shop" for answers and meaning, to find and experience that same enlightenment potential in art. I'd even argue that, in the case of art, the experience can be more powerful because, unlike religion, it isn't a pre-packaged thing that millions or billions of people agree has some profound meaning and significance, but is rather something in which the individual connects profoundly with and finds meaning and significance on their own. It's the classic difference between being given the answer VS finding the answer for yourself. Sure, you end up with the right answer either way, but the answer you work for and get yourself will always be more significant because you brought something of yourself to the endeavor.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> *If [Mahler as shaman is] only a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for?* If you can tell me that, then I'm wondering why you aren't using that term rather than furthering a lot of foggy references to vague ideas of 'shamanry'. Of course I know it's because *it sexes-up the idea of well-written music infused with the personality and thoughts of a composer. Referring to it as a composer able to put his thought into his art...basically an 'artist'! is too pedestrian for the ever-seeking brothers and sisters of 'spirituality'.*


Bingo. ................


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> One of the few eh? Of course some must have started it. People tend to be quite lazy and willing to accept such theories rather than actually think it through. You say you had a 'spiritual' reaction, but I don't know what that entails or means and I don't think you or anyone alse saying it does either; apart from repeatedly saying: 'It's a feeling'.


I began this thread by saying that it is, indeed, a subjective feeling, and one very difficult to describe in a way that people who have not had it can understand. All I know is that I had such experience back when I was a religious believer, and since becoming an atheist there are only a handful of works of art that have replicated that experience. I've heard (though can not personally confirm) that certain drugs can replicate it as well. Just to be clear, I'm under no illusion that these "spiritual experiences" are anything more than mental.



eugeneonagain said:


> That's likely true (see previous exchange with MR), yet all it has done is falsely give the impression that music such as that of Mahler is another sort of specially profound version of religious thinking/communication. Rather than some musicians using a human cultural activity as a vehicle for their beliefs. I suppose though, once these charlatans are closed down in one venue, they open up somewhere else.


I see it quite differently. If we agree (and I'm pretty sure we do) that religion is man-made, that must mean that there was something innate in our humanity that drove us to create it, desire it, follow it, etc. That also means that there are decidedly natural explanations for the kinds of experiences people have with religion that they describe as being "spiritual/religious." My point all along has been that, given such things are natural (I started this thread by discussing it in terms of mind), there's no reason they can't be replicated in other fields--like with music, or even, indeed, with drugs--and there's probably a reason as well why people tend to describe their experiences with such things as "spiritual/religious" as well. I see nothing about this that's to do with charlatanism, I see it as having to do with some currently unexplained phenomena that people experience. You can (rightfully) deny the supernatural explanations without denying the experiences themselves. If people tend to discuss those experiences in religious or even supernatural terms, it's probably only because the former is the closest analog they have, and the latter is lazily used by many to explain anything they don't understand.



eugeneonagain said:


> If it's only a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for? If you can tell me that, then I'm wondering why you aren't using that term rather than furthering a lot of foggy references to vague ideas of 'shamanry'. Of course I know it's because it sexes-up the idea of well-written music infused with the personality and thoughts of a composer. Referring to it as a composer able to put his thought into his art...basically an 'artist'! is too pedestrian for the ever-seeking brothers and sisters of 'spirituality'.


I described some of the connections I see between some art and "shamanry" in my first post. I'm not sure if I can do much better than that. The only thing I see it "sexing up" is the experiences people have with it. In a way, Woodduck covered this well in his last post; most people look at art as entertainment, as temporary respite from the rigors of the world. Clearly, some art is more important and profound to some people than mere entertainment. The words "art" and "artist" might describe what the works and people who create them literally are, but they do not describe the kinds of experiences people can have with them, so people look elsewhere for analogs, for metaphors. This is a perfectly understandable human endeavor, though perhaps too much for the too literal-minded.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I began this thread by saying that it is, indeed, a subjective feeling, and one very difficult to describe in a way that people who have not had it can understand. All I know is that I had such experience back when I was a religious believer, and since becoming an atheist there are only a handful of works of art that have replicated that experience. I've heard (though can not personally confirm) that certain drugs can replicate it as well. Just to be clear, I'm under no illusion that these "spiritual experiences" are anything more than mental.


Well you did arrive quite late-on and we had already discussed this idea. I always find it telling that it takes a religious turn of mind to be able to judge an experience as spiritual. There is no way either you or I can determine whether or not I have had a similar (or even exactly the same) experience and yet didn't interpret it as 'spiritual' at all.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I see it quite differently. If we agree (and I'm pretty sure we do) that religion is man-made, that must mean that there was something innate in our humanity that drove us to create it, desire it, follow it, etc. That also means that there are decidedly natural explanations for the kinds of experiences people have with religion that they describe as being "spiritual/religious." My point all along has been that, given such things are natural (I started this thread by discussing it in terms of mind), there's no reason they can't be replicated in other fields--like with music, or even, indeed, with drugs--and there's probably a reason as well why people tend to describe their experiences with such things as "spiritual/religious" as well. I see nothing about this that's to do with charlatanism, I see it as having to do with some currently unexplained phenomena that people experience. You can (rightfully) deny the supernatural explanations without denying the experiences themselves. If people tend to discuss those experiences in religious or even supernatural terms, it's probably only because the former is the closest analog they have, and the latter is lazily used by many to explain anything they don't understand.


Something innate? The wish for something to hold everything together in a chaotic world? The desire to have an authority above that of ourselves? The creation of a stopping point to ease the mind for daily life without having think about 'why' all the time? The hope that something somewhere will be waiting for us after inevitable death? Yes, I imagine there are umpteen other possibilities as well. Which doesn't make them real or true though.
It's curious how those things have disappeared for a great multitude once people started thinking in other directions.

Currently unexplained phenomena? We're back to square one. The old argument from experience. You're right I cannot deny the experiences, but the mistake is always in assuming how the experience is judged is as valid as the fact of the experience. I say I saw a ghost - the experience happened, that's not questioned, but is the experience what I judge it to be?



Eva Yojimbo said:


> I described some of the connections I see between some art and "shamanry" in my first post. I'm not sure if I can do much better than that. The only thing I see it "sexing up" is the experiences people have with it. In a way, Woodduck covered this well in his last post; most people look at art as entertainment, as temporary respite from the rigors of the world. Clearly, some art is more important and profound to some people than mere entertainment. The words "art" and "artist" might describe what the works and people who create them literally are, but they do not describe the kinds of experiences people can have with them, so people look elsewhere for analogs, for metaphors. This is a perfectly understandable human endeavor, though perhaps too much for the too literal-minded.


The Schopenhauer link was dealt with pages back, I wrote a few posts about it (could even have been in the similarly-themed, but recently closed thread). I am not 'literal-minded', only clear-minded. Though I know it is often the standard put-down from people whose minds are so open their brain falls out.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> I always find it telling that it takes a religious turn of mind to be able to judge an experience as spiritual. There is no way either you or I can determine whether or not I have had a similar (or even exactly the same) experience and yet didn't interpret it as 'spiritual' at all.


It's just an experience most commonly linked to religion. There's even a Wiki page on it that the shaman page links to. When people have it outside of religion, what do you want them to call it? You're absolutely right that I (at least) can't say whether you've had a similar experience.



eugeneonagain said:


> Currently unexplained phenomena? We're back to square one. The old argument from experience. You're right I cannot deny the experiences, but the mistake is always in assuming how the experience is judged is as valid as the fact of the experience. I say I saw a ghost - the experience happened, that's not questioned, but is the experience what I judge it to be?


Right, one shouldn't confuse with the experience with the explanation of the experience. Experiences of "ghosts" shouldn't be confused with the supernatural explanations of said experiences. But who here is offering supernatural or unreasonable/implausible explanations for these shaman-esque experiences with art and music? I said early on: "...it's certainly an interesting question to ask as to why and how Mahler (or any artist) is capable of provoking that reaction, but all any of us could do is guess, and our guesses could be wrong. I offered some (what I felt was) plausible answers in my last post, but I could be wrong as well."

Generally, I've been in the naturalistic/scientific/rationalistic frame-of-mind for so long that I pretty much just automatically interpret all references to anything supernatural, spiritual, etc. as just being metaphoric anyway, with most of religion's stories being allegories for a variety of things. So when someone says "Mahler as shaman" I don't think of some quack who's literally communicating with supernatural spirits and other dimensions and using them to heal people, I think of someone engaging in meditation and feeling a greater connection to the universe/reality and using certain mental techniques to make people feel better (think Placebo Effect). Transfer it to art and it's artists trying to incorporate a similar meditative/connected state, perhaps influenced by certain philosophies around the matter.



eugeneonagain said:


> I am not 'literal-minded', only clear-minded. Though I know it is often the standard put-down from people whose minds are so open their brain falls out.


I'd wager that, having spent a good chunk of the last 10 years studying rationality and (more casually) reading science and philosophy, I'm every bit as "clear-minded" as you are. Yet, you have been exceedingly literal in this thread, at least towards me, when discussing shaman, even after I've made it repeatedly clear I'm approaching it metaphorically, analogically, etc. You keep wanting to ward of any sense of woo-woo that isn't there, at least certainly not on my part.


----------



## eugeneonagain

The woo is never far behind. As to 'rationality' you might want to check out an interesting thread in the religion group. That word is much misused and misinterpreted.

I can't imagine why anyone professing so forcefully to be upholding a scientific/philosophical approach would be on about 'spiritual experiences' and 'shamans'. 

I've been at this game a lot longer than 10 years (not that this should be relevant to the arguments put forward or challenged).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> The woo is never far behind. As to 'rationality' you might want to check out an interesting thread in the religion group. That word is much misused and misinterpreted.
> 
> I can't imagine why anyone professing so forcefully to be upholding a scientific/philosophical approach would be on about 'spiritual experiences' and 'shamans'.
> 
> I've been at this game a lot longer than 10 years (not that this should be relevant to the arguments put forward or challenged).


The woo is far behind for me. I certainly agree rationality is misused and misinterpreted, but not by me. Unless you think people like ET Jaynes, Judea Pearl, Ray Solomonoff, Daniel Kahneman, and Eliezer Yudkowsky don't know what they're talking about when it comes to rationality (and I'd wager most tossing the word "rationality" around have never heard any of these names).

Because, again, there is most certainly real phenomena that people label "spiritual experiences," and there's something real and natural that shamans actually do. Being real and natural, these things do not have to be irredeemably attached to woo, and they do not have to be hoarded or owned by those professing such woo. I'm perfectly fine approaching them on that level of realness/naturalness, and finding metaphors/analogs to similar things completely divorced from said woo. I'd actually be quite interested in any scientific explanations for such things. I'm guessing there are some out there that I'm just not aware of (which is usually the case given the vastness of science: "nobody knows what science doesn't know").


----------



## eugeneonagain

The operative word is 'labelled' as spiritual experiences. Then you write this:



> Being real and natural, these things do not have to be irredeemably attached to woo, and they do not have to be hoarded or owned by those professing such woo.


Real? Natural? The experiences, yes, not necessarily the labelling and judgement, even by so-called 'shamans'. We agreed upon that already.

I must say though, there is no need to continually name-drop the people you have read/are reading. The only thing you have to do is make an argument.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

eugeneonagain said:


> The operative word is 'labelled' as spiritual experiences. Then you write this:
> 
> Real? Natural? The experiences, yes, not necessarily the labelling and judgement, even by so-called 'shamans'. We agreed upon that already.
> 
> I must say though, there is no need to continually name-drop the people you have read/are reading. The only thing you have to do is make an argument.


Yes, by "real and natural" I'm referring to the experiences. A label is just a label. Unless we're talking science it doesn't necessarily entail any given explanation. Remember how I started out explicitly tying "spirit" to "mind?" So, to me, "spiritual experience" is just a kind of "mental experience," not one tied to woo.

The point of name-dropping is to give a quick reference to the work of people I consider real rationalists. I could just as easily say "my idea(l) of rationality is P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A) / P(B)" if that works better for you. Actually explaining it myself would take a lot of time and text.


----------



## Jacck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, by "real and natural" I'm referring to the experiences. A label is just a label. Unless we're talking science it doesn't necessarily entail any given explanation. Remember how I started out explicitly tying "spirit" to "mind?" So, to me, "spiritual experience" is just a kind of "mental experience," not one tied to woo.
> 
> The point of name-dropping is to give a quick reference to the work of people I consider real rationalists. I could just as easily say "my idea(l) of rationality is P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A) / P(B)" if that works better for you. Actually explaining it myself would take a lot of time and text.


Bayesian probability = rationality? Rationality is nonsense. There is no one who could be called a rationalist. The very nature of human ego is to decept itself and most of our motivation comes from irrational subconscious motives. Even the need to engage in this conversation and to try to convice others about our "truth" is not very rational. We gain nothing out of it except some vague feeling of self-validation that our ego needs to feed its vanity. We already had a discussion about logical positivists here - those guy were trying to found philosophy on rationality and found out that it is impossible. Read and digest this book instead
https://www.cybertech-engineering.c...8/maturana-h-1987-tree-of-knowledge-bkmrk.pdf
it is a real eye-opener


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

It should be easier to explain woo rather than real rationalists . Woo is such a simple word . It's the word to call my dog home from the fields . She has no name . Woo means come home from afar .

And the Mahler's ? That family once lived down the country road to the south from here . They pronounce it _mailer_ .

Hmm ... I don't mind Spirit=Intelligence . What of Spirit Power=Intelligence Power ? I could allow that Power=Potential . I hear spirit say woo , and my broken bones come home . Woo the dog and she comes 'round to eat chicken soup with bones in .


----------



## eugeneonagain

This guy above is the worst ever aide-de-camp for the OP.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Jacck said:


> Bayesian probability = rationality?


Yes.



Jacck said:


> Rationality is nonsense. There is no one who could be called a rationalist. The very nature of human ego is to decept itself and most of our motivation comes from irrational subconscious motives. Even the need to engage in this conversation and to try to convice others about our "truth" is not very rational. We gain nothing out of it except some vague feeling of self-validation that our ego needs to feed its vanity. We already had a discussion about logical positivists here - those guy were trying to found philosophy on rationality and found out that it is impossible. Read and digest this book instead
> https://www.cybertech-engineering.c...8/maturana-h-1987-tree-of-knowledge-bkmrk.pdf
> it is a real eye-opener


Your arguments don't actually support your opening proposition/conclusion. Yes, it is human nature to deceive ourselves and many of our beliefs come from "irrational unconscious motives." In fact, these irrational unconscious motives have been the subject of immense and immensely important study over the last 40 years by people like Kahnemann and Tversky (Thinking, Fast and Slow is the best laymen-friendly introduction to their work). The work of rationality is, in part, to eliminate or minimize the effects of these biases that distort our reasoning and lead to false and/or inaccurate conclusions. The logical positivists are a century old by now and there have been many strides made since their heyday. However, I would not really classify logical positivism as a rationalist philosophy as it was rooted more in empiricism. Rationality is more about how we reason from empirical data rather than taking empirical data as an end-point.

I do not typically look at these discussions as a means to convince others of any truth. There are very few moments where I feel like I'm trying to correct someone with an indisputable fact. More often than not, these discussions are volleys of personal opinions and experiences, the modern-day equivalent of the intellectual salons of older times. These aren't contests where we're trying to defeat the enemy-of-falsehood so that our hero-of-truth will stand victorious. Or, if you are treating them like that, you're doing it wrong.

That book you linked to looks rather long. I could easily counter with: http://www.med.mcgill.ca/epidemiology/hanley/bios601/GaussianModel/JaynesProbabilityTheory.pdf Is there anything in that book you find particularly enlightening and worth reading? For the Jaynes book, I would say the preface and the I section of Part I is a good introduction to the general concept. Everything that follows is more proof and application, often highly technical.


----------



## Jacck

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Is there anything in that book you find particularly enlightening and worth reading? .


I think it cannot be read in parts, you have to read the whole book, because it starts from the basic biology of living organisms and introduces concepts like autopoiesis along the way, and then uses the biological knowledge to explain cognition. It is simply the best book about the philosophy of cognition that I read. I links biology, knowledge, language, epistemiology, metaphysics, the problem of objective reality etc. into a beautiful, logical theory.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

eugeneonagain said:


> This guy above is the worst ever aide-de-camp for the OP.


Trolling again ? Actually I love trolls who can sing , but that's a Norwegian thing . Real trolls are jazzy . *hum-bum* . Yes , friend , I can go away - work is done . My purpose here has been to explore such influences as yours on musical society . Carry on without a care . I am better prepared .


----------



## Larkenfield

---------------


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Trolling again ? Actually I love trolls who can sing , but that's a Norwegian thing . Real trolls are jazzy . *hum-bum* . Yes , friend , I can go away - work is done . My purpose here has been to explore such influences as yours on musical society . Carry on without a care . I am better prepared .


A troll is someone who adds nothing to the conversation. So that's you. Writing pseudo-philosophical koans is not adding to the conversation. Neither is posing as a 'wise man'. Give it a rest.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> A troll is someone who adds nothing to the conversation. So that's you. Writing pseudo-philosophical koans is not adding to the conversation. Neither is posing as a 'wise man'. Give it a rest.


I see Tiko Tuba's posts as a refreshing break from your exceedingly literal train of thought.




> Eva Yojimbo: I'd wager that, having spent a good chunk of the last 10 years studying rationality and (more casually) reading science and philosophy, I'm every bit as "clear-minded" as you are. Yet, you have been exceedingly literal in this thread, at least towards me, when discussing shaman, even after I've made it repeatedly clear I'm approaching it metaphorically, analogically, etc. You keep wanting to ward of any sense of woo-woo that isn't there, at least certainly not on my part.


For me, *you *fit the definition of a troll: someone who posts an opposing view which goes against the entire idea of the thread, in a continuously contrary, distracting fashion.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I see Tiko Tuba's posts as a refreshing break from your exceedingly literal train of thought.


Oh I'll bet you do.




millionrainbows said:


> For me, *you *fit the definition of a troll: someone who posts an opposing view which goes against the entire idea of the thread, in a continuously contrary, distracting fashion.


So disagreeing with the thread's claim? Okay. Not the first time I've been called a troll and it won't be the last.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

eugeneonagain said:


> Not the first time I've been called a troll and it won't be the last.


It's the last time . Music prevails , yet shall not repress anyone's dignity . Want the last word ?


----------



## eugeneonagain

Tikoo Tuba said:


> Want the last word ?


No.....................


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> the definition of a troll: someone who posts an opposing view which goes against the entire idea of the thread, in a continuously contrary, distracting fashion.[/COLOR]


If calling out poor argumentation supporting questionable notions is trolling, then trolling is the highest calling of a free press.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> If calling out poor argumentation supporting questionable notions is trolling, then trolling is the highest calling of a free press.


That's basically it. It seems to be the case on TC that if you forcefully question a flaky claim and disagree, the people who don't like it (or can't answer it) fall back on a list of evasive complaints including: 'trolling', 'it's not what you say, it's how you say it..', 'duelling' and whatever else these people can dream-up.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> If calling out poor argumentation supporting questionable notions is trolling, then trolling is the highest calling of a free press.


Then I call you out for this post! . Its not that it is wrong but it implies all sorts of things about what has gone before that may not be so clearly and objectively the case. And it is offered as a counter to a more generally accepted definition.

And, actually, I think a lot could be done to avoid the word ever being used just by people posting respectfully and politely. And, no, I'm not saying I always manage that but I would like to.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Then I call you out for this post! . Its not that it is wrong but it implies all sorts of things about what has gone before that may not be so clearly and objectively the case. And it is offered as a counter to a more generally accepted definition.
> 
> And, actually, I think a lot could be done to avoid the word ever being used just by people posting respectfully and politely. And, no, I'm not saying I always manage that but I would like to.


What "all sorts of things"? There's only one thing: an assertion that someone was "trolling" by "posting an opposing view which goes against the entire idea of the thread, in a continuously contrary, distracting fashion." In other words, offering a series of posts expressing a contrary point of view. I see only one person whose posts seem designed for sheer effect, and it isn't the person being saddled with that "definition" of a troll. Should we be judicious in using the word? Sure.


----------



## Enthusiast

Sorry, Wooduck, I was just being flippant. But to answer your question I referred to whether or not the argumentation that you were calling out was so poor. It _may _be that it was but that would be a point of view that you seemed to be implying is objective fact. I'm not sure anyone is actually trolling in this thread but I agree there has been a fairly tiresome argument - but, hey, this is an internet forum - not all of it relevant or informative. But, as I say, I was just being flippant.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> If calling out poor argumentation supporting questionable notions is trolling, then trolling is the highest calling of a free press.


You and Eugene are not "discussing" the topic with ideas or counter-arguments; you are simply invalidating the idea by oblique personal attribution to the creator. I call this 'bullying.'


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> You and Eugene are not "discussing" the topic with ideas or counter-arguments; you are simply invalidating the idea by oblique personal attribution to the creator. I call this 'bullying.'


I have "counter-argued" that a shaman performs a specific social function that a composer does not; that the expression of the "spiritual" (whatever that is) is not a meaningful ground on which to identify the one with the other; that Mahler is not peculiarly qualified for the role of quasi-shaman; that Buddhism is a specific religious tradition that shouldn't be identified with some vaguely defined "non-Western spirituality" and that its fundamental concepts are actually alien to Mahler's late-Romantic expressionism; that Mahler and Wagner are very different artists and that it makes no sense to say that the former "replaces" the latter...and so forth.

I'm sorry you don't like my counter-arguments. Shall I think up some more that you might like better?


----------



## millionrainbows

> ...that the expression of the "spiritual" (whatever that is) is not a meaningful ground on which to identify the one with the other;


If you don't even recognize the term "spiritual" as undefined and without meaning, then how could it?



> ...that Mahler is not peculiarly qualified for the role of quasi-shaman;


How can you apply anything specifically to Mahler if you've already dismissed the concept?



> ...that Buddhism is a specific religious tradition that shouldn't be identified with some vaguely defined "non-Western spirituality" and that its fundamental concepts are actually alien to Mahler's late-Romantic expressionism;


Yes, but two of its _general_ characteristics, which distinguish it from Christianity, are that Buddhism is non-deistic, and is concerned with self-realization of the individual.



> ...that Mahler and Wagner are very different artists and that it makes no sense to say that the former "replaces" the latter...and so forth.


I take it you do not like the idea of Wagner being "replaced" by Mahler in our modern, more tolerant and inclusive world?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but two of its _general_ characteristics, which distinguish it from Christianity, are that Buddhism is non-deistic, and is concerned with self-realization of the individual.


What does that have to do with shamanism?


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> If you don't even recognize the term "spiritual" as undefined and without meaning, then how could it?
> 
> How can you apply anything specifically to Mahler if you've already dismissed the concept?
> 
> Yes, but two of its _general_ characteristics, which distinguish it from Christianity, are that Buddhism is non-deistic, and is concerned with self-realization of the individual.
> 
> I take it you do not like the idea of Wagner being "replaced" by Mahler in our modern, more tolerant and inclusive world?


All these remarks are nonresponses to legitimate criticisms. They're weasel words, evasions and goalpost-moving. They amount to mind-****ing and gaslighting.

You've accusing us of "not discussing," "derailing," "invalidating" and "bullying" because we question your premises, refuse to take your pronouncements as oracular, and expect you to defend your statements with evidence, reason, and common sense.

Why do we expect that? Beats me. I guess that's what we think forums are about.


----------



## eugeneonagain

millionrainbows said:


> I take it you do not like the idea of Wagner being "replaced" by Mahler in our modern, more tolerant and inclusive world?


Is it that you _want_ Wagner to be 'replaced' or that he has actually been somehow replaced? Neither speaks to me as useful or truthful. Wagner's ideas in music still exist as a self-contained 'Wagnerian' concept. They are fixed and aren't negated. Mahler inherited Wagnerian ideas, he has a piece of Wagner in his art, but Wagner doesn't have any Mahlerism in his. The entire idea of 'replacement' is foolish. It's continuation, via his own art.


----------



## millionrainbows

eugeneonagain said:


> Is it that you _want_ Wagner to be 'replaced' or that he has actually been somehow replaced? Neither speaks to me as useful or truthful. Wagner's ideas in music still exist as a self-contained 'Wagnerian' concept. They are fixed and aren't negated. Mahler inherited Wagnerian ideas, he has a piece of Wagner in his art, but Wagner doesn't have any Mahlerism in his. The entire idea of 'replacement' is foolish. It's continuation, via his own art.


So what do you do, sit around listening to old Bill Cosby records eating Jell-o pudding?


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> What does that have to do with shamanism?


See posts #1-333.


----------



## Bulldog

Millonrainbows - You would probably love the tv series "Northern Exposure". The show gave much respect to its resident shaman, and Wodduck was not a cast member.


----------



## millionrainbows

Note: All bolded sentences in parentheses are my comments.



Woodduck said:


> All these remarks are nonresponses to legitimate criticisms. *(oh, so you deem.)*They're weasel words, evasions and goalpost-moving. *(it sounds like they defy your logic)*They amount to mind-****ing and gas lighting.*(no, that's Scientology's department)*
> 
> You've accusing us of "not discussing," "derailing," "invalidating" and "bullying" *(yes, it's true)*because we question your premises, *(no, because you belittle and bully)* refuse to take your pronouncements as oracular, *(my ideas are just ideas; I never said they were truth, but I do expect you to respect my participation)*and expect you to defend your statements with evidence, reason, and common sense.*(I'm not obligated to do any of that, especially for your gratification. I might expect you to do the same with what you've said in this post.)
> *
> Why do we expect that? Beats me. I guess that's what we think forums are about.*(and I suppose it's your job to enforce these laws you have laid down*)


///////////////


----------



## Krummhorn

Temporarily closed for repairs


----------

