Patterns and Meaning in Music

[Martin_]

Keeping with the musical theme of the thread ...

Mea culpa I suppose for not being more articulate about what I'm wishing to express and explore here (perhaps should have opted for the topic-specific section), which is to carry on from Ashvin's essay (linked to above), to make a demonstrable case that music is somehow immanently isomorphic to the fundamental, primal ideation/logos of Mind, as per the mythos that the 'Creator' sings the world into existence. I was also hoping that JeffreyW would chime in to give his take on 'music' being isomorphic to the most fundamental emanations of energy, or not as the case may be, beyond which we dare not ponder. In any case, I'd prefer that the thread not be filled up with re-postings of our favourite tunes.

Right. So, in order to do that, we should discuss the Phenomenology of Music. What is it that makes an audible signal (let's stick within the domain of music through Sound) to be perceived as Music?

It has Harmony, someone might say.
Ok then, what is Harmony? One might define it as "the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect."
So, what are notes? One might say that "they are pulses of a specific temporal density , and if one density is twice as large as another it's precieved to be the same note, (but a different octave)"
Also, we note that what is perceived as a harmony is culturally specific.

Ok. Cool. We now have pretty good understanding of what a musical harmony is. Now, is it necessary for Music to have Harmony? Is there cases of Music that lack harmony? That's an interesting quesiton which we could discuss for a long time, Let's say we conclude that Music Has Harmony. Cool. Then let's turn our gaze towards our ever-elusive primal Ideation. From what we have grasped so far of it, is there some phe omenological aspect of it which is similar to Musical Harmony? Some collection of thought patterns that - when experienced together - are experienced as pleasing? Did someone find anything? Ok .cool. someone did. How about the cultural aspect of this collection of thought patterns you found? Is it possible that other cultures might not find this collection of patterns pleasing, and they would perfer a different collection?

Super interesting discussion.

Let's pick another one. How about Rhythm. Well, we notice that rhythm ALSO is a collection of pulses of specific temporal density. But these are much more sparsely spaced, and there needs to be a regularity in them in order for them to be called Rhythm. Actually. That's not Rhythm. That's just Beat. Rhythm requires something else. It requires Grooviness. What makes something groovy? I don't know, but maybe seomeone else knows.

Ok. Now let's take a look at our Mind again. Do we see any similarities?


Now, I think this is really interesting. I would Love to have 15 pages of this stuff to flip through. And I personally don't care ONE IOTA whether someone thinks i'm being a dualist while i'm doing it. Because it's meaningful to ME in MY quest for better understanding MY place in the Mysterious Emptifulnes. MY guiding light shines THIS way, asking for MY attention.


So, yeh. I'd love to chat on this topic. But I'm not going to spurt out my ideas in a vacuum where noboty connects.

[Eugene I]

Right. So, in order to do that, we should discuss the Phenomenology of Music. What is it that makes an audible signal (let's stick within the domain of music through Sound) to be perceived as Music?

It has Harmony, someone might say.
Ok then, what is Harmony? One might define it as "the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect."
So, what are notes? One might say that "they are pulses of a specific temporal density , and if one density is twice as large as another it's precieved to be the same note, (but a different octave)"
Also, we note that what is perceived as a harmony is culturally specific.

Ok. Cool. We now have pretty good understanding of what a musical harmony is. Now, is it necessary for Music to have Harmony? Is there cases of Music that lack harmony? That's an interesting quesiton which we could discuss for a long time, Let's say we conclude that Music Has Harmony. Cool. Then let's turn our gaze towards our ever-elusive primal Ideation. From what we have grasped so far of it, is there some phe omenological aspect of it which is similar to Musical Harmony? Some collection of thought patterns that - when experienced together - are experienced as pleasing? Did someone find anything? Ok .cool. someone did. How about the cultural aspect of this collection of thought patterns you found? Is it possible that other cultures might not find this collection of patterns pleasing, and they would perfer a different collection?

Super interesting discussion.

Let's pick another one. How about Rhythm. Well, we notice that rhythm ALSO is a collection of pulses of specific temporal density. But these are much more sparsely spaced, and there needs to be a regularity in them in order for them to be called Rhythm. Actually. That's not Rhythm. That's just Beat. Rhythm requires something else. It requires Grooviness. What makes something groovy? I don't know, but maybe seomeone else knows.

Ok. Now let's take a look at our Mind again. Do we see any similarities?


Now, I think this is really interesting. I would Love to have 15 pages of this stuff to flip through. And I personally don't care ONE IOTA whether someone thinks i'm being a dualist while i'm doing it. Because it's meaningful to ME in MY quest for better understanding MY place in the Mysterious Emptifulnes. MY guiding light shines THIS way, asking for MY attention.


So, yeh. I'd love to chat on this topic. But I'm not going to spurt out my ideas in a vacuum where noboty connects.

I think that harmony and rhythm are only specific ways people figured out and used to make music. I would characterize "Music" as an "sound art" that arranges sounds to bear certain "meaning", where musical "meaning" can be very different from any intellectual sense of "meaning" that we usually associate with the label "meaning". This shows how much more reach in facets the manifold of Meaning actually is (compared to our usual narrow understanding of it).

As an example, here is a bizarre piece of music that has no harmony or any specific rhythm but still bears a subtle beauty and musical meaning (if you can sense it)

[Martin_]

The experience of music reveals to us yet another facet of the Mind-Meaning - its esthetical facet, its Beauty. Which is also inseparable from Love, because it is one thing - Love of Beauty, or Beauty of Love, but more precisely - one Love-Beauty. Music helps us to actually experience it, not just intellectualize about it abstractly.

Yes. Beauty. Love. Check.

but what about this one.
Front 424: Animal(gate)
It's clearly Music. It's even Good Music. (i'll argue that one to death)

But Love and Beaty is not the first thing that comes to mind in a phenomelogical first-impression of what's going on here.
(there are better examples , but i'm in a rush)

[Eugene I]

Yes. Beauty. Love. Check.

but what about this one.
Front 424: Animal(gate)
It's clearly Music. It's even Good Music. (i'll argue that one to death)

But Love and Beaty is not the first thing that comes to mind in a phenomelogical first-impression of what's going on here.
(there are better examples , but i'm in a rush)

OK, so what I said that music can be a way to experience Love and Beauty, but music is not limited to that. In general it's a way to experience the rich universe of musical meanings. Somehow they most often do bear a sense of beauty, even in the example you gave, it's just not a "standard" understanding of a "harmonious beauty".

As the Buddhists say - all forms are perfect and beautiful in their primordial state, it's only when we judge them as "ugly" or "imperfect" with our human measures and biases they become perceived as ugly and imperfect.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Right. So, in order to do that, we should discuss the Phenomenology of Music. What is it that makes an audible signal (let's stick within the domain of music through Sound) to be perceived as Music?

It has Harmony, someone might say.
Ok then, what is Harmony? One might define it as "the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect."
So, what are notes? One might say that "they are pulses of a specific temporal density , and if one density is twice as large as another it's precieved to be the same note, (but a different octave)"
Also, we note that what is perceived as a harmony is culturally specific.

Ok. Cool. We now have pretty good understanding of what a musical harmony is. Now, is it necessary for Music to have Harmony? Is there cases of Music that lack harmony? That's an interesting quesiton which we could discuss for a long time, Let's say we conclude that Music Has Harmony. Cool. Then let's turn our gaze towards our ever-elusive primal Ideation. From what we have grasped so far of it, is there some phe omenological aspect of it which is similar to Musical Harmony? Some collection of thought patterns that - when experienced together - are experienced as pleasing? Did someone find anything? Ok .cool. someone did. How about the cultural aspect of this collection of thought patterns you found? Is it possible that other cultures might not find this collection of patterns pleasing, and they would perfer a different collection?

Super interesting discussion.

Let's pick another one. How about Rhythm. Well, we notice that rhythm ALSO is a collection of pulses of specific temporal density. But these are much more sparsely spaced, and there needs to be a regularity in them in order for them to be called Rhythm. Actually. That's not Rhythm. That's just Beat. Rhythm requires something else. It requires Grooviness. What makes something groovy? I don't know, but maybe seomeone else knows.

Ok. Now let's take a look at our Mind again. Do we see any similarities?


Now, I think this is really interesting. I would Love to have 15 pages of this stuff to flip through. And I personally don't care ONE IOTA whether someone thinks i'm being a dualist while i'm doing it. Because it's meaningful to ME in MY quest for better understanding MY place in the Mysterious Emptifulnes. MY guiding light shines THIS way, asking for MY attention.


So, yeh. I'd love to chat on this topic. But I'm not going to spurt out my ideas in a vacuum where noboty connects.

I think that harmony and rhythm are only specific ways people figured out and used to make music. I would characterize "Music" as an "sound art" that arranges sounds to bear certain "meaning", where musical "meaning" can be very different from any intellectual sense of "meaning" that we usually associate with the label "meaning". This shows how much more reach in facets the manifold of Meaning actually is (compared to our usual narrow understanding of it).

As an example, here is a bizarre piece of music that has no harmony or any specific rhythm but still bears a subtle beauty and musical meaning (if you can sense it)

Thanks Lou, Martin and Eugene, some fascinations to dive into. Certainly to this mind, both harmony and dissonance are integral to the most nuanced music, just as they are in Nature at large. As serendipity would have it, on this daydreamy rainy day here, I listened to the rain drops upon a puddle, in conjunction with the clip that Eugene shared, suggestive of a mind><nature musical meld ... give these a listen all at once ...

[Lou Gold]

Thanks Lou, Martin and Eugene, some fascinations to dive into. Certainly to this mind, both harmony and dissonance are integral to the most nuanced music, just as they are in Nature at large. As serendipity would have it, on this daydreamy rainy day here, I listened to the rain drops upon a puddle, in conjunction with the clip that Eugene shared, suggestive of a mind><nature musical meld ... give these a listen all at once ...

Dana,

Your suggestion of a mind><nature musical meld took me here, where music seems a form of human><nature co-creativity and dance.







In a more classical stream, here is Philip Glass and Uakti with the rivers of Amazônia...

[Soul_of_Shu]

Dana,

Your suggestion of a mind><nature musical meld took me here:

I guess music can also be a form of human><nature co-creativity or dance.

Brilliant ... now we're talkin' ... or is that singin' ... or is that dancin' to some fascinatin' rhythms

[Lou Gold]

Dana,

Your suggestion of a mind><nature musical meld took me here:

I guess music can also be a form of human><nature co-creativity or dance.

Brilliant ... now we're talkin' ... or is that singin' ... or is that dancin' to some fascinatin' rhythms

The key for me is that when nature is treated as a subject rather than an object truly magical forms and relationships emerge.

[Eugene I]

My little two cents to the universe of music:
La Guitarra

[AshvinP]

I'm curious, does anyone know of an example in nature of what we would recognize as music that is not being expressed through what we would recognize as a conscious agent?

We practically don't re-cognize anything as a conscious agent, so yes I can think of many examples : ) Pythagoras spoke of the music in the movement of the celestial spheres. This is literally true in my view.

But I suspect you are trying to highlight that ideational agency underlies all such Macrocosmic music, as it does microcosmic human music, and that is exactly right. Lou and Martin don't realize they have created dualism of Nature and man above. The human ideational spirit is not other than Nature and, as the Emerson quote on the other thread suggested, is a microcosmic expression of Nature's evolution into self-awareness. Humanity is the stage in Nature's evolution in which it awakens to itself and comes to know, appreciate, and make consciously manifest its heavenly choir.

Exactly where did i create dualism? (and how?)

Martin - see below:

Also, as Lou pointed out, if we interpret "conscious sgent" strictly, in my case according to BK; wer're not left with much to choose from: falling rocks, blowing wind, and moving water in any of its forms is pretty much it. Oh, one more: The crackling of the fire. That's the 4 elements, btw.

We should ask ourselves, why are we seperating out these natural phenomena from conscious agency or ideational activity? For one, it should be admitted that this makes no sense under metaphysical idealism, but only makes sense under materialism-dualism. Secondly, we should admit that it is naive realism if we do not continue to Reason through the natural phenomena, which all too often we don't. Third, we should confront the fact that we are just idly speculating when there is absolutely no need to, because we have great evidence of exactly what rhythm, melody, harmony, etc. in musical aesthetic are reflecting in our immanent experience, IF we choose not to leave ideational activity in the blind spot and embrace "mysterious emptifulness" as the explanation for everything for some unknown reason.

I think it was you who said there was no need to read Steiner because Cleric was explaining everything much better on the other phenomenological idealism thread. And Cleric has outlined a phenomenology of music quite a few times on this forum, very imaginatively and adeptly as usual. But this is precisely why people may want to consider starting with Steiner's PoF - because all of Cleric's brilliant illustrations wash away like castles made of sand when the person reading them has not figured out why the illustrations work so well in the first place, which is the simple fact that they are reflections of the same ideational activity which Cleric is using to create those illustrations. That is what PoF provides utmost confidence in by guiding us through the phenomenal logic so we can discover it afresh from within ourselves.