The phenomonology of (good) music

[qwe]

all these cases, some sensory information is causing pleasure

women are pleasing because we should procreate according to evolutionary pressure. food tastes good because we should eat. there isn't any evolutionary necessity for music

i think music is far more than just sensual pleasure. it's auditory art (i think) just like a painting. one dimensional art rather than three or two

it seems to have the power to access our deepest hopes, fears, and memories

definitly. i find music can send me to very specific mental feelings, the world seems harmonised (internally) by the music. (this is why it's art, not like something that tastes good, it actually involves cognition, perception of reality) for instance, certain songs speed me up, certain ones make the world happy, and always, everything is moving in sync with the music

to the point of bringing back the feelings and thoughts you had?

people say smell is the most linked to memories but for me, no smell is associated with a memory, but if i hear a song i played a lot during a particular period it brings it back completely. so--music also has a memory component

is a "universal language" (we all perceive music in a similar way)

i find music subjectively to be very different if it's from india, as opposed to, say, germany



i think music shows that a lot of our consciousness isnt verbal at all (this is always apparent to me because i usually dont think in words, but most people seem to, and when discussed, "how can you have a thought without words?" comes up

what is so great about music? how it surfaces pleasure from deep parts of consciousness and affects the view of the world. how it is so meaningful (to the mind), yet for no purpose other than the experience itself. similar to psychedelics. hopefully science will understand how it does this someday...

anyway...off to pink floyd land

 

[elemenohpee]

qwe, can you expand on how you think without words? that sounds intriguing...

 

[fake star]

Originally posted by qwe
i think music shows that a lot of our consciousness isnt verbal at all (this is always apparent to me because i usually dont think in words, but most people seem to, and when discussed, "how can you have a thought without words?" comes up

that's fucking amazing - i don't think in words either and the couple of times i've decided to tell someone that, they've thought i was off my rocker (maybe i am). it's nice to know i'm not the only one.

 

[sexyanon2]

^^^

I wonder, is thought without words any more efficient? Perhaps you're more able to create some logical outcome/have some creativity not bounded by words. But on the other hand, you might be worse off communicating your ideas.

 

[monkeyjunky]

"I wonder, is thought without words any more efficient?"

yes it is - but its not just thinking without words, its a synergetic thinking that employs all of our brains faculties.
i will expand later when i don't have an exam tomorrow

"i don't think in words either"

is your iq a good deal higher than average? because it should be. Naturally, we think using all of our faculties - words, numbers, spacial awareness, senses etc., but in recent centuries, the educational appraoch has been to focus entirely on words creating an imbalance in our learning. the people we deem intelligent are merely able to overcome this conditioning to a greater degree than others who are then limited in how they think.

 

[qwe]

^i think it's almost impossible to include ALL of the brain's faculties at once. in whatever way i think, i notice if i want a lot of good viewpoints on the subject of thought, i need to think about it at that time, and then later, and in different times of the day, because different mindsets pop up very different prespectives and ideas. my mind seems to me to be very spacial, as if i travel around in it..i suppose others' probably are too.

qwe, can you expand on how you think without words? that sounds intriguing...

it's similar to thinking with words, in the way that connections and ideas just seem to pop up. however, without words, they pop up faster, yet are more likely to be erroneous (you have to go back and error check yourself). basicly you're thinking in the ideas that verbal thoughts represent. also something interesting is that sometimes i use verbal thoughts while i am thinking nonverbally because at times it's easier to use them, and at other times it's easier to use nonverbal thoughts.

^^^

I wonder, is thought without words any more efficient? Perhaps you're more able to create some logical outcome/have some creativity not bounded by words. But on the other hand, you might be worse off communicating your ideas.

it is better in certain ways, and worse in certain ways. without words, you're thinking on a more basic level, your brain doesn't need to constantly translate to english and back (subconsciously). thinking without words means you're thinking in a more native language (my theory).

i notice that when i think without words i am completely absorbed by the thinking, a meditative state sort of. also think much faster than if i am using words

the downside is errors are easier to pop up because it's very easy to see if something doesn't make sense when you subject a verbal clause to verbal rules, and i think a nonverbal thought is sort of an incomplete verbal thought--i'm having trouble wording this heh.

an obvious downside, you have to translate your thoughts into english if you want them to be of any use. you may forget everything you've thought in the middle of your translation--nonverbal thoughts don't stick in memory nearly as good as verbal thoughts. (all of the above applies to me, i dont know if it's any different for others who have nonverbal thoughts)

haven't you ever had an idea that you couldn't put into words no matter how much you try? or an idea you have to try to put into words? or an idea you know there is a word for and you have to find the word? nonverbal thinking is like using all of these without wanting to translate any of it into english. i don't think english (or probly any language) is nearly powerful enough to unleash all of the brain's potential

p.s.. back on topic. music is nonverbal "meaning" (meaning to the brain--meaning not attached to any sort of clause)

 

[sexyanon2]

Back off topic (), I've sometimes had these thoughts without words, but the thoughts with words are easier to follow a trail of logic and spot errors or possibilities.

And what is something you can't put into words? I can't think of an idea that can't be described in words. Although our language, and word usage, is completely skewed, in that ideas expressed often are interpreted differently than their original meaning.

 

[qwe]

^different possibilities arise easier for me when i think nonverbally

a simple example of a nonverbal idea would be when you are writing a paper and know that an idea you have has a certain word or phrase, and you can't find the word or phrase. hence you are holding an idea that a word represents, not the word itself

for someone thinking nonverbally, all or most of his ideas in his train of thoughts are like that

 

[sexyanon2]

a simple example of a nonverbal idea would be when you are writing a paper and know that an idea you have has a certain word or phrase, and you can't find the word or phrase. hence you are holding an idea that a word represents, not the word itself

At the moment you may not be able to define the idea. But aren't you still able to define your idea with words after careful thought?

 

[qwe]

^yes. the point is you have a pure idea not represented by words. many ideas you make are translatable into english. some ideas aren't (try describing a psychedelic experience in a way taht someone who has never tripped will understand you, using a language. the only way would be for them to experience it or for you to directly give them the ideas (brain wires?))

 

[fake star]

sexyanon - more efficient, yes, as far as how quickly i can work through a thought process. but it kind of gets to me sometimes when i feel i can't properly articulate something.

monkeyjunky - my iq is 170 or 180 or something like that - i don't honestly remember because iq number doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

wow, we all took ebola's thread way the hell off topic, eh?

 

[ebola?]

>>
wow, we all took ebola's thread way the hell off topic, eh?>>

They go where they go.

>>I can't think of an idea that can't be described in words. Although our language, and word usage, is completely skewed, in that ideas expressed often are interpreted differently than their original meaning.>>

How about non-dual being?

ebola

 

[sexyanon2]

How about non-dual being?

Could you explain that?

I'm assuming you mean something that's not within the realm of duality, that is, good-bad, smart-dumb, etc. If that's so, then what would this "non-dual being" encompass?

And tangencies are the most important facets of discussions.

 

[protovack]

music is nonverbal "meaning" (meaning to the brain--meaning not attached to any sort of clause)

Why even divide meaning between verbal and non-verbal? Words do not have some transcendental significance. They are only important insofar as they are analogous to a certain meaning which we have an impression of.

The color "blue" is non-verbal meaning as well, but music is a whole lot more complex than that.

Wouldn't it be more pertinent to try and describe how music can communicate meaning differently than other forms of communication (namely, language)?

What I'm saying is, we already know music is different than language. But what IS that difference? HOW does music do what it does?

 

[ebola?]

>>How about non-dual being?

Could you explain that?>>

Unfortunately, no.
I can sort of point in the correct direction. I am talking about experience without the presupposition of the subject/object division. Langues has built into it this presupposition, and cannot point to the experience in any useful way.

ebola

 

[sexyanon2]

Sorry to ask you to clarify further, but why would the division of the subject and object matter? Isn't anything you hear from someone from a subject?

Eh.. and I don't understand why language can't "point to the experience in any useful way." My mom yells at me and I then feel angry, sad, and confused. I feel my cheeks gaining heat; my hands clench; my heart flutters. What else is missing?

And I'm assuming I'm missing a part of your explanation of a non-dual being, as useful is then a subjective word.

 

[protovack]

If that's so, then what would this "non-dual being" encompass?

It would entail you being unable to distinguish between well, anything. It can't really be explained, it must be experienced. Of course, I could say that about anything

 

[mariacallas]

The musical emotion springs precisely from the fact that at each moment the composer withholds or adds more or less than the listener anticipates on the basis of a pattern that he thinks he can guess, but that he is incapable of wholly divining. If the composer withholds more than we anticipate, we experience a delicious falling sensation; we feel we have been torn from a stable point on the musical ladder and thrust into the void. When the composer withholds less, the opposite occurs: he forces us to perform gymnastic exercises more skillful than our own.
~ Claude Levi-Strauss 1908

Words are poor interpreters in the realms of emotion. When all words end, music begins; when they suggest, it realizes; and hence is the secret of its strange, inexpressible power.
H. R. Haweis

Music, the greatest good that mortals know, And all of heaven we have below.
Joseph Addison

 

[monkeyjunky]

monkeyjunky - my iq is 170 or 180 or something like that - i don't honestly remember because iq number doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.

people who pretend to have very high iqs always say this kind of thing.... Sorry, but i just don't believe that, due to your overt false modesty.

not that it matters

Whilst it isn't an all encompassing statistic (it can be improved with work, just as much as anything else - and it doesn't take into account every aspect of the cognitive brain's function) it is nevertheless a good gauge of a minds current ability. The iq shouldn't therefore be seen as an end in itself - which would obviously be limiting in terms of real progression and creativity.

This is why in music theory, the word "tension" comes up. Tension can be thought of as an acknowledged, temporary deviation from a point of reference in music. Tension is "resolved" when continuity is restored. Since the human brain is accutely aware of these kinds of deviations, we sit up and pay attention when we hear such a movement. When order is restored, we are filled up with this overwhelming sense of accomplishment....a pride in our own ability to "notice."

That is so right . Its the whole Gestalt business. Our instinctual longing for wholeness or completeness. I think this is why some progressive classical music can be so infuriating. It throws us off balance with systems that may make sense mathematically, but have little connection with the listener. You will rarely find an experimental music enthusiast who is genuinely moved by what he is hearing. It is a more academic pursuit, which perhaps justifies itself simply in the "gestalt" of human experimentation and experience.

Referring specifically to the "(good)" of the title; perhaps these largely universal qualities of the mind to a certain extent eliminate subjectivity in regard to what is good. For instance, if the same piece evokes these feelings in every person that actively listens to it (i'm thinking Mozart Lacrimosa at the moment), then it is a universally "good" piece of music. I don't know how far this could be taken.

 

[ebola?]

>>people who pretend to have very high iqs always say this kind of thing.... Sorry, but i just don't believe that, due to your overt false modesty.

not that it matters>>

I've found that most people with genuinely high IQs are genuinely modest...but, whatever...

>>Eh.. and I don't understand why language can't "point to the experience in any useful way." My mom yells at me and I then feel angry, sad, and confused. I feel my cheeks gaining heat; my hands clench; my heart flutters. What else is missing?>>

Basically, I'm just trying to get at the ego-loss experience. Language cannot effectively communicate the collapse of the self-other border. I recall reading about the experience before actually having encountered it myself, and it made little sense. I recall thinking, "That sounds weird, but I don't really get it." Once having actually encountered it, I was like, "Aha!" Unfortunately, I couldn't really explain what happened to anyone else. This example shows, I think, that language is rooted in shared experience and coordinated activity.

ebola