I listen music now at least not sounds -- Mahgister
If you are not attending a live performance or hearing a live stream of a performance, then you are not listening to music, you are listening to recordings.
You are "technically" right...Completely right... But being right here is not enough... Music is inside us not only outside us.... |
This post doesn’t belong on an audio forum, so I should just resist the temptation of weighing in. But I can’t.
First, Quine’s point (in "Ontological Relativity," from which comes the "Gavagai" coinage), as well as in several other places, is just that our best scientific theories should govern our ontology. This is a fancy way of saying that if an accepted and useful scientific theory demands that we regard a given theoretical construct as "real," then we should do so. As David Lewis put it, although "sets" were "unknown to Homo javanensis," they are nevertheless indispensable in modern mathematics and therefore should be regarded as "real." This question dates at least to Plato, for whom numbers were more "real" than the things of perception they enumerated, being pure intelligible entities not subject to perspective, change over time, and so forth. Which is to say that, although they proclaim themselves to be "empiricists," Quine, et al., are really committed to idealism—to the "reality" of non-empirical theoretical entities.
This insight dovetails with what I think mahgister was trying to say in citing Goethe. But Goethe’s view just follows Kant: the "real" is always already a construct of consciousness—of perception, which is sense information processed and interpreted by the mind. The real "in itself" is simply unknowable. Thus, Goethe says that perception is already "theoretical": "Alles vergängliche / Ist nur ein Gleichnis." This insight makes it exceedingly difficult to know where to draw the lines between the "real" and the "imaginary"; in effect, the real IS what "imagination" constructs for experience. But that is NOT to say there is no independent reality "in itself"; rather, we just don’t know anything about it except insofar as we experience it (that is, insofar as it becomes mental).
Great post thanks... It feel good to be understood sometimes here.... For your remark about where we "drew the line between the real and the imaginary" everybody must read the greatest underestimated Goethean Scholar which is Cassirer and his "symbolic forms" books....Cassirer born a Kantian pupil become a Goethean reader all of his life....And remember that Goethe was a Spinoza admirer.... My deepest respects... |
Music is inside us not only outside us....
I can accept that. So the recording would spark the music within us. In what sense can it be said that music is within us? Perhaps, as we are what we eat, we are also what we hear (have heard). Though it is also said that musical attunement is innate with humans. So maybe true in two independent ways.
|
What a bunch of useless navel gazing and a terrible waste of time.
You remind me of the school yard limited bullies who did not understand anything save the end of their gaze... You are free to pick another thread about cables anywhere here instead of insulting people... |
Music is inside us not only outside us....
I can accept that. So the recording would spark the music within us. In what sense can it be said that music is within us? Perhaps, as we are what we eat, we are also what we hear (have heard). Though it is also said that musical attunement is innate with humans. So maybe true in two independent ways. You are completely right also here... I wll not add anything...save that animals attend music in their own way... Music and sounds are "metabolic" phenomenon also.... They are not only internal for the mind but also for the body metabolism because music and sounds modify it...Then music and sound are internal and external in two different ways... My deepest respect to you.... |
