music , mind , thought and emotion

Unsound: Are you sure that the premise is unknowable? I guess I don't know what you mean by "too many personal variables" Please help me.

Personality, the source of "personal variables," is constructed by the thinking part of the mind from an idea of the self. What I am asking is, if science shows that thoughts create neural pathway engrainment within the brain, then what engrainment occurs when we are in a not-thinking mode of perception, as characterized, but not limited to, music listening at deep levels?

On "serotonin": the substance is still matter. Matter effects matter, that's what we've been staring at for three hundred years. My point, that mind is a causal agent TOWARDS matter, is a much more radical departure, that I don't believe your serotonin anology is relevant to.

On "surreality":All perception of the surreal is already in reality; no experience escapes reality, so you will have to help me understand how you mean this, analogously, metaphorically, illustratively, etc.

On "choosing": as ommission is action, so you choose to let go of your attachment to thought, which is, below that, an attachment to the thinking mind's power over form/matter.

The compassion-beauty I was talking about is never ugly.

If you proceed from the premise that all mind's ability to interpret "beauty" is equal, or truth, and so resort to a radically relativist stance to say that there are too many variables, or that each interpretation is equally valid, then we will have to agree to disagree. (Although I would point out the relativist position is self-contradictory because it is itself an opinion that claims the truth, even while it denies it for others through its argument of relativism).

The more I look at what you've written, and with no disrespect meant, I think I might not know exactly what you are saying...

Maybe help me a little.

I get the sense we are all saying about the same thing but coming at it from different directions. What neurological pathways are created? It probably does depend on what paths were created before and, I suspect this is true, what paths are being altered or destroyed. Hence, it is personal. That is not to say it does not happen; simply that it happens differently for everyone.

I beleive all will agree that energy and mass are the same thing and that we don't understand more than we do understand. Everything stated above, by 6chac, Detlof, Onhwy61, Unsound, Asa ... all reflect those propositions. In my mind, art, including music, is both special and universal. It is a way to communicate across boundaries because it breaks them down. That is, it breaks down the conventions and language we have learned to accept as reality. Music does change how we think and who we are. The more we accept that, the more we can change (at least I think so).

Some time ago, as I was walking to a friend's house, I heard a new symphony. It was beautiful. No electronics were present. It disappeared only when I stopped to think about it. I was not on drugs and I am not a musician. What happened? How did it happen? Honestly, I don't know. But it did happen. And it happens occasionally again in the dusk before deep sleep and the dawn before full awakening (pretty poetic, huh?). It just happens -- but never when my normal thinking can get in the way. Therefore, for me, our day to day perception of music is only the tip of the iceberg.

I believe that music is fundamental to humanity. Is it hardwired for Darwinian purposes, a melding of thought & soul or is it something that is simply present and is the dance of the universe? Maybe all of the above. Look at a video of Stevie Ray Vaughn playing music. It's magical. Someday, like most magic, we may be able to explain it. I've tried very hard to do so above and I've tried very hard to follow everyone's views. I feel like I'm closer (that journey thing, Unsound); it's near the tip of the tongue but not quite there. Maybe it never will be since the tongue, representing language and structured thought, is not where it belongs.

P.S. Unsound, I think we're all starting to scare each other.

Asa, No, I don't mean unknowable just impractical to quatinfy on any general level. Personal variables as in different genetic predispostions to different environmental stimulations at different specific times. Obviously we differ on the subject of "personal variables". As for what happens in the brain during "non-thinking mode of perception" I don't know. To think about what one is not thinking about is challangeing to say the least. Perhaps research on individuals in a comatose state when subjected(?) to music might give us further insight. It's certainly out of my expertise, to suggest otherwise would be fool hardy of me. My mention of serotonin being a by product of gut reaction was effort to demostrate that we are affected on every level. Even a meal or beverage can influence us in very real and marked ways. Forgive me but, "life is within you, and without you" on many levels. As for matter, if art is an expressive / interpertive vehicle, outside of the conceptual mode, art is matter to matter. The exception might be mathmatics (being the ignorant insensetive clod that I am, I've yet to appreciate this art form). My reference to surreality was meant in the interpertive sense. I think we actually agree on "choosing". Much in the same way we choose a "journey". We may choose the vehicle, we may choose the path, we may choose the time, but inevitably unexpected events happen in that vehicle on that path during that time. Things that are beyond the scope of our choice. We do choose the unexpected. You have no compassion for the ugly? While most Westerners don't embrace sadness because it's considered unhealthy, they can still appreciate it's beauty. Despite claims (not necessarilly yours) to the contrary we have always appreciated the beauty in both tradgedy and comedy. After all American music is very much based on the blues. With all due respect I don't belive it's appropriate for you to categorize my thinking and then dismiss it, especially when you claim that you don't understand it. Whether it's right or wrong in the human experience the truth can change, but at any particular time the truth is the truth. I don't think every interpertation is valid in the big picture, though it can be in the small one. If the interpertation has been based on incomplete or modified or with out understanding of the source (taken out of context)or on just plain faulty premises then the interpertation is suspect. Ironicaly, a faulty interpertaion may be inspirational for future art. Asa, I've tried to answer your questions. I fear that I may never satiate your inquiry. Forgive me, but I must bow out of this discussion. Your questions deserve time for thought that I can't quite afford at present. Good listening.

Ozfly, touche'.

Ozfly: thank you for your beautiful response. Yes, that, in words, is as close as we can get. But, we did get there didn't we (Unsound, do you think that was an "accident"; that my purpose was to satiate my inquiry? It was never about "touches"...). Interestingly, Ozfly, we got there, in the essence of your response, its meaning, only when you responded that we were being circular. I wonder how that happened? Hmm. (Although detlof said something beautiful back there somewhere...)

Unsound, the reason we keep talking around each other - even though, beneath that and tying us together is the journey we agree on - is because we define consciousness and its capacities differently. You say, you can not think about a place absent thinking - which is true - but then go on to assume that because your thinking can't see itself that you can't know anything about its absense. The underlying assumption of this is that only thinking derives truth about non-thinking spaces of the mind. This, essentially, reduces all trans-thinking perceptions into a category of unknowable (hence, my original question asking you if you were sure it was unknowable).

You ask, how can we derive truth about non-thinking spaces, and my answer is, by watching them. The thinking mind says this is not possible because it tells you that there is nothing left to see or to be the seer, but, again, this is a bias of the thinking mind (cognition is objectifying; any space absent objects is categorized as a nothingness, then, as non-existent).

In fact, you can watch your own thoughts, and even discern eventually their arisement in the mind. Yes, you can not "see" this silent watcher with thoughts, but it does exist. Of course, like any searcher for the truth, one must engage the injunctive to prove or disprove its existence. With thought discernment, we can share that knowledge with each other through thought-based language, but the knowledge that is derived by the silent witness to your own thought processing can only be done, that experiment upon your own mind, by yourself. The "what is" has it rigged that way. You experience the truth of the silent space by be-ing it...The beauty of compassion that I talked of is found there.

Which is why I always come back to trans-cognitive levels of perceiving music as a valid perception; because it allows a discussion of these levels in general; music is my foil.

Interestingly, the thinking mind of many can experience the "letting go" of cognitive impulse and the consequent experience of trans-cogitive perception listening to music, but then, when we come to dicussing it, that same thinking mind denies a place beyond itself where truth (especially of itself) can be discerned.

This is, of course, a logical incongruency.