Can knowing more make it boreing?

Satyr wrote:

All things considered, you've not veered too far off your regular style, your comfort zone:
short, staccato, full of innuendo and colorful imagery, but not much meat.

I suspect you fear speaking because that will ruin the persona you've cultivated and enjoy playing out.
Pretty as hell, but also a bit shallow.
The usual needs...nothing out of the ordinary, except for the level.

A marvelous combination.

Tell me, if I enjoy it, why shouldn't I?
We must stick to what we are good.
I'll stick with the innuendo and hope you'll stick with the meat.

Abstract wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Nobody truly understands music.
One surrenders to its emotional content.

Music is basically groupings of sounds that are associated to particular feelings or things such as to later propagate similar responses as to the things associated to when later heard...I would think...

Try thinking less.

phoneutria wrote:

Abstract, silly bunny, you can't simply define music with a sentence.
Music is better felt than thought of.

No...I defined it...It might could be constructed better so as to be understandable what i meant but yeah...I defined it O_o

Vanitas wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Nobody truly understands music.
One surrenders to its emotional content.

Music is basically groupings of sounds that are associated to particular feelings or things such as to later propagate similar responses as to the things associated to when later heard...I would think...

Try thinking less.

How? and why?

It's like defining red. You can tell me it's the portion of visible light with the longest wavelength, but that says nothing about perception.

Abstract wrote:

Vanitas wrote:

Abstract wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Nobody truly understands music.
One surrenders to its emotional content.

Music is basically groupings of sounds that are associated to particular feelings or things such as to later propagate similar responses as to the things associated to when later heard...I would think...

Try thinking less.

How? and why?

It's about giving in to the sensation, which females love, and not trying to understand the sensation or what produced it and why.

What do Christians say?
You can't "understand" the triad of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit until you surrender to it.
How does Jesus make sense?
Receive him into your heart.

phoneutria wrote:

It's like defining red. You can tell me it's the portion of visible light with the longest wavelength, but that says nothing about perception.

Knothing can be perfectly defined... not even a tree... or a rock...

By the way, the "magic" of music is easy to understand.

Not only does it reflect the overall nature of existence with its fluidity made up of notes, but it also speaks to our inner being by reverberating in the beats and melodies of our cellular chorus.

The African beats, for example, are in imitation of the beating heart or the thrusting in copulation.

European music, classical, is considered more sophisticated because ti goes beyond this superficial level.
It incorporates the entire cellular rhythms.

I fully disagree with this (yet again) broad generalization.

As stated before, understanding the sensation, learning what causes it and how it forms, only hightens the experience.

You can only fully appreciate the good by knowing why it is good.

In other words, dearest, you wish to save its magic from the blinding light of understanding.
You wish to retain its effect by denying yourself clarity about its roots and its methods.

Hedonists are all the same.
Females, being all about sex, rely on blind hedonism because only there does sex have power.

Understanding diminishes the effect. It disarms the method of its most precious tool: mysticism.

Same goes for dancing.
Think about what dance is and what it represents and you lose the fluidity and abandonment and spontaneity required to indulge in its rhythms.

The only power a female has is to protect her "mysteriousness" making her appearance and how it affects males the only thing to be surrendered to.
Take away that instinctive superficiality ans what have you got?

I just posted exactly the opposite. Read again.
I said that understanding enhances the appreciation.

Pardon me if it doesn't fit your cookie cutter.

phoneutria wrote:

I just posted exactly the opposite. Read again.
I said that understanding enhances the appreciation.

Pardon me if it doesn't fit your cookie cutter.

Ah, then I disagree....yet again, cookie.

Abandoning yourself to music, to sex, to dance, to art, or to a view is to stop thinking.

no cookie-cutter. Only two different reactions to the same shit.


Most females love the idea of abandoning themselves to sensation.
That you think you can retain the outcome without the cost, is what makes you special, dearest.

If you think you can stand apart, neutrally analyzing and classifying all you experience, then you are a very misguided man, sir.

without-music wrote:

If you think you can stand apart, neutrally analyze and classify all you experience, then you are very misguided man, sir.

Unclassified...is a classification.

Ah, now you are comprehending power, dear boy.

To be God entails a distancing, a detachment...the duo in dualism.
Is this possible in any absolute form?
No.

Is it possible in degree and in comparison?
Definitely.

Abstract wrote:

When I used to listen to music it was fantastical and got me so moved... but after learning how to play more of the music... the sounds are less intriguing...

I have not had this experience. The more I have learned to play and sing the more I enjoy the music of others.

Quote :

Is that what is to come of understanding a thing? Boredom?

I have learned to understand practical specifics, but I am not sure this means I now understand X's music. I don't experience it this way. The music as experienced is something else.

Quote :

Or is there always more to know about everything?

I don't think anyone could learn everything about music in one lifetime. Not even close. There would not be time for repeated listenings, even if one tried to listen to everything.

Quote :

Yet might things be more fun to be mystified?
Or is ignorance what leads us into our greater pains?
can pains be gotten used to, can they become enjoyed?
Should they?

This seems like another kind of issue. I don't think they should. I don't think they shouldn't. It's not high on my list of priorities.

Abstract wrote:

How? and why?

To avoid trivializing experience. The how I'll leave up to you.

Satyr wrote:

It's about giving in to the sensation, which females love, and not trying to understand the sensation or what produced it and why

Rationalism comes after the sensation, as it logically must. Some might attempt to invert this relationship - to push the sensational world away - perhaps it causes them too much anxiety.

Satyr wrote:

it also speaks to our inner being by reverberating in the beats and melodies of our cellular chorus.

The African beats, for example, are in imitation of the beating heart or the thrusting in copulation.

European music, classical, is considered more sophisticated because ti goes beyond this superficial level.
It incorporates the entire cellular rhythms.

Why criticize feminine mystification and then indulge in your own?

The 'melodies of our cellular chorus'? Sounds like a line out of a Christian pamphlet on the wonders of nature.

The internal structure of the body is calculating machinery, completely indifferent to the poetic conceptions that one might wish to bestow upon it.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

When I used to listen to music it was fantastical and got me so moved... but after learning how to play more of the music... the sounds are less intriguing...

I have not had this experience. The more I have learned to play and sing the more I enjoy the music of others.

I guess i could say that i have learned to enjoy it in a different way, but then it is not the same.

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

Is that what is to come of understanding a thing? Boredom?

I have learned to understand practical specifics, but I am not sure this means I now understand X's music. I don't experience it this way. The music as experienced is something else.

What i mean primraily is that the sounds made by a guitar are less...bringing up of emotions and more bringing up of visualization of the finger and position and the style used in general to make the sound... though I guess it is not always thought of in that manner.

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

Or is there always more to know about everything?

I don't think anyone could learn everything about music in one lifetime. Not even close. There would not be time for repeated listenings, even if one tried to listen to everything.

What if one had more then one lifetime to learn about music?

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

Yet might things be more fun to be mystified?
Or is ignorance what leads us into our greater pains?
can pains be gotten used to, can they become enjoyed?
Should they?

This seems like another kind of issue. I don't think they should. I don't think they shouldn't. It's not high on my list of priorities.

This was of my primary concern and largely of the reasons for the example...

Vanitas wrote:

Abstract wrote:

How? and why?

To avoid trivializing experience. The how I'll leave up to you.

It doesn't trivialize experience... the recognition alone that something can by thought indicates that all things are trivial in the first place regardless...

Vanitas wrote:

Satyr wrote:

It's about giving in to the sensation, which females love, and not trying to understand the sensation or what produced it and why

Rationalism comes after the sensation, as it logically must. Some might attempt to invert this relationship - to push the sensational world away - perhaps it causes them too much anxiety.

cannot one rationalyze anything in anyway... how is it then that we know which way is the most rational?

[quote="Satyr"]

phoneutria wrote:

Ah, then I disagree....yet again, cookie.

Abandoning yourself to music, to sex, to dance, to art, or to a view is to stop thinking.

no cookie-cutter. Only two different reactions to the same shit.

Most females love the idea of abandoning themselves to sensation.
That you think you can retain the outcome without the cost, is what makes you special, dearest.

I could drink from the bottom shelf my entire life and find myself in delight.
If I get a taste of the middle shelf and find greater delight, I will forever be looking for the highest shelf.
I will have become a critic.

You can only fully appreciate the good by knowing why it is good.
Thus, I repeat myself.

Vanitas wrote:

Satyr wrote:

it also speaks to our inner being by reverberating in the beats and melodies of our cellular chorus.

The African beats, for example, are in imitation of the beating heart or the thrusting in copulation.

European music, classical, is considered more sophisticated because ti goes beyond this superficial level.
It incorporates the entire cellular rhythms.

Why criticize feminine mystification and then indulge in your own?

The 'melodies of our cellular chorus'? Sounds like a line out of a Christian pamphlet on the wonders of nature.

The internal structure of the body is calculating machinery, completely indifferent to the poetic conceptions that one might wish to bestow upon it.

To appreciate or even to give in, does not mean one is controlled.

How can you understand anything if you haven't experienced it in yourself?

Abstract wrote:

I guess i could say that i have learned to enjoy it in a different way, but then it is not the same.

Absolutely, it definitely changes it. And one can learn things that detract. I think some scientific models for things can lead to detachment and a loss of intimacy - with whatever. I am not sure this leads to boredom in me, but I can be negative.

Quote :

What i mean primraily is that the sounds made by a guitar are less...bringing up of emotions and more bringing up of visualization of the finger and position and the style used in general to make the sound... though I guess it is not always thought of in that manner.

From my thinking above I am now more sympthetic to this reaction. I do not have this with music. I have learned as an adult to play a couple of instrument, to sing and I know a hell of a lot more theory, though mostly indirectly. And this has not detracted. When the music is on, that region of knowledge of 'off' somehow, unless I am specifically trying to figure out how someone did something I liked. But I realized that certain kinds of knowledge, scientific comes to mind, do have a negative effect for me. I do not think it is necessarily because of any given fact, but the overall worldview -. which I consided limited - can seem like the only set of truths if I am exposed too much to the scientific view of, say, animals. I don't get bored, but there is a kind of emptiness and constriction. Realizing this, it is easier for me to understand how this kind of thing may have happened for you with music.

My reaction has been to not read more science in a certain area, at least for some time, so that what seems more like my full set of ways of experiencing nature or whatever come to the fore and feel natural. It would be aweful if such learning were permanent and I can see where it might be.

I think we have to learn how to really chew our food and also to notice how implicit models are entering us along with 'facts.'

Quote :

What if one had more then one lifetime to learn about music?

Well, I think we do actually. I believe in reincarnation. But while we've been growing up, musicians have been at work making more music.

Quote :

This was of my primary concern and largely of the reasons for the example...

Having come at this issue again, I would like to emphasize that we are not talking about ignorance. If you enjoyed something, you had knowledge of it. It is a certain kind of 'objective' knowledge, that is detracting from what the objectifiers would call subjective experience - they would not grant it the label knowledge, even though many of the creators of great music, for example, may not know very much on the intellectual end about what they are doing.

One kind of knowledge - or even paradigm - detracting from another kind. Facts ripping up life.

Pisses me off.

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

What i mean primraily is that the sounds made by a guitar are less...bringing up of emotions and more bringing up of visualization of the finger and position and the style used in general to make the sound... though I guess it is not always thought of in that manner.

From my thinking above I am now more sympthetic to this reaction. I do not have this with music. I have learned as an adult to play a couple of instrument, to sing and I know a hell of a lot more theory, though mostly indirectly. And this has not detracted. When the music is on, that region of knowledge of 'off' somehow, unless I am specifically trying to figure out how someone did something I liked. But I realized that certain kinds of knowledge, scientific comes to mind, do have a negative effect for me. I do not think it is necessarily because of any given fact, but the overall worldview -. which I consided limited - can seem like the only set of truths if I am exposed too much to the scientific view of, say, animals. I don't get bored, but there is a kind of emptiness and constriction. Realizing this, it is easier for me to understand how this kind of thing may have happened for you with music.

My reaction has been to not read more science in a certain area, at least for some time, so that what seems more like my full set of ways of experiencing nature or whatever come to the fore and feel natural. It would be aweful if such learning were permanent and I can see where it might be.

I think we have to learn how to really chew our food and also to notice how implicit models are entering us along with 'facts.'

I wonder that perhaps the negative view that comes with scientific understanding is resultant of the ending of mystification, but then it does seem that given time that such a complex thing exists at all becomes a beauty in itself...no matter how.

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

What if one had more then one lifetime to learn about music?

Well, I think we do actually. I believe in reincarnation. But while we've been growing up, musicians have been at work making more music.

What if one were to identify the pattern of evolution of music? Honestly I am thinking about it and have considered that finding the more complex and well done pieces becomes more beautiful though rare, such may come as one is educated...

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

This was of my primary concern and largely of the reasons for the example...

Having come at this issue again, I would like to emphasize that we are not talking about ignorance. If you enjoyed something, you had knowledge of it. It is a certain kind of 'objective' knowledge, that is detracting from what the objectifiers would call subjective experience - they would not grant it the label knowledge, even though many of the creators of great music, for example, may not know very much on the intellectual end about what they are doing.

One kind of knowledge - or even paradigm - detracting from another kind. Facts ripping up life.

Pisses me off.

Yes that is a good point... we do know it to some degree. it would seem that the reason for my loss was the shift from associating the sounds of a guitar with things like the way it sounds like this-or-that thing or moment or feeling to thinking of finger position... though I do not do that as much now so it is not that bad...don't get me wrong...

Abstract wrote:

I wonder that perhaps the negative view that comes with scientific understanding is resultant of the ending of mystification, but then it does seem that given time that such a complex thing exists at all becomes a beauty in itself...no matter how.

I think the scientific worldview when taken as metaphysics, which it is by many scientists and nearly all people who like to think of themselves as the rational ones, is mystifying. I have no dispute with the results of much scientific research, but once they have these results it becomes the only reality - despite the fact that within the history of science 'the only reality' has been shown time and again to be only a partial view of it. I say this because for me science as practiced as a metaphysical paradigm is not demystifying only, it is also mystifying, often primarily.

Quote :

What if one were to identify the pattern of evolution of music? Honestly I am thinking about it and have considered that finding the more complex and well done pieces becomes more beautiful though rare, such may come as one is educated...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Quote :

Yes that is a good point... we do know it to some degree. it would seem that the reason for my loss was the shift from associating the sounds of a guitar with things like the way it sounds like this-or-that thing or moment or feeling to thinking of finger position... though I do not do that as much now so it is not that bad...don't get me wrong...

Which ends up being something like the neuroscientist having sex with his spouse and thinking about neurotransmitters, physiology, changes in dermal electroresistance.....and worse, thinking he was immersed in reality while his wife, who is immersed in both feelings of affection - before she notices him more clearly - and passion is less connected to what is 'really' going on.

Poor deluded fellah.

Kovacs wrote:

Abstract wrote:

I wonder that perhaps the negative view that comes with scientific understanding is resultant of the ending of mystification, but then it does seem that given time that such a complex thing exists at all becomes a beauty in itself...no matter how.

I think the scientific worldview when taken as metaphysics, which it is by many scientists and nearly all people who like to think of themselves as the rational ones, is mystifying. I have no dispute with the results of much scientific research, but once they have these results it becomes the only reality - despite the fact that within the history of science 'the only reality' has been shown time and again to be only a partial view of it. I say this because for me science as practiced as a metaphysical paradigm is not demystifying only, it is also mystifying, often primarily.

Yes too many fall into the idea of the mainstream algorithm absolute correctness...when those algorithms pop up...

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

What if one were to identify the pattern of evolution of music? Honestly I am thinking about it and have considered that finding the more complex and well done pieces becomes more beautiful though rare, such may come as one is educated...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Sorry; I mean that though I can see a particular pattern within which music randomizes I find that given more types to expect one fins particular newer creations, as they become more rare, also more potently emotionally effective...I guess.

Kovacs wrote:

Quote :

Yes that is a good point... we do know it to some degree. it would seem that the reason for my loss was the shift from associating the sounds of a guitar with things like the way it sounds like this-or-that thing or moment or feeling to thinking of finger position... though I do not do that as much now so it is not that bad...don't get me wrong...

Which ends up being something like the neuroscientist having sex with his spouse and thinking about neurotransmitters, physiology, changes in dermal electroresistance.....and worse, thinking he was immersed in reality while his wife, who is immersed in both feelings of affection - before she notices him more clearly - and passion is less connected to what is 'really' going on.

Poor deluded fellah.

Yes.. that mode of thought dies though...given time... as do most things...