R: Oh? I’ve not questioned this before. Okay, I will accept it as a postulate.
M: Humans all have “trends”, or otherwise stated, preferential directions. Some have high musical ability intrinsically and that is formed by DNA. Others couldn’t carry a tune for anything, but still have emotional responses to music. Others “have” to hear the sounds of (what is to me) “angry” music like “heavy metal”, while others love soft melodic tones, as a preferential trend. Others like very complicated and abstract sounds, and the more complicated, the more mathematical they become. Others who have no performance skills in music, and can never have by virtue of physical attributes (like ability to improve dexterity beyond a point) may have the “soul” of music but express it in writing/poetry, for example. You don’t have to take this as axiomatic, like most things it’s simple.
M: … Where did the DNA come from? Parents provided the organic DNA, and that DNA, and all cells of the parents bodies and all of their organisms evolved to form each person. What are the components of the DNA and all of the organisms of each person? Sub-atomic particles that are and were contained in and about Planet Earth, makes these structures. Where did the subatomic particles come from? The Universe provided the particles AND the energy fields that surround them. How long have these fields and elements been available to organize and evolve? Forever: they are as timeless as the universe itself. Didn’t these come from the rather short-timed formation of the Earth? Only indirectly, with the Earth as a repository of elements and fields that were sourced forever. What about music and math? Any musical expression has a mathematical analogy, and any musical scale or intonation can be written as a sequence of mathematical numbers. How can one know that this seemingly unlikely situation is true? …
R: It doesn’t seem at all unlikely to me, I’ve long known/believed that everything could be expressed mathematically. That became appearent to me when I saw my first equation for a line. I insinctively then knew that every single bit of the physical world in unlimited complexity could be represented mathematically … or rather … WAS represented mathematically, whether it was discovered yet or not.
M: The point was actually covered a long time ago in our dialogs: mathematics is only a form of vocabulary for describing something.
M: … Listen to any CD of music. Every musical expression on a CD in every detail, is a numerical coding of the sounds quite literally expressed in binary numbers. These numbers in coded sequence are decoded into an analogue form for humans to hear through the equipment and circuits. What energy form does this process use? The energy process involves moving about fields and electrons in the equipment. …
R: I don’t know what “fields” are, but it’s okay. No need to change the subject.
M: The fields are energy that move and direct the electrons, and that hold all matter together.
M: … Does the equipment manufacture these fields and electrons in it’s circuitry?…
R: I’m not stupid.
M: Strange response. Really strange. Seems like one of those “reflexes” expressing itself.
M: … No, the equipment simply moves about, channels and directs, electron movement, with electrons being primary subatomic particles that were sourced from the universe itself and stored in materials upon the surface of the Earth and coalesced into circuits that were setup through development to function in an organized manner. Some of these subatomic energies, such as electrons, are currently used to store and cause analogue auditory music to occur, others are used to result is structures and some of these are organic entities, termed “humans”.
R: Oh, Okay, I see. You were just making the point that everything is related. Well then, I’m afraid you made too big of a jump back up there so I’ll paste where I see that and start again:
M: Hummm.
R: You said, “What drives a direction of musical communication, or poetry (a different expression of the same thing) in a person? Psychology as a derivative from philosophy, yet again makes a large formative piece of these components.”
R: Key words are “a large formative piece” … maybe, maybe not. What is a large formative piece? But, lets consider that “Psychology as a derivative from philosophy” drives no part of music or poetry at a certain level of music and poetry. Sure, if you call poetry, “I like my mom, she’s so fine, she taught me stuff right down the line.” I can see the psychology in that. But what about “Deserving dying leaves swell sweet life’s mysteries?” Where did that come from. Certainly it has nothing to do with philosophy or psychology or thinking at all. And I would argue the same for inspired music wherever it is found. No, you can’t jump the interconnected line onto inspiration. That comes from somewhere else. Thank you, Michael Rick
M: The two examples that you related above are only different by the meaning of the depth to you, as an observer. Parable: One man, upon seeing the Grand Canyon at Sunrise for the first time, dropped to his knees and reverently bowed his head in deep prayer thanking the deity for the beauty of the moment. A second man upon seeing the same scene stood harshly, threw his hat down to the ground, placed his fists on each side of his waist, elbows out, and said, “Well, goddamned!”. Both men experienced exactly the same emotion.
R: I still don’t see the connection to “everything being related” … unless … are you saying simply that … “everything is related” like bacon is bacon.
————– R: Hi Michael,
R: I just worked more on understanding some of these more recent things and it follows:
R: for background on what I go into, two pieces:
R: 1) M: It is all connected together. For a time you really seemed to think that abstractions, philosophy, science, metaphysics, mathematics, music, et al, and the impetus to study, understand and flow – were all separate – and perhaps now there is the beginning of recognition that they are not.
R: 2) M: Yes, with elaboration. “How they think” has several different components: how they process information/data; in what style and manner CAN they even “receive” the data. These two interact because sometimes the data form that they “receive” impacts the “manner” in which the data is processed. The manner in which the data is processed also impacts the conclusions that are eventually yielded. Acting in the role of a teacher, it is incumbent on the teacher to constantly modify his/her style and approach to each student on a one:one basis, because each person in their own realities are able to “receive” information (get it into their processing system called the brain and memory) at significantly different rates.
————–
R: This sounds a bit like baby sitting to me. The student should be taught how to listen and ask questions, then the teacher wouldn’t have to worry about “significantly different rates.” I would think.
M: That might be ideal, and from the “efficient teacher’s” point of view it might even be the axiom, but there’s a good chance that this manner of thinking about “teacher’s approach” is exactly what is wrong with the school system. More below.
R: Then I would say that the only thing incumbent on the teacher is to teach. I think this really points out a great missing in our school system. Kids are not taught how to think and so the teachers end up thinking that it is incumbent on them to, what I’d call, baby-sit. I suppose I’ve been guilty of not thinking many times when you write. I will do better!
M: The responsibility, ultimately, is something that has to be shared. For a “teacher” to have an unchanging routine and approach basically says that ‘all humans are the same and learn at the same rate from the same source with the same impetus and stimulus. Hooey.
M: If the student chooses not to think, then it is incumbent on the teacher not to waste his/her time and energy – after a point of effort. That effort, though, is and can never be “baby sitting”. The teacher must, in order to be effective, use several devices and approaches toward students or the teacher assumes the arrogance of self-importance and becomes ineffective.
M: Yes, there are times when you wrap yourself so protectedly into questions, that you don’t process the information to the point of expanding on the concepts related. The approach toward processing data is to not re-ask the question when it is not understood, but rather to make a list, mental or written, about “where” the subject is attempting to go through expansion or extrapolation, and in that manner ask a “forward-thinking” question. The learning curve is propelled through this more efficiently.
R: But, I’d say, actually, I’d rather be scolded and told to pay attention or piss off that to have a teacher think that they needed to adjust down or up with their explanations.