• "A musical education is necessary for musical judgement. What most peop

    From gggg gggg@21:1/5 to All on Tue Nov 15 19:49:46 2022
    Any reactions to what Santayana said?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dan Koren@21:1/5 to gggg gggg on Tue Nov 15 22:56:31 2022
    On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 7:49:48 PM UTC-8, gggg gggg wrote:
    Any reactions to what Santayana said?

    Someone who clearly does not understand music as a
    performing art, and who is in the business of selling
    "education".

    dk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 16 04:42:07 2022
    What does Santayana (who I don't know anything about) understand by "musical judgement"?

    In general I think the first sentence is right (it's obvious...) if he doesn't consider a musical judgement to be objective per se (taste is subjective). I wouldn't be able to make a judgement on which recording I prefer without the "necessary education"
    behind it. It requires experience to develop a taste. Having knowledge in musical theory probably wouldn't change my mind at all (other people likely differ) about my preferred recordings. Yet I would love to have it, just to be able to "see more". But
    one should ofc be critical of the education one receives (especially HIP these days ;) ).

    The second sentence bears the problem that his statement "what most people relish is hardly music" is subjective. How does he define music? Yet I sort of agree with the second part of it.

    Most people these days treat art as something "easy" (Schoenberg is too "difficult") - they are (depending on social circustmances) sort of conditioned to like a certain type of music - and listen to music as a means to escape their daily life (kind of
    sad you have to, if you think about it ;) ), but instead of being transformed by it (I think art has transformative powers) they are lulled into a false sense of security by it (hindering people to see what is wrong with themselves and this world and
    thus making progress impossible) - this ofc also has to do with performance practice (Schnabel vs YES in 466 for example). I don't think education in musical theory is necessary to not fall for this though, the people just need to listen with attention.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 16 08:08:14 2022
    Most people these days treat art as something "easy" (Schoenberg is too "difficult") - they are (depending on social circustmances) sort of conditioned to like a certain type of music - and listen to music as a means to escape their daily life (kind of
    sad you have to, if you think about it ;) ), but instead of being transformed by it (I think art has transformative powers) they are lulled into a false sense of security by it (hindering people to see what is wrong with themselves and this world and
    thus making progress impossible) - this ofc also has to do with performance practice (Schnabel vs YES in 466 for example). I don't think education in musical theory is necessary to not fall for this though, the people just need to listen with attention.

    What we perceive has meaning only in context. Education is the accumulation of contexts. If I understand him correctly, Santayana believes that we can aesthetically enjoy what we perceive (painting, music) without context. We enjoy what we are feeling at
    that moment, not the artwork as artwork. It reminds me of Pirsig's friend, who didn't care about motorbikes, but loved the sensation of riding on one.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Wed Nov 16 11:53:17 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 17:08:17 UTC+1:
    Most people these days treat art as something "easy" (Schoenberg is too "difficult") - they are (depending on social circustmances) sort of conditioned to like a certain type of music - and listen to music as a means to escape their daily life (kind
    of sad you have to, if you think about it ;) ), but instead of being transformed by it (I think art has transformative powers) they are lulled into a false sense of security by it (hindering people to see what is wrong with themselves and this world and
    thus making progress impossible) - this ofc also has to do with performance practice (Schnabel vs YES in 466 for example). I don't think education in musical theory is necessary to not fall for this though, the people just need to listen with attention.
    What we perceive has meaning only in context. Education is the accumulation of contexts. If I understand him correctly, Santayana believes that we can aesthetically enjoy what we perceive (painting, music) without context. We enjoy what we are feeling
    at that moment, not the artwork as artwork. It reminds me of Pirsig's friend, who didn't care about motorbikes, but loved the sensation of riding on one.

    Henk

    Santayana doesn't say anything about aesthetics and enjoyment in the quote.

    There is no such thing as "without context" for us humans. Every human is shaped by the circustamnces that surround him. I think it is wrong to perceive music to be something naturally given, it was made by humans. Different cultures had different
    feelings and thoughts about it. I doubt that if you showed Mozart to the people of the North Sentinel Island they would have any idea what to do with it... because they are shaped by their "context".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to Marc S on Wed Nov 16 13:10:06 2022
    Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 13:42:10 UTC+1:
    Schnabel vs YES in 466 for example

    after having listened to Schnabel again in 466 (Mvt 1 to refresh my memory) I have to say: I prefer Michelangeli. And a few others over Schnabel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to Marc S on Wed Nov 16 12:15:19 2022
    Marc S schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 20:53:20 UTC+1:
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Mittwoch, 16. November 2022 um 17:08:17 UTC+1:
    Most people these days treat art as something "easy" (Schoenberg is too "difficult") - they are (depending on social circustmances) sort of conditioned to like a certain type of music - and listen to music as a means to escape their daily life (
    kind of sad you have to, if you think about it ;) ), but instead of being transformed by it (I think art has transformative powers) they are lulled into a false sense of security by it (hindering people to see what is wrong with themselves and this world
    and thus making progress impossible) - this ofc also has to do with performance practice (Schnabel vs YES in 466 for example). I don't think education in musical theory is necessary to not fall for this though, the people just need to listen with
    attention.
    What we perceive has meaning only in context. Education is the accumulation of contexts. If I understand him correctly, Santayana believes that we can aesthetically enjoy what we perceive (painting, music) without context. We enjoy what we are
    feeling at that moment, not the artwork as artwork. It reminds me of Pirsig's friend, who didn't care about motorbikes, but loved the sensation of riding on one.

    Henk
    Santayana doesn't say anything about aesthetics and enjoyment in the quote.

    There is no such thing as "without context" for us humans. Every human is shaped by the circustamnces that surround him. I think it is wrong to perceive music to be something naturally given, it was made by humans. Different cultures had different
    feelings and thoughts about it. I doubt that if you showed Mozart to the people of the North Sentinel Island they would have any idea what to do with it... because they are shaped by their "context".

    Also: He says the opposite of what you suggest he believed in. His quote rather says that one can only "really" enjoy music when you are educated about it.

    To which I agree depending on what he understands by "musical judgement" and "musical education". Since this is not really specified anywhere, it is a quote that is just stupid and doesn't lead us anywhere.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Wed Nov 16 15:46:50 2022
    Santayana doesn't say anything about aesthetics and enjoyment in the quote.
    There is no such thing as "without context" for us humans. Every human is shaped by the circustamnces that surround him. I think it is wrong to perceive music to be something naturally given, it was made by humans. Different cultures had different
    feelings and thoughts about it. I doubt that if you showed Mozart to the people of the North Sentinel Island they would have any idea what to do with it... because they are shaped by their "context".
    Also: He says the opposite of what you suggest he believed in. His quote rather says that one can only "really" enjoy music when you are educated about it.

    Elsewhere, Santayana states: "What we love is the stimulation of our own personal emotions and dreams; and landscape appeals to us, as music does to those who have no sense for musical form."
    On the one hand, there is the stimulation of one's emotions and dreams and on the other hand, the understanding of what one hears.

    Birds, the sea, the voices of children in the distance can evoke emotions in me, even though the sounds make no sense. Classical music rarely does: it usually has a context (I hear KV466, for example).

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 00:12:04 2022
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like music "
    just because"...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Wed Nov 16 23:54:44 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 00:46:53 UTC+1:
    Elsewhere, Santayana states: "What we love is the stimulation of our own personal emotions and dreams; and landscape appeals to us, as music does to those who have no sense for musical form."

    A landscape appeals to us because of "context", same as music appeals to us because of context. You have to learn to think critically (about your own thought processes and their motivations) Henk... Try to understand what I said before and then put it
    into the context of your quote...

    Ask yourself: Why does a landscape appeal to you? A grassland with sheep on it during afternoon in Summer likely appeals to you, but the landscape of Agbogbloshie (google it) won't appeal to you. There are reasons why your subconsciousness prefers one
    over the other (experience in regards to dirt and hygiene and primal instincts securing survival play a role in this).

    Same goes for music: Henk, you grew up in a society that has a specific idea of what music is (rules of harmony etc.), your whole self was influenced by the ideas of said society about music. Even if you don't have the slightest idea about music theory,
    your consciousness over time has become conditioned to a certain type of music. You develop a sense for musical form subconsciously just by living in a specific society... That is why people who listen to Pop music will sort of "get" Beethoven the first
    time they hear him, but people from the sentinel island won't be able to get anything out of Beethoven, because they don't "understand" this type of music. It is alien to their culture.

    What I am trying to get across to you is that: A sense for musical form can develop without understand musical theory, just by being exposed to the music of a specific culture. You cannot appreciate music without having any sense for musical form...

    It should also be noted that Aesthetics doesn't care about being "pleasant", Aesthetics doesn't know such category.

    On the one hand, there is the stimulation of one's emotions and dreams and on the other hand, the understanding of what one hears.


    Yes, and it surely would be beneficial for anyone to "understand what one hears" (being able to sightread, understandig harmonic theory etc). Henk... Santayana obviously seems to agree that one can enjoy music emotionally, but in gggg's quote he very
    clearly says, that one can only "really" enjoy music when one "understands" it.

    Birds, the sea, the voices of children in the distance can evoke emotions in me, even though the sounds make no sense. Classical music rarely does: it usually has a context (I hear KV466, for example).

    Henk

    Music rarely evokes emotions in you? Henk... Wtf? Are you human? Or are you from a parallel dimension? ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Berger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 10:44:28 2022
    On 11/17/2022 10:41 AM, HT wrote:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like
    music "just because"...

    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?

    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk

    What does "get more out of" mean? With not knowing, there is wonder, with knowing there is.....knowing.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 07:41:15 2022
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like
    music "just because"...

    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?

    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Thu Nov 17 08:22:03 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 16:41:18 UTC+1:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like
    music "just because"...
    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?


    There is always a because my dear friend in our world. And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not. You are not a robot, and it kind of bugs me that you are
    trying to come up with "universal rules" considering "human behaviour"... humans are far more complex than you seem to believe (universal rules such as: "It fascinated me now, but not on another day. Hence there is no because." - this screams of a
    reified consciousness.). Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird or we.

    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex world.

    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk

    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D

    As much as I like you and as much as I am thankful for your time, I really have to get out of this ;D You "never" understand me and "never" try to think beyond your own self, you cage yourself in... in our discussions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 08:19:02 2022
    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    What does "get more out of" mean? With not knowing, there is wonder, with knowing there is.....knowing.

    There was no knowing or non-knowing. In other words, I didn't get anything from the situation. I kept staring at the bird until it flew away. That was it.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Berger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 11:22:16 2022
    On 11/17/2022 11:19 AM, HT wrote:
    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    What does "get more out of" mean? With not knowing, there is wonder, with knowing there is.....knowing.

    There was no knowing or non-knowing. In other words, I didn't get anything from the situation. I kept staring at the bird until it flew away. That was it.

    Henk

    And here I thought I had a deep thought.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Thu Nov 17 08:23:05 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 16:41:18 UTC+1:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like
    music "just because"...
    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?


    Don't be lazy ;) at least not always...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to Marc S on Thu Nov 17 10:06:14 2022
    Marc S schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 18:44:55 UTC+1:
    Marc S schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 17:22:06 UTC+1:
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 16:41:18 UTC+1:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't
    like music "just because"...
    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?

    There is always a because my dear friend in our world. And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not. You are not a robot, and it kind of bugs me that you
    are trying to come up with "universal rules" considering "human behaviour"... humans are far more complex than you seem to believe (universal rules such as: "It fascinated me now, but not on another day. Hence there is no because." - this screams of a
    reified consciousness.). Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird or we.

    *concerning human behaviour
    *You are not making up universal rules - I was wrong on this. But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*
    idealised because you completely neglect reality in that reality does never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)


    God dammit i feel compelled to correct myself again (and otoh I am frustrated because it feels like wasting time, I don't know how to talk to you about this stuff, if you can't even see what I am talking about):

    *I shouldn't have said idealised universal law. But you are sort of trying to negate what I said with an argument... that is just so... like... fucking stupid - learn to think critically about what you are saying god dammit ;D -, because you are
    completely neglecting reality by making it. First of all I never claimed that something would ever repeat itself in exactly the same way, and that you don't even that this isn't possible while asking your question is absurd and it's the part that you don'
    t even realize that you idealised things in your head (*not noticing that _exact_ repeat isn't possible in this world - at least concerning human behaviour).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to Marc S on Thu Nov 17 09:44:50 2022
    Marc S schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 17:22:06 UTC+1:
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 16:41:18 UTC+1:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like
    music "just because"...
    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?

    There is always a because my dear friend in our world. And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not. You are not a robot, and it kind of bugs me that you are
    trying to come up with "universal rules" considering "human behaviour"... humans are far more complex than you seem to believe (universal rules such as: "It fascinated me now, but not on another day. Hence there is no because." - this screams of a
    reified consciousness.). Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird or we.


    *concerning human behaviour
    *You are not making up universal rules - I was wrong on this. But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*idealised
    because you completely neglect reality in that reality does never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)

    You probably won't get what I'm saying here either...

    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex world.
    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk
    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D


    *not just about himself but about the world and humans as well.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Graham@21:1/5 to Frank Berger on Thu Nov 17 11:20:33 2022
    On 2022-11-17 8:44 a.m., Frank Berger wrote:
    On 11/17/2022 10:41 AM, HT wrote:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like
    a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of
    "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have
    never thought about it deeply). You also don't like music "just
    because"...

    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from
    the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always
    a "because"?

    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would
    get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated
    me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk

    What does "get more out of" mean?  With not knowing, there is wonder,
    with knowing there is.....knowing.

    With a knowledge of physics, there is still wonder when looking at
    photos from the Hubble and Webb telescopes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Berger@21:1/5 to Graham on Thu Nov 17 13:54:53 2022
    On 11/17/2022 1:20 PM, Graham wrote:
    On 2022-11-17 8:44 a.m., Frank Berger wrote:
    On 11/17/2022 10:41 AM, HT wrote:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have never thought about it deeply). You also don't like
    music "just because"...

    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always a "because"?

    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk

    What does "get more out of" mean?  With not knowing, there is wonder, with knowing there is.....knowing.

    With a knowledge of physics, there is still wonder when looking at photos from the Hubble and Webb telescopes.

    True enough; perhaps a little knowledge leads to more wonder than no knowledge. Or, maybe it depends on the individual.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 12:05:24 2022
    To get out of my cave/cage: I agree with you that causality rules the world, i.e. the world of science.

    And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not.

    Science depends on repeatability (rockets should go up) and has to account for the fact that nothing repeats itself the same way (some don't).

    Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird.

    A true Freudian doesn't trust what his client has to say. Psychologists, on the other hand, depend on it.

    But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*idealised because you completely neglect reality in that reality does
    never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)

    I'm sometimes bored by KV466, and sometimes not. That's not adhering to the "universal law" that no one is ever bored by KV466. How is that the same as contradicting anything you say - unless you maintain that no one can be bored by KV466?

    You probably won't get what I'm saying here either...

    Well, that's up to you to decide.

    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex world.


    There is no freedom without constraint, they imply each other. The constraint in this case is being aware of one's motivations and not following one's instincts. Here we clearly disagree. Awareness versus instinct is at least as old as Aristotle, and we
    know better by now. Physicists don't - and don't have to. They live in a different world.

    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D

    Self-analysis? Even Freud was against it... And why would a birdwatcher rather analyse himself than study bird behaviour?

    BTW, your example of Feynman shows that we are on the same page. In my humble opinion, he is saying the same Santayana was trying to say. But there is only one Feynman.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to Graham on Thu Nov 17 11:32:22 2022
    Graham schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 19:20:39 UTC+1:
    On 2022-11-17 8:44 a.m., Frank Berger wrote:
    On 11/17/2022 10:41 AM, HT wrote:
    Op donderdag 17 november 2022 om 09:12:06 UTC+1 schreef Marc S:
    Henk, your consciousness does not exist in a vaccuum. You don't like
    a landscape "just because"... you like a landscape because of
    "something" (which you may not even know about, because you have
    never thought about it deeply). You also don't like music "just
    because"...

    I just saw a bird walking in the garden, picking pieces of wood from
    the border at its leisure. It fascinated me.

    Why did this fascinate me now and not at other times? Is there always
    a "because"?

    If I understand Santayana correctly, an experienced bird-watcher would
    get much more out of the situation than just a meagre "it fascinated
    me". He'd have his "because" ready, if asked.

    Henk

    What does "get more out of" mean? With not knowing, there is wonder,
    with knowing there is.....knowing.
    With a knowledge of physics, there is still wonder when looking at
    photos from the Hubble and Webb telescopes.

    Reminds me of a Feynman quote:

    “I have a friend who's an artist and has sometimes taken a view which I don't agree with very well. He'll hold up a flower and say "look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. Then he says "I as an artist can see how beautiful this is but you as a
    scientist take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing," and I think that he's kind of nutty. First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me too, I believe. Although I may not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is ...
    I can appreciate the beauty of a flower. At the same time, I see much more about the flower than he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside, which also have a beauty. I mean it's not just beauty at this dimension, at one
    centimeter; there's also beauty at smaller dimensions, the inner structure, also the processes. The fact that the colors in the flower evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; it means that insects can see the color. It adds a
    question: does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms? Why is it aesthetic? All kinds of interesting questions which the science knowledge only adds to the excitement, the mystery and the awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how
    it subtracts.”

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Frank Berger@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 17 18:00:33 2022
    On 11/17/2022 3:05 PM, HT wrote:
    To get out of my cave/cage: I agree with you that causality rules the world, i.e. the world of science.

    And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not.

    Science depends on repeatability (rockets should go up) and has to account for the fact that nothing repeats itself the same way (some don't).

    Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird.

    A true Freudian doesn't trust what his client has to say. Psychologists, on the other hand, depend on it.

    But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*idealised because you completely neglect reality in that reality does
    never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)

    I'm sometimes bored by KV466, and sometimes not. That's not adhering to the "universal law" that no one is ever bored by KV466. How is that the same as contradicting anything you say - unless you maintain that no one can be bored by KV466?

    You probably won't get what I'm saying here either...

    Well, that's up to you to decide.

    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex world.

    There is no freedom without constraint, they imply each other. The constraint in this case is being aware of one's motivations and not following one's instincts. Here we clearly disagree. Awareness versus instinct is at least as old as Aristotle, and
    we know better by now. Physicists don't - and don't have to. They live in a different world.


    I used to have a visceral "huh?" reaction when a rabbi would say there is no freedom without observing Torah and Rabbinic rules. Then I realized that "freedom" in that context meant freedom from your evil inclinations (baser instincts, dark side, the
    devil, whatever). The point being that freedom is not absolute. There's a context. Or constraint, as you say.


    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D

    Self-analysis? Even Freud was against it... And why would a birdwatcher rather analyse himself than study bird behaviour?

    BTW, your example of Feynman shows that we are on the same page. In my humble opinion, he is saying the same Santayana was trying to say. But there is only one Feynman.

    Henk



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to Marc S on Fri Nov 18 00:49:16 2022
    Marc S schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 09:48:14 UTC+1:
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 21:05:26 UTC+1:
    To get out of my cave/cage: I agree with you that causality rules the world, i.e. the world of science.
    And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not.
    Science depends on repeatability (rockets should go up) and has to account for the fact that nothing repeats itself the same way (some don't).

    Henk, I am sorry, but this is leading nowhere. From now on - besides music - I will stop discussing things with you that are clearly over your head (and it would be wise to acknowledge that you are getting yourself involved in things you have no or
    just little idea about).

    First of all: Educate yourself about science. Not just the newtonian worldview (which you don't even get right in the end), but quantum mechanics. Learn about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the Schrödinger equation etc.

    That "some rockets don't go up" doesn't negate the fact that things don't repeat themselves in exactly the same way. Every rocket that goes up, goes up in a different way (rockets are not identical with each other, circumstances are always different
    etc.)...
    Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird.

    A true Freudian doesn't trust what his client has to say. Psychologists, on the other hand, depend on it.
    I believe that you don't even know what a true Freudian is... or have you read any of his books? Your arrogance is just almost on the level of Herman. Go fuck yourself henk.
    But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*idealised because you completely neglect reality in that reality
    does never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)
    I'm sometimes bored by KV466, and sometimes not. That's not adhering to the "universal law" that no one is ever bored by KV466. How is that the same as contradicting anything you say - unless you maintain that no one can be bored by KV466?
    You probably won't get what I'm saying here either...
    Well, that's up to you to decide.
    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex
    world.
    There is no freedom without constraint, they imply each other. The constraint in this case is being aware of one's motivations and not following one's instincts. Here we clearly disagree. Awareness versus instinct is at least as old as Aristotle, and
    we know better by now. Physicists don't - and don't have to. They live in a different world.
    Whatever... believe whatever you want to. You are just an arrogant idiot who is ignorant beyond doubt imo.
    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D
    Self-analysis? Even Freud was against it... And why would a birdwatcher rather analyse himself than study bird behaviour?

    Freud was not against self-analysis. Fuck off henk... you really know nothing. There is nothing I could learn from you. Please bother other people with your "wisdom"...
    BTW, your example of Feynman shows that we are on the same page. In my humble opinion, he is saying the same Santayana was trying to say. But there is only one Feynman.

    Henk
    I had the feeling you would say that (and I actually wanted to write that you would probably view things similarly to Feynman... and I do too), but we are not on the same page at all.

    You have no idea about yourself, no idea about science, and no idea about Freud... yet you talk about these topics as if you had a clue. Please fuck yourself.

    How did Freud come up with some of his ideas about psychoanalysis? Self anaylsis...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Fri Nov 18 00:48:12 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 21:05:26 UTC+1:
    To get out of my cave/cage: I agree with you that causality rules the world, i.e. the world of science.
    And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not.
    Science depends on repeatability (rockets should go up) and has to account for the fact that nothing repeats itself the same way (some don't).


    Henk, I am sorry, but this is leading nowhere. From now on - besides music - I will stop discussing things with you that are clearly over your head (and it would be wise to acknowledge that you are getting yourself involved in things you have no or just
    little idea about).

    First of all: Educate yourself about science. Not just the newtonian worldview (which you don't even get right in the end), but quantum mechanics. Learn about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the Schrödinger equation etc.

    That "some rockets don't go up" doesn't negate the fact that things don't repeat themselves in exactly the same way. Every rocket that goes up, goes up in a different way (rockets are not identical with each other, circumstances are always different etc.)
    ...

    Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird.

    A true Freudian doesn't trust what his client has to say. Psychologists, on the other hand, depend on it.

    I believe that you don't even know what a true Freudian is... or have you read any of his books? Your arrogance is just almost on the level of Herman. Go fuck yourself henk.

    But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*idealised because you completely neglect reality in that reality
    does never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)
    I'm sometimes bored by KV466, and sometimes not. That's not adhering to the "universal law" that no one is ever bored by KV466. How is that the same as contradicting anything you say - unless you maintain that no one can be bored by KV466?
    You probably won't get what I'm saying here either...
    Well, that's up to you to decide.
    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex
    world.
    There is no freedom without constraint, they imply each other. The constraint in this case is being aware of one's motivations and not following one's instincts. Here we clearly disagree. Awareness versus instinct is at least as old as Aristotle, and
    we know better by now. Physicists don't - and don't have to. They live in a different world.

    Whatever... believe whatever you want to. You are just an arrogant idiot who is ignorant beyond doubt imo.

    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D
    Self-analysis? Even Freud was against it... And why would a birdwatcher rather analyse himself than study bird behaviour?


    Freud was not against self-analysis. Fuck off henk... you really know nothing. There is nothing I could learn from you. Please bother other people with your "wisdom"...

    BTW, your example of Feynman shows that we are on the same page. In my humble opinion, he is saying the same Santayana was trying to say. But there is only one Feynman.

    Henk

    I had the feeling you would say that (and I actually wanted to write that you would probably view things similarly to Feynman... and I do too), but we are not on the same page at all.

    You have no idea about yourself, no idea about science, and no idea about Freud... yet you talk about these topics as if you had a clue. Please fuck yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Fri Nov 18 01:12:42 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Donnerstag, 17. November 2022 um 21:05:26 UTC+1:
    To get out of my cave/cage: I agree with you that causality rules the world, i.e. the world of science.
    And nothing repeats itself exactly the same way... so there goes your answer for why you were sometimes fascinated by it and sometimes not.
    Science depends on repeatability (rockets should go up) and has to account for the fact that nothing repeats itself the same way (some don't).


    Henk, this is leading nowhere. From now on - besides music - I will stop discussings things with you, especially things that are clearly over your head (and it would be wise to acknowledge that you are getting yourself involved in things that are way
    over your head).

    First of all: Educate yourself about science. Not just the newtonian worldview (which you don't even get right in the end), but quantum mechanics as well. Learn about Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the Schrödinger Equation etc.

    That most rockets go up, does not mean that something is repeating itself in exactly the same way... which is what my argument was about. Rockets are not identical with each other, nor are the circustmances surrounding the rockets on the day they are
    being launched into space identical with each other.

    You clearly fail to understand anything that I said. Otherwise you would have noticed how wrong you are with what you are saying, or with what you are trying to imply with what you have said.

    Come up with your own explanations if you remember those events concretely. Maybe you were fascinated by somethign else instead of a bird.

    A true Freudian doesn't trust what his client has to say. Psychologists, on the other hand, depend on it.

    I believe you don't know enough about Freud to be able to say anything on this matter, or have you read a book of Freud? Your arrogance is almost on the same level as Herman's... Go fuck yourself Henk.

    But you are sort of implying that because you were not adhering to some idealised universal law, that it would contradict anything I said... it's just really frustrating for me ;D (*idealised because you completely neglect reality in that reality
    does never repeat itself - showing that you again failed to analyse your thoughts in a critical way.)
    I'm sometimes bored by KV466, and sometimes not. That's not adhering to the "universal law" that no one is ever bored by KV466. How is that the same as contradicting anything you say - unless you maintain that no one can be bored by KV466?

    Nevermind... I really have no intention to invest further time talking to an idiot like you.

    You probably won't get what I'm saying here either...
    Well, that's up to you to decide.

    No... there is "truth". And it's the truth that you don't understand shit I'm saying ;D It showed itself in your argument about "rockets going up and some not going up"...

    Freedom depends on being aware of oneself and one's motivations, if you are not aware of yourself you are basically just being driven by your subconsciousness (basically following "instincts"). This ofc gets more and more difficult in a complex
    world.
    There is no freedom without constraint, they imply each other. The constraint in this case is being aware of one's motivations and not following one's instincts. Here we clearly disagree. Awareness versus instinct is at least as old as Aristotle, and
    we know better by now. Physicists don't - and don't have to. They live in a different world.

    Believe whatever you want to believe... Im you are just an arrogant idiot who is ignorant beyond doubt.

    Although I sort of agree with you on the last sentence, I would think someone who analyses himself psychologically may even get more out of this (about himself) than a god damn bird watcher ;D
    Self-analysis? Even Freud was against it... And why would a birdwatcher rather analyse himself than study bird behaviour?


    Freud was not against self-analysis per se. He got many of his ideas by self-analysis himself you idiot...

    Please bother other people with your "wisdom" Henk. There really is nothing for me to learn from you...

    BTW, your example of Feynman shows that we are on the same page. In my humble opinion, he is saying the same Santayana was trying to say. But there is only one Feynman.

    Henk

    I had the feeling you would say that (and I actually wanted to write that you would probably view things similarly to Feynman, like I do too), but we are not on the same page at all.

    You have no idea about yourself, no idea about science and no idea about Freud, yet you talk about these topics as if you had any clue (you are living in delusion). Please go fuck yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 18 02:28:17 2022
    I used to have a visceral "huh?" reaction when a rabbi would say there is no freedom without observing Torah and Rabbinic rules. Then I realized that "freedom" in that context meant freedom from your evil inclinations (baser instincts, dark side, the
    devil, whatever). The point being that freedom is not absolute. There's a context. Or constraint, as you say.

    Indeed. In a broader sense, one can say that the constraints are given with who we believe we should be.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 18 08:47:39 2022
    Henk, this is leading nowhere. From now on - besides music - I will stop discussings things with you, especially things that are clearly over your head (and it would be wise to acknowledge that you are getting yourself involved in things that are way
    over your head).

    A wise decision. The Feynman story was good, but that's too little.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gerard@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 18 21:18:17 2022
    Op 2022-11-18 om 10:12 schreef Marc S:


    Your arrogance is almost on the same level as Herman's... Go fuck yourself Henk.
    ........

    Nevermind... I really have no intention to invest further time talking to an idiot like you.
    .......> Believe whatever you want to believe... Im you are just an
    arrogant idiot who is ignorant beyond doubt.
    ......
    He got many of his ideas by self-analysis himself you idiot...
    ........
    Please go fuck yourself.


    Brilliant discussion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Marc S@21:1/5 to hvt...@xs4all.nl on Fri Nov 18 13:11:27 2022
    hvt...@xs4all.nl schrieb am Freitag, 18. November 2022 um 22:01:27 UTC+1:
    Brilliant discussion.

    No, not so brilliant - but the Feynman story fits Santayana's quotes very well. Not all good stories are told by a Sheherazade.

    Henk

    Henk, I have not had or seen a brilliant discussion on this forum yet. You did not understand an single point I made, nor did you acknowledge how wrong you were in the points you made (about freud, about science, about literally everything... you are
    living with your head in your ass). I really have no time for such nonsense. Go fuckyourself. God willing I don't end up an ignorant fool like you or Gerard. Amen.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From HT@21:1/5 to All on Fri Nov 18 13:01:23 2022
    Brilliant discussion.

    No, not so brilliant - but the Feynman story fits Santayana's quotes very well. Not all good stories are told by a Sheherazade.

    Henk

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)