Discussion:
Just because you may discover a 'greater scheme' of things, why should that involve the "God" concept?.
(too old to reply)
b***@gmail.com
2009-09-19 06:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.

So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?

Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master. He conceived (heard?) music and the records show,
he wrote it down without and alterations.An equivalent to a term we
are familiar with today,being 'download' fits the bill.

Remarkable, but no more remarkable than many things individuals
create, although his method demands further observation to those
interested in mans ability...savantism being perhaps another example
of such skills.

It is now scientifically recognised that listening to such music
actually improves the retention of information being studied. It
enables a greater level of intellectual development.

Did he know the consequences of his work, and how it would contribute
to the intellectual revolution, (which also needed mass communication
technology to 'get about'....more 'synchronicity'). Extremely
unlikely, and yet that is precisely what happened.

One can argue the detail of this (there are no doubt greater
examples),but the question stands.

If you think it is all to do with cellular evolution, so be it, but I
would suggest that anyone having that pov would also not be curious
about such phenomena as telepathy, out of body experiences and a
myriad of many other 'psychic' experiences.

To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)

I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.

BOfL
Michael Gordge
2009-09-19 10:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.
You're a Free Mason aren't you?
Post by b***@gmail.com
(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
Why a Free Mason of course.


MG
BOfL
2009-09-19 15:21:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Gordge
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.
You're a Free Mason aren't you?
Post by b***@gmail.com
(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
Why a Free Mason of course.
MG
Is that the best you could do?

"Im a free mason arnt I ?"....sorry, if you want your wall built, you
will have to pay me.

Try to catagorise me, and then catagorise the catagory.You do amuse me
occasionally.

At least it make a change from your innane Kantian diatribe.

BOfL
raven1
2009-09-20 05:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@gmail.com
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.
So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?
Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master.
No, he wasn't. Mozart wrote during the Classical period, which
followed the Baroque. The two styles of music are completely
different.
Post by b***@gmail.com
He conceived (heard?) music and the records show,
he wrote it down without and alterations
Any composer can do that.
Post by b***@gmail.com
.An equivalent to a term we
are familiar with today,being 'download' fits the bill.
Umm, no.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Remarkable, but no more remarkable than many things individuals
create, although his method demands further observation to those
interested in mans ability...savantism being perhaps another example
of such skills.
It is now scientifically recognised that listening to such music
actually improves the retention of information being studied. It
enables a greater level of intellectual development.
The jury is still out on that, although as a musician and composer I'd
like to think so..
Post by b***@gmail.com
Did he know the consequences of his work, and how it would contribute
to the intellectual revolution, (which also needed mass communication
technology to 'get about'....more 'synchronicity'). Extremely
unlikely, and yet that is precisely what happened.
What "intellectual revolution" are you referring to, and how did
Mozart's music contribute to it? He died over 100 years before any
mass communication existed.
Post by b***@gmail.com
One can argue the detail of this (there are no doubt greater
examples),but the question stands.
Until you define what you're talking about more clearly, it's
uncertain what the question even means.
Post by b***@gmail.com
If you think it is all to do with cellular evolution, so be it,
What exactly are you talking about?
Post by b***@gmail.com
but I
would suggest that anyone having that pov would also not be curious
about such phenomena as telepathy, out of body experiences and a
myriad of many other 'psychic' experiences.
Explain the rationale behind this leap to totally unrelated topics.
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
I reject such phenomena for the same reason I reject the idea of a
supreme being: there's no evidence to support them.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.
I prefer to follow Sagan's dictum: keep an open mind, but not so open
that your brain falls out.
h***@comcast.net
2009-09-21 06:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.
So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?
Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master.
No, he wasn't. Mozart wrote during the Classical period, which
followed the Baroque. The two styles of music are completely
different.
Don't confuse him - most people, like him, think that anything
composed before 1900 was Classical music. I'm surprised he
is aware of Baroque music, even if he got the time period for
it wrong. And, if you dare to mention Romance music, most
people think you mean a silly little love song.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
He conceived (heard?)  music and the records show,
he wrote it down without and alterations
Any composer can do that.
Post by b***@gmail.com
.An equivalent to a term we
are familiar with today,being 'download' fits the bill.
Umm, no.
Post by b***@gmail.com
Remarkable, but no more remarkable than many things individuals
create, although his method demands further observation to those
interested in mans ability...savantism being perhaps another example
of such skills.
It is now scientifically recognised that listening to such music
actually improves the retention of information being studied. It
enables a greater level of intellectual development.
The jury is still out on that, although as a musician and composer I'd
like to think so..
Post by b***@gmail.com
Did he know the consequences of his work, and how it would contribute
to the intellectual revolution, (which also needed mass communication
technology to 'get about'....more 'synchronicity'). Extremely
unlikely, and yet that is precisely what happened.
What "intellectual revolution" are you referring to, and how did
Mozart's music contribute to it? He died over 100 years before any
mass communication existed.
I think he means the Enlightenment.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
One can argue the detail of this (there are no doubt greater
examples),but the question stands.
Until you define what you're talking about more clearly, it's
uncertain what the question even means.
Post by b***@gmail.com
If you think it is all to do with cellular evolution, so be it,
What exactly are you talking about?
Post by b***@gmail.com
but I
would suggest that anyone having that pov would also not be curious
about such phenomena as telepathy, out of body experiences and a
myriad of many other 'psychic' experiences.
Explain the rationale behind this leap to totally unrelated topics.
He's weird.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
Who wants to be accused of spouting nonsense which has nothing
to do with whether or not some poxy deity exists or not?
Post by raven1
I reject such phenomena for the same reason I reject the idea of a
supreme being: there's no evidence to support them.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.
I prefer to follow Sagan's dictum: keep an open mind, but not so open
that your brain falls out.
Thinking outside of the box rules! Um, wait a minute. Maybe that
could
be phrased better...
BOfL
2009-09-21 07:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.
So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?
Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master.
No, he wasn't. Mozart wrote during the Classical period, which
followed the Baroque. The two styles of music are completely
different.
Don't confuse him - most people, like him, think that anything
composed before 1900 was Classical music.
Ever thought of writing political profiles for people from a different
political persuasion.
Post by h***@comcast.net
I'm surprised he
is aware of Baroque music, even if he got the time period for
it wrong. And, if you dare to mention Romance music, most
people think you mean a silly little love song.
Brahms, the first of the romantic period was significantly influenced
by Baroque...life is a bit like that. Pity you are too busy inventing
profiles to notice.
The 'mathematical' aspects of the music are what Im referring to,
regarding the vibrationary effect on the neurological patterns.
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
What "intellectual revolution" are you referring to, and how did
Mozart's music contribute to it? He died over 100 years before any
mass communication existed.
I think he means the Enlightenment.
At least you are thinking. Excellent.
.
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
Explain the rationale behind this leap to totally unrelated topics.
He's weird.
Just because he cant see the links? Thats not weird...

Oh...you mean me.

I guess I just dont relate to 'weird'. Ill leave that to your 'profile
writing' skills.
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
Who wants to be accused of spouting nonsense which has nothing
to do with whether or not some poxy deity exists or not?
So you associate mans proven ability for the super natural with some
poxy deity?

Then Im talking to you afterall. Are you listening ?
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
I reject such phenomena for the same reason I reject the idea of a
supreme being: there's no evidence to support them.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.
I prefer to follow Sagan's dictum: keep an open mind, but not so open
that your brain falls out.
Thinking outside of the box rules! Um, wait a minute.  Maybe that
could
be phrased better
Perhaps some light has just penetrated the lid (from the inside :-)

BOfL
h***@comcast.net
2009-09-23 06:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOfL
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.
So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?
Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master.
No, he wasn't. Mozart wrote during the Classical period, which
followed the Baroque. The two styles of music are completely
different.
Don't confuse him - most people, like him, think that anything
composed before 1900 was Classical music.
Ever thought of writing political profiles for people from a different
political persuasion.
Post by h***@comcast.net
I'm surprised he
is aware of Baroque music, even if he got the time period for
it wrong. And, if you dare to mention Romance music, most
people think you mean a silly little love song.
Brahms, the first of the romantic period was significantly influenced
by Baroque...life is a bit like that. Pity you are too busy inventing
profiles to notice.
The 'mathematical' aspects of the music are what Im referring to,
regarding the vibrationary effect on the neurological patterns.
Like the way certain Gershwin pieces give me the chills? I do hope his
beautiful music isn't too much for your refined taste in music.

The Romance period came after the Classical period, not after the
Baroque period. Anyone could have been influenced by any previous
musical period. A lot of Romance period music was stolen from old
peasant songs.Beethoven was heavily influenced by Classical music
but helped start the Romance period.
Post by BOfL
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
What "intellectual revolution" are you referring to, and how did
Mozart's music contribute to it? He died over 100 years before any
mass communication existed.
I think he means the Enlightenment.
At least you are thinking. Excellent.
And, you are a snob.
Post by BOfL
.
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
Explain the rationale behind this leap to totally unrelated topics.
He's weird.
Just because he cant see the links? Thats not weird...
Oh...you mean me.
I guess I just dont relate to 'weird'. Ill leave that to your 'profile
writing' skills.
You do realize that you are responding to more than one person,
I hope.
Post by BOfL
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
Who wants to be accused of spouting nonsense which has nothing
to do with whether or not some poxy deity exists or not?
So you associate mans proven ability for the super natural with some
poxy deity?
Then Im talking to you afterall. Are you listening ?
What 'proven' ability for the supernatural. Are you simply spouting
more nonsense?
Post by BOfL
Post by h***@comcast.net
Post by raven1
I reject such phenomena for the same reason I reject the idea of a
supreme being: there's no evidence to support them.
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.
I prefer to follow Sagan's dictum: keep an open mind, but not so open
that your brain falls out.
Thinking outside of the box rules! Um, wait a minute.  Maybe that
could be phrased better
Perhaps some light has just penetrated the lid (from the inside :-)
The smilie doesn't decrease your unearned snobbery.

BOfL
2009-09-21 07:34:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.
So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?
Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master.
No, he wasn't. Mozart wrote during the Classical period, which
followed the Baroque. The two styles of music are completely
different.
Doent detract from my point.Brahms was influenced in a significant way
from the Baroque period. A foundation for the romantic period. A lot
of seamlesness through to the Classic period

It is the relevent structure of the music to which Im referring.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
He conceived (heard?)  music and the records show,
he wrote it down without and alterations
Any composer can do that.
Im not referring to simple melodies, but incredibly complex symphonic
music. I only know of the Mozart example.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
.An equivalent to a term we
are familiar with today,being 'download' fits the bill.
Umm, no.
Is umm a musical term. My point for analogical purposes.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Remarkable, but no more remarkable than many things individuals
create, although his method demands further observation to those
interested in mans ability...savantism being perhaps another example
of such skills.
It is now scientifically recognised that listening to such music
actually improves the retention of information being studied. It
enables a greater level of intellectual development.
The jury is still out on that, although as a musician and composer I'd
like to think so..
Not the juries I have read. Depends on the style of the music. Im no
expert, but understand the overall process.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Did he know the consequences of his work, and how it would contribute
to the intellectual revolution, (which also needed mass communication
technology to 'get about'....more 'synchronicity'). Extremely
unlikely, and yet that is precisely what happened.
What "intellectual revolution" are you referring to, and how did
Mozart's music contribute to it? He died over 100 years before any
mass communication existed.
An integral part of the industrial revolution, continuing with the
technolgical variety.(including mass communication technology).

Im glad you asked the last question. the title of the thread may give
you a clue.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
One can argue the detail of this (there are no doubt greater
examples),but the question stands.
Until you define what you're talking about more clearly, it's
uncertain what the question even means.
At least youve worked out its not to do with the history of music.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
If you think it is all to do with cellular evolution, so be it,
What exactly are you talking about?
Ive heard people ask a similar when they have just listened to
Sibelius 2nd symphony."What is all the fuss about".

Would you try to explain to them?
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
but I
would suggest that anyone having that pov would also not be curious
about such phenomena as telepathy, out of body experiences and a
myriad of many other 'psychic' experiences.
Explain the rationale behind this leap to totally unrelated topics.
You have decided the topics are totally unrelated. I accept you pov.

Again, refer to the thread title.
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
I reject such phenomena for the same reason I reject the idea of a
supreme being: there's no evidence to support them.
Then I suspect you may play a french horn, blowing the wrong way. Not
meaning to be insulting. I just pictured an amusing image. A musicians
version of 'head in the sand.'
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.
I prefer to follow Sagan's dictum: keep an open mind, but not so open
that your brain falls out.
There's always the french horn to keep the skull intact.

I have head a number of neurologists say "I have seen the inner
workings of the brain, but never a seen a thought".

Have you read Sagan's "Contact", or seen the movie? He obviously
discovered some uncharted territory within his limited brain.

BOfL
raven1
2009-09-22 02:09:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Any intelligent person can acknowledge that we have evolved,
regardless of your interpretation of how and why.
The adaption of the organism is not in dispute.
So what do I mean by a 'greater scheme'?
Mozart (or Mozart's brain, depending how you identify individuals) was
a Baroque master.
No, he wasn't. Mozart wrote during the Classical period, which
followed the Baroque. The two styles of music are completely
different.
Doent detract from my point.Brahms was influenced in a significant way
from the Baroque period.
In what way?
Post by BOfL
A foundation for the romantic period. A lot
of seamlesness through to the Classic period
I'd be hard-pressed to agree. The Classical period pretty much
overthrew the Baroque period. There is almost as great a disconnect
between the Baroque and Classical as there is between the Renaissance
and the Baroque, or the Classical and Romantic, although there wasn't
a single transitional titan like Monteverdi or Beethoven in the
process; it was more of a general consensus. By the time of his death
in 1750, JS Bach, the climax figure of Baroque composition, was an
anachronism, writing in a style that pretty much everyone else of any
significance had abandoned, including his own sons, who ridiculed him
for his devotion to it. (The huge difference between Baroque and
Classical music, BTW, is the latter's abandonment of the defining
characteristic of the former. Can you tell me what that characteristic
is?)
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
It is the relevent structure of the music to which Im referring.
What is "the relevent (sic) structure of music" supposed to mean?
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
He conceived (heard?)  music and the records show,
he wrote it down without and alterations
Any composer can do that.
Im not referring to simple melodies, but incredibly complex symphonic
music. I only know of the Mozart example.
You haven't studied music in any depth, have you? Again, any composer
can do that.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
.An equivalent to a term we
are familiar with today,being 'download' fits the bill.
Umm, no.
Is umm a musical term. My point for analogical purposes.
It's a poor analogy. A download is of something that already exists.
Why are you so willing to place limits on the human imagination that
you seemingly can't fathom the human mind conceiving something like a
Mozart Symphony on its own, and have to postulate a praeternatural
origin? Innate talent, combined with tens of thousands of hours of
practice and study, will produce pretty impressive results on its own.
Mozart was a prodigy, but his greatest works by far came later in his
life, not from some outside source, but from mastering his craft.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Remarkable, but no more remarkable than many things individuals
create, although his method demands further observation to those
interested in mans ability...savantism being perhaps another example
of such skills.
It is now scientifically recognised that listening to such music
actually improves the retention of information being studied. It
enables a greater level of intellectual development.
The jury is still out on that, although as a musician and composer I'd
like to think so..
Not the juries I have read. Depends on the style of the music. Im no
expert, but understand the overall process.
I haven't read anything convincing, perhaps you have a link or two to
share?
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
Did he know the consequences of his work, and how it would contribute
to the intellectual revolution, (which also needed mass communication
technology to 'get about'....more 'synchronicity'). Extremely
unlikely, and yet that is precisely what happened.
What "intellectual revolution" are you referring to, and how did
Mozart's music contribute to it? He died over 100 years before any
mass communication existed.
An integral part of the industrial revolution, continuing with the
technolgical variety.(including mass communication technology).
When do you think mass communication started? How do you think
Mozart's music played a role?
Post by BOfL
Im glad you asked the last question. the title of the thread may give
you a clue.
The title of the thread leaves me puzzled as to what you're talking
about.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
One can argue the detail of this (there are no doubt greater
examples),but the question stands.
Until you define what you're talking about more clearly, it's
uncertain what the question even means.
At least youve worked out its not to do with the history of music.
I really don't have the time to figure out what you're alluding to,
other than that you seem to be talking out of your depth about half
the time, and are vague for most of the rest. No offense meant, but
you'd benefit from learning to write more concisely, and by avoiding
making basic errors in topics in which you lack expertise. If you
think I'm being pedantic, try making such a mistake (ie: conflating
Classical and Baroque) in newsgroups dedicated to discussing guns,
politics, science fiction, comics, et al, on the topic the NG is
dedicated to, and see how you fare. Trust me, it won't be pretty.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
If you think it is all to do with cellular evolution, so be it,
What exactly are you talking about?
Ive heard people ask a similar when they have just listened to
Sibelius 2nd symphony."What is all the fuss about".
Would you try to explain to them?
Yes. You might try the same when people ask you questions.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
but I
would suggest that anyone having that pov would also not be curious
about such phenomena as telepathy, out of body experiences and a
myriad of many other 'psychic' experiences.
Explain the rationale behind this leap to totally unrelated topics.
You have decided the topics are totally unrelated. I accept you pov.
Again, refer to the thread title.
Which you still have yet to explain. What do you mean by "a greater
scheme of things"? How is it related (or not) to "the "God" concept"
in your posts? You seem to mistake vagueness for profundity, a common
mistake of would-be mystics.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
To me, a great irony, is that many associate such phenomena with some
evidence of a supreme being, and if they deny such an entity, then
they would also deny such experiences.(Who wants to be accused of
having a closed mind?)
I reject such phenomena for the same reason I reject the idea of a
supreme being: there's no evidence to support them.
Then I suspect you may play a french horn, blowing the wrong way. Not
meaning to be insulting. I just pictured an amusing image. A musicians
version of 'head in the sand.'
Actually, I play several different instruments (and sing)
professionally, and have a graduate degree in music history, not that
it's relevant to your claims.
Post by BOfL
Post by raven1
Post by b***@gmail.com
I think they are missing out on some great adventures. Such is the
power of beliefs. Often self restricting.
I prefer to follow Sagan's dictum: keep an open mind, but not so open
that your brain falls out.
There's always the french horn to keep the skull intact.
I have head a number of neurologists say "I have seen the inner
workings of the brain, but never a seen a thought".
How many neurologists do you know?
Post by BOfL
Have you read Sagan's "Contact", or seen the movie? He obviously
discovered some uncharted territory within his limited brain.
Yes, I have. Bear in mind that "Contact" was fiction, and that in real
life, Sagan was a skeptic, whose patience with unsupported
supernatural or mystical claims was nil. Try reading his "The
Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" for a better
idea of his thought patterns.
Loading...