An interesting phenomenon in certain christian circles the admonitions of pastors and teachers to us to sometimes turn off our ipods. The argument goes something like this - In our culture, we're supersaturated with music. When we get in our cars, we almost instantly turn on the radio. When we're riding the bus, excercising, or even just walking from point a to point b, more often than not we have our headphones in and the music turned up. We often even listen to music while we're falling asleep. This means we have little time for any sort of a rich inner life, because we more and more fill up any time we have for it with noise that makes an inner life hard if not impossible.
I think that this is a very valid point, and one that should be raised. But I haven't heard much serious discussion about how we can use the incredibly recent ability to listen to music anywhere in a positive way. Sound recording and playback has been a practical reality for less than 150 years. What are the implications of this for christian living? How should we choose the music we listen to? One can make the argument that some types of music are harmful (e.g. obscene lyrics), but I don't think we should settle for music that is merely "non-harmful" - I think we should seek out and listen to music that is "good" in a positive, active way.
Certainly music has at least some ability to alter moods. I think this can be used in a positive way - if you're upset, a song you really like can make your day far better. But could this also be part of our cultures desire to drug ourselves up, medicate everything, and numb ourselves to all pain? And what measures can we use to determine the value of music?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, December 1, 2008
Music: True or False?
Can music be propositional, i.e. can music be said to be "true" or "false"? And is this the same question as asking "can the message of music be true or false"? Since I think most people would agree that words can of course be propositional, I'm not really talking about lyrics. To answer these questions in any meaningful way, some questions about the nature of music would need to be answered first.
If music was purely about invoking certain feelings, then "true or false" would be sort of a ridiculous category to apply - you'd just have to ask "does this music invoke an emotional response?" and perhaps "is it a positive emotional response?" I think these are valid criteria to use when judging music, but I think most people both writing and listening to music assume there is much more going on.
What about music that is primarily descriptive? A description of something is not true or false in some abstract philosophical sense - it's either an accurate description, or it's not. Some of the music of Radiohead falls into this category for me. In "fitter, happier," or "Creep" they are describing modernity's dehumanization of man. It's not a philosophical justification for it(as, I think it could be argued, the music of John Cage is), it's an observation that it has been done. Of course, this does bring up the question, does culture primarily shape music (and art in general), or does it happen the other way around?
When I was talking to one of my friends about this, he brought up the distinction between form and content - the form being the technical aspect, and the content being the message. I think this can sometimes be a useful distinction, but I think it also has the potential to create a false dichotomy by separating form from content. When you are dealing with instrumental music, what's the form and what's the content? In many ways, the form is the content and also the message.
There is a definite postmodern twist to this discussion as well. For many people, it seems like their primary criteria of evaluating is not "what does this music mean?" but the very different question "what does this music mean to me?" or even "how does this music make me feel?" Of course, there is definitely room for these questions - listening to John Coltrane will be very different for someone who has never heard any jazz than for someone who has a Ph.D in jazz pedagogy.
Another question - is all truth propositional? In other words, can we say Kind of Blue is 'true', not in a perhaps moral sense, but in the same sense the law of gravity is either true or false? Can we say Kind of Blue is true in the sense that it makes an accurate metaphysical statement? Maybe music is an expression of the metaphysical world the same way mathematics can express the physical world (i.e. g = 9.8 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2). Have we learned more about the 'deep structure' by venturing into polyphony, romanticism, etc? It seems significant that music builds on itself the same way scientific discovery does. What John Coltrane and Miles Davis played was only possible because of the work done by others before them like Loius Armstrong and Duke Ellington.
If music was purely about invoking certain feelings, then "true or false" would be sort of a ridiculous category to apply - you'd just have to ask "does this music invoke an emotional response?" and perhaps "is it a positive emotional response?" I think these are valid criteria to use when judging music, but I think most people both writing and listening to music assume there is much more going on.
What about music that is primarily descriptive? A description of something is not true or false in some abstract philosophical sense - it's either an accurate description, or it's not. Some of the music of Radiohead falls into this category for me. In "fitter, happier," or "Creep" they are describing modernity's dehumanization of man. It's not a philosophical justification for it(as, I think it could be argued, the music of John Cage is), it's an observation that it has been done. Of course, this does bring up the question, does culture primarily shape music (and art in general), or does it happen the other way around?
When I was talking to one of my friends about this, he brought up the distinction between form and content - the form being the technical aspect, and the content being the message. I think this can sometimes be a useful distinction, but I think it also has the potential to create a false dichotomy by separating form from content. When you are dealing with instrumental music, what's the form and what's the content? In many ways, the form is the content and also the message.
There is a definite postmodern twist to this discussion as well. For many people, it seems like their primary criteria of evaluating is not "what does this music mean?" but the very different question "what does this music mean to me?" or even "how does this music make me feel?" Of course, there is definitely room for these questions - listening to John Coltrane will be very different for someone who has never heard any jazz than for someone who has a Ph.D in jazz pedagogy.
Another question - is all truth propositional? In other words, can we say Kind of Blue is 'true', not in a perhaps moral sense, but in the same sense the law of gravity is either true or false? Can we say Kind of Blue is true in the sense that it makes an accurate metaphysical statement? Maybe music is an expression of the metaphysical world the same way mathematics can express the physical world (i.e. g = 9.8 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2). Have we learned more about the 'deep structure' by venturing into polyphony, romanticism, etc? It seems significant that music builds on itself the same way scientific discovery does. What John Coltrane and Miles Davis played was only possible because of the work done by others before them like Loius Armstrong and Duke Ellington.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The trinity and metaphysics
I was thinking more about why I believe christianity is the best explanation of the metaphysical world, and I think I have much stronger argument than the one I posited last night on ethics.
The trinity is the only thing that can satisfactorily resolve the conflict (found in almost anything you study) between the one and the many. For example, only with a trinitarian framework can you resolve the enormous question of political science - the balancing of the rights of individuals versus the good of the community.
Of course, the ethical argument is much easier for people to understand, but is also more open to misunderstanding and shallow disagreement.
The trinity is the only thing that can satisfactorily resolve the conflict (found in almost anything you study) between the one and the many. For example, only with a trinitarian framework can you resolve the enormous question of political science - the balancing of the rights of individuals versus the good of the community.
Of course, the ethical argument is much easier for people to understand, but is also more open to misunderstanding and shallow disagreement.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Science, Religion, and Reason
People (including a whole lot of Christians) need to stop propogating and accepting this false dichotomy of science and religion. According to this argument, science is what we know through reason, and religion is what we believe through blind, stupid faith. In this view, the two couldn't be more separate.
I brought this up in a class where we were discussing the difference between a sincere belief and an authentic belief. A sincere belief is apparently a something you believe quite sincerely, but have little rational basis for believing (e.g. you were raised catholic, so you're catholic). An authentic belief is one you hold because you've really thought about it and have good reason to believe it. Of course, this was all talked about in the context of religion, but my question was, if we're going to make this distinction, it seems silly to stop at applying to religion. After all, how many people would say they believe in Newtonian physics, even though when pressed they could give few rational justifications for it?
Why do people accept the major tenets of Newtonian physics? Because it's the best way we can explain the physical world.
Why do I accept my religious beliefs? Because they are the best way to explain the metaphysical world. Within this framework, my religion is not divorced from my reason, it's supported by my reason.
For example, I know things like murder, racism, and child abuse are wrong. And almost everyone you talk to will agree with you. But materialism says the categories of right and wrong are absolutely meaningless. If I feel that they are wrong, it's just the evolutionary survival instinct of the human race - which we might be in the process of evolving beyond. Also, "survival" is theoretically a ridiculous basis for morality, because in a universe that is purely blind chance, it really doesn't matter if I (or the human race) survive. I'm free (unless you listen to the behaviorists, but that's a different discussion altogether) to bring my neighbor a plate of cookies when he moves in next door. Of course, I'm also free to get my shotgun and blow his head off. From a materialist perspective, it makes no difference, neither is better or worse. Most of us would probably prefer the latter, but what gives us the right to impose our arbitrary morality (which is really just preference) on anyone else? Of course, no one can live thinking that there is no difference between the two, and looking for the best explanation for what we observe every day seems a lot less irrational than many people make it out to be. In fact, to do anything else is the height of ignorance.
I brought this up in a class where we were discussing the difference between a sincere belief and an authentic belief. A sincere belief is apparently a something you believe quite sincerely, but have little rational basis for believing (e.g. you were raised catholic, so you're catholic). An authentic belief is one you hold because you've really thought about it and have good reason to believe it. Of course, this was all talked about in the context of religion, but my question was, if we're going to make this distinction, it seems silly to stop at applying to religion. After all, how many people would say they believe in Newtonian physics, even though when pressed they could give few rational justifications for it?
Why do people accept the major tenets of Newtonian physics? Because it's the best way we can explain the physical world.
Why do I accept my religious beliefs? Because they are the best way to explain the metaphysical world. Within this framework, my religion is not divorced from my reason, it's supported by my reason.
For example, I know things like murder, racism, and child abuse are wrong. And almost everyone you talk to will agree with you. But materialism says the categories of right and wrong are absolutely meaningless. If I feel that they are wrong, it's just the evolutionary survival instinct of the human race - which we might be in the process of evolving beyond. Also, "survival" is theoretically a ridiculous basis for morality, because in a universe that is purely blind chance, it really doesn't matter if I (or the human race) survive. I'm free (unless you listen to the behaviorists, but that's a different discussion altogether) to bring my neighbor a plate of cookies when he moves in next door. Of course, I'm also free to get my shotgun and blow his head off. From a materialist perspective, it makes no difference, neither is better or worse. Most of us would probably prefer the latter, but what gives us the right to impose our arbitrary morality (which is really just preference) on anyone else? Of course, no one can live thinking that there is no difference between the two, and looking for the best explanation for what we observe every day seems a lot less irrational than many people make it out to be. In fact, to do anything else is the height of ignorance.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Future Art
What really blows my mind is the idea that 1000 years ago or so, polyphony didn't even exist - and now we have Bach, Shostakovitch, and Debussy. Or, for a more recent example, a little over 100 years ago, no one had any idea what jazz sounded like, and now we can listen to Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and Herbie Hancock. So what kind of art might exist in 100 years? Or 1000 years?
Amplification, sound recording, videos and photos and the internet have been around for such a short period of time I'm sure we're only beginning to scratch the surface of what can be done (think of the sound of the Beatles compared to the sound of Muse). And imagining music that hasn't been written or played yet is like trying to imagine a color you've never seen before.
Globalization is a pretty exciting factor in this as well. I know a lot of people are worried about globalization destroying local cultures, and I think this fear has some basis. But it's a whole lot easier to picture the world becoming more bland and homogeneous than to imagine art that's never been made before. So I would have so say I am more than cautiously optimistic about the future of music and art. My hopes are that I'll be around to hear the next thing like jazz, that I won't miss it, and that I'll be smart enough to enjoy it.
Amplification, sound recording, videos and photos and the internet have been around for such a short period of time I'm sure we're only beginning to scratch the surface of what can be done (think of the sound of the Beatles compared to the sound of Muse). And imagining music that hasn't been written or played yet is like trying to imagine a color you've never seen before.
Globalization is a pretty exciting factor in this as well. I know a lot of people are worried about globalization destroying local cultures, and I think this fear has some basis. But it's a whole lot easier to picture the world becoming more bland and homogeneous than to imagine art that's never been made before. So I would have so say I am more than cautiously optimistic about the future of music and art. My hopes are that I'll be around to hear the next thing like jazz, that I won't miss it, and that I'll be smart enough to enjoy it.
Time
"There was the smell of Time in the air tonight. He smiled and turned the fancy in his mind. There was a thought. What did Time smell like? Like dust and clocks and people. And if you wondered what Time sounded like it sounded like water running in a dark cave and voices crying and dirt dropping down upon hollow box lids, and rain. And, going further, what did Time look like? Time looked like snow dropping silently into a black room or it looked like a silent film in an ancient theater, one hundred billion faces falling like those New Years balloons, down and down into nothing" (Ray Bradbury, The Martian Chronicles, August 2002)
Pattern Recognition
I just started reading the book "Pattern Recognition" by William Gibson (the author of "Neuromancer"), and it promises to be extremely good.
I knew I was going to like the book just by reading the first page. A couple of excerpts that I really liked,
"Five hours' New York jet lag and Cayce Pollard wakes in Camden Town to the dire and ever-cicling wolves of disrupted circadian rhythm....She knows, now, absolutely, hearing the white noise that is London, that Damien's theory of jet lag is correct: that her mortal soul is leagues behind her, being reeled in on some ghostly umbilical down the vanished wake of the plane that brough her here, hundreds of thousands above the Atlantic. Souls can't move that quickly, and are left behind, and must be awaited, upon arrival, like lost luggage."
and,
"Nothing at all in the German fridge, so new that its interior smells only of cold and long chain monomers"
I'm only 2 chapters in, but already it's a pretty penetrating look at postmodern culture, particularly our conception of style, advertising, and how we identify ourselves by the things we buy and wear.
I knew I was going to like the book just by reading the first page. A couple of excerpts that I really liked,
"Five hours' New York jet lag and Cayce Pollard wakes in Camden Town to the dire and ever-cicling wolves of disrupted circadian rhythm....She knows, now, absolutely, hearing the white noise that is London, that Damien's theory of jet lag is correct: that her mortal soul is leagues behind her, being reeled in on some ghostly umbilical down the vanished wake of the plane that brough her here, hundreds of thousands above the Atlantic. Souls can't move that quickly, and are left behind, and must be awaited, upon arrival, like lost luggage."
and,
"Nothing at all in the German fridge, so new that its interior smells only of cold and long chain monomers"
I'm only 2 chapters in, but already it's a pretty penetrating look at postmodern culture, particularly our conception of style, advertising, and how we identify ourselves by the things we buy and wear.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
