Is that God I hear?

Started by EmpNapoleon, November 09, 2007, 09:59:45 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is there God in his music?

Yes.
9 (37.5%)
No.
15 (62.5%)

Total Members Voted: 12

longears

Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 09, 2007, 11:09:30 PM
There is definitely no God in Schoenberg's 5 Pieces.  That's just fucking music!
Not exactly what I'd prefer to have playing in the background at such times.  (And why would you think there'd be no God in fucking music?  God gave us fucking, didn't he?)

longears

Re. the question whether there is God in Bruckner's music:

Of course!  Everything we do is an expression of God.  Some work to open the channel.  Others, enslaved by ego, struggle to close it off...but the very fact that their souls respond to music belies the lies they tell themselves.

Don

Quote from: longears on November 10, 2007, 11:48:08 AM
Re. the question whether there is God in Bruckner's music:

Of course!  Everything we do is an expression of God.  Some work to open the channel.  Others, enslaved by ego, struggle to close it off...but the very fact that their souls respond to music belies the lies they tell themselves.

Did you take a drug that took you to fantasy land?

longears

Quote from: Don on November 10, 2007, 12:02:50 PM
Did you take a drug that took you to fantasy land?
It must be painful for your soul to be trapped in such a mean-spirited ego, spitefully trying to bolster your petty self-importance by belittling what you don't understand.  If only you knew how transparent you are, Don!  You're so threatened by the gnawing suspicion that you aren't the center of the universe that you constantly troll topics dealing with God, faith, or religion to issue hollow denials and try bullying others into sharing your misery.  If you were really as disinterested in such matters as you claim, you wouldn't even think of opening such threads! 

ROFL  -- The lady doth protest too much!   

Wanderer

If God is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception?

Harry

Quote from: Wanderer on November 10, 2007, 10:49:43 PM
If God is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception?

Agreed! 0:)

Renfield

Quote from: Wanderer on November 10, 2007, 10:49:43 PM
If God is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception?
Quote from: Renfield on November 09, 2007, 07:22:26 PM
I'd say: if God is, then God is definitely in Bruckner's music.

In other words, agreed. :)

knight66

But that means he is also in Richard Claderman's music.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

longears

God does have a sense of humor!

EmpNapoleon

I don't like this question.  I don't know what type of responses I was expecting.  If someone tells me that there is God in Bruckner's music, what then? 

There are many topics in the Diner about the existence of God.  People love to use stolen phrases and paraphrased paragraphs from their favorite philosophy books.  To me, music is closer to truth than idea, probably because I'm not an intellectual.  I just thought that those who feel God do so while listening to music more than they ever could thinking to themselves or meditating.

drogulus

Quote from: Wanderer on November 10, 2007, 10:49:43 PM
If God is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception?

Good point. If x is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception? Now all we have to do is establish the omnipresence of x and we're home free!  :)

Musical compositions are abstract entities, however, so the omnipresence of say, mayonnaise may not apply. Or gravitational fields. Does it make sense to say that there are such things in music? On the other hand, a gravitational field might share abstract entity-hood with the composition and you could say they interpenetrate each other in our minds. But to what effect? That's a difficult question.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Mullvad 14.5.1

head-case

Quote from: longears on November 10, 2007, 07:08:51 PM
It must be painful for your soul to be trapped in such a mean-spirited ego, spitefully trying to bolster your petty self-importance by belittling what you don't understand.  If only you knew how transparent you are,
I must be wonderful to understand everything.  ::)

Kullervo

Quote from: head-case on November 11, 2007, 02:36:46 PM
I must be wonderful to understand everything.  ::)

I think it is that very attitude that he was attacking.

EmpNapoleon

Quote from: drogulus on November 11, 2007, 02:11:50 PM
Musical compositions are abstract entities, however, so the omnipresence of say, mayonnaise may not apply. Or gravitational fields. Does it make sense to say that there are such things in music? On the other hand, a gravitational field might share abstract entity-hood with the composition and you could say they interpenetrate each other in our minds. But to what effect? That's a difficult question.

I do hear mayonnaise in some of Mozart's operas. 

If, say, someone who is very interested in science feels this sharing of "entity-hood" between music and a gravitational field, I think what he feels would be similar to a religious man feeling God in the music.  Both are awestruck.  But, like you say, this is only in the realm of abstraction.

A rapper feels like a god when he's creating music.  This is something that I haven't overcome, and that crops up throughout this forum: what makes some music better than other music, if all listeners feel more than themselves listening to music?

Norbeone

Quote from: Don on November 10, 2007, 12:02:50 PM
Did you take a drug that took you to fantasy land?


Just what I was thinking, Don.

This topic is irritatingly impossible for me to take part in, because I would have to ignore all the sense, reason and logic that has made me who I am.

Or maybe there really is such a drug?    ???


longears

Quote from: head-case on November 11, 2007, 02:36:46 PM
I must be wonderful to understand everything.  ::)
I wouldn't know.  But I've seen enough of that fellow's smug, smarmy japes on related threads over the years to understand him pretty well.

longears

Quote from: Norbeone on November 11, 2007, 03:06:08 PMJust what I was thinking, Don.

This topic is irritatingly impossible for me to take part in, because I would have to ignore all the sense, reason and logic that has made me who I am.

Or maybe there really is such a drug?    ???
More self-congratulatory bigotry from a shallow intellect.  Good grief!

EmpNapoleon

Quote from: Norbeone on November 11, 2007, 03:06:08 PM
This topic is irritatingly impossible for me to take part in, because I would have to ignore all the sense, reason and logic that has made me who I am.

Well, contrary to your intent, this insult is helpful.  As I said above, I'm not an intellectual.  So forgive me if your levels above me.  Petty minds want to learn too.  I'm glad you feel good that your a intellectual giant, though.

Don

Quote from: longears on November 10, 2007, 07:08:51 PM
It must be painful for your soul to be trapped in such a mean-spirited ego, spitefully trying to bolster your petty self-importance by belittling what you don't understand.  If only you knew how transparent you are, Don!  You're so threatened by the gnawing suspicion that you aren't the center of the universe that you constantly troll topics dealing with God, faith, or religion to issue hollow denials and try bullying others into sharing your misery.  If you were really as disinterested in such matters as you claim, you wouldn't even think of opening such threads! 


Does this mean you're not going to reveal your drug of choice?  And keep in mind that you issued the know-it-all statements about our relationship to God.  Also, those statements indicate that you are the one who makes assumptions about humans and the center of the universe.  All I did was make a negative, but lightly applied, joke in response to your ridiculous assertions.

drogulus



     The arrogant know-everythings are not the intellectuals who won't compromise their integrity in these matters. That description more correctly applies to those who claim to know transcendental truths beyond explanation which they then proceed to explain.

     Wittgenstein was correct on this point. About unknowable things remain silent. Or, I would add, be taken for an arrogant fool.

     Those of us who limit ourselves to the knowable need not take instruction from those who don't. We don't write our personal preferences into the architecture of the Universe, but instead seek evidence for our limited knowledge. That's the position of true humility.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0
      
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:128.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/128.0

Mullvad 14.5.1