Poll
Question:
Is there God in his music?
Option 1: Yes.
votes: 9
Option 2: No.
votes: 15
Bruckner was religious.
We're not going to hold that against him. 0:)
Not sure what "God" sounds like, but I heard some Wagner quotations in his 3rd symphony.
Quote from: Don on November 09, 2007, 11:31:32 AM
So?
I'm sure he thought God was in the notes he composed.
I've heard God talked about in metaphysical phrases such as "unmoved mover" and "eternal providence," but Bruckner's symphonies seem to me great examples of God Himself. While listening, I feel the word "God" become a reality, though not in ideas such as omnipotent, perfect being, and not even in a moral, sympathetic way. I think sometimes that there's more in Bruckner's music than just music, or neurotransmitters in a brain, or a hobby.
Though, maybe, to flash back to another topic, I'm merely self-aggrandizing, and my pride is running wild because I am the one hearing these great sounds.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 09, 2007, 11:48:51 AM
I'm sure he thought God was in the notes he composed.
I've heard God talked about in metaphysical phrases such as "unmoved mover" and "eternal providence," but Bruckner's symphonies seem to me great examples of God Himself. While listening, I feel the word "God" become a reality, though not in ideas such as omnipotent, perfect being, and not even in a moral, sympathetic way. I think sometimes that there's more in Bruckner's music than just music, or neurotransmitters in a brain, or a hobby.
Since I never feel God, this is a good time for me to disengage from this supernatural topic.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 09, 2007, 11:52:51 AM
Though, maybe, to flash back to another topic, I'm merely self-aggrandizing, and my pride is running wild because I am the one hearing these great sounds.
I think you like his music.
:D Bruckner was certainly trying to evoke something pretty grandiose, wasn't he? Which leaves everyone to fill in the blanks with a little bit of what they like best.
The question is not whether Bruckner believed in God. Rather .......
The question is whether Bruckner was God ........
can you show us where the god is? Which symphony? which movement? and which bar?
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 09, 2007, 02:50:07 PM
can you show us where the god is? Which symphony? which movement? and which bar?
Quit performing your reductionist magic tricks! God can't be held down to specific bars. He has to be spread out over how ever many bars are necessary for you to be confused.
Quote from: Sungam on November 09, 2007, 04:43:39 PM
Quit performing your reductionist magic tricks! God can't be held down to specific bars. He has to be spread out over how ever many bars are necessary for you to be confused.
:D
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 09, 2007, 11:12:08 AM
Not sure what "God" sounds like
God sounds like this... (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/09sep_blackholesounds.htm)
Quote from: sound sponge on November 09, 2007, 10:02:14 AM
We're not going to hold that against him. 0:)
Or 'for' him. ;D
I'd say: if God
is, then God is definitely in Bruckner's music.
But overall, I'll vote with Ms Forgetfulness (or rather Oblivion, in the sense of being blank), incidentally having finally realised why that name looked so familiar! (Λήθη.) :D
Quote from: Lethe on November 09, 2007, 05:36:35 PM
God sounds like this... (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/09sep_blackholesounds.htm)
I don't know what I was thinking. There is definitely no God in Schoenberg's 5 Pieces. That's just fucking music!
Is that God I hear?....
Yes...and he plays guitar.....
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d2/180px-Clapton_is_God_Graffiti.jpg)
:P
Although dogs apparently prefer Gary Moore by the looks of it ... ;D >:D
Yes, I hear God, or at least reverance of some kind, in his music. Also other elements that might figure into to it all, but the Good Lord is definitely there.
Quote from: GBJGZW on November 09, 2007, 11:12:08 AM
Not sure what "God" sounds like, but I heard some Wagner quotations in his 3rd symphony.
Same thing.
So that's where they've been hiding? In Bruckners music?
Poor Bruckner. All he wanted to do was write his music and these......things come wriggling out!
Now I understand what Hanslick meant by "giant symphonic snakes"! ;D >:D
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?)
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.
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?
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!
If God is omnipresent, why would Bruckner's music be an exception?
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:)
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. :)
But that means he is also in Richard Claderman's music.
Mike
God does have a sense of humor!
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.
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.
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. ::)
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.
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?
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? ???
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: drogulus on November 11, 2007, 03:42:49 PM
That's the position of true humility.
That's a decent boast.
Quote from: drogulus on November 11, 2007, 03:42:49 PM
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.
Well stated.
Back to the topic, I'd say Bruckners experience was in his music, and to the extent that he was deeply religious it must have had an effect. I don't know what I would say if I didn't know about Bruckners religiosity. Since many atheist/agnostic composers have written explicitly religious music, it's hard to disentangle effects and intentions. Ultimately I think what matters is that Bruckner was a great composer.
Quote from: drogulus on November 11, 2007, 04:00:41 PM
Ultimately I think what matters is that Bruckner was a great composer.
Consummate.
Bruckner was such a master of building and holding back tension...if he lived in the modern days I think he would have became a great strip teaser. ;D
Quote from: drogulus on November 11, 2007, 02:11:50 PM
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.
I could offer a possible answer; in fact, Plato already did, and Wittgenstein alluded to one (even the same one, in my opinion) as well. However, this is not relevant to this thread.
Quote from: drogulus on November 11, 2007, 03:42:49 PM
Wittgenstein was correct on this point. About unknowable things remain silent. Or, I would add, be taken for an arrogant fool.
You misread him, I think. Wittgenstein demonstrated that, should his postulate about the nature of reality (a totality of facts) being concurrent with the nature of language (a totality of words) hold, then the latter cannot be used to explain the basic elements of (or atomic facts of which consists) the former.
And it's a brilliant idea, even supported to an extent by Kurt Godel's proof of the incompleteness theorem, if one assumes a Platonic-form sort of connection between reality and logic, the latter being a language, and thus likely in line with Wittgenstein's opinions.
However, the fact that Wittgenstein was thus led to perceive reality as bounded, outside which boundary there are things inherent to reality which cannot ever be discussed, due to their being the "words" themselves, the basis on which reality exists to begin with, does
not mean they are beyond our perception entirely: only directly.
It only necessarily means that we cannot describe, or (if you add Godel to the mix) demonstrate them. So you might not be able to prove God exists, in that reasoning, but that does not mean you must shut up about the issue, or fail to explore the implications of either case.
Quantum Physics itself is based on a similar "trust" that implications are related to the phenomena that "imply" them, as most of the things it deals with (and observes) are directly unobservable. So please, if you are going to discuss this issue in the present context (this thread), even though that discussion seems to have now been stalled, do it with respect to your sources, if possible.
And this is likely as far as I'm going to contribute to religion/God/truth/understanding-related discussions, in this forum,
which is not the place for them. Take it or leave it. :)
(Also: good point, Bonehelm. :P)
Quote from: Danny on November 10, 2007, 12:31:56 AM
Yes, I hear God, or at least reverance of some kind, in his music. Also other elements that might figure into to it all, but the Good Lord is definitely there.
I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:
People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?
Anyway, noone can really know, so i'm just gonna shutup and go have some tea and apple crumble.
Quote from: Norbeone on November 12, 2007, 11:43:10 AM
I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:
People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?
Sure is, but that's usually the way it goes in conversation with religious folks.
Quote from: Renfield on November 12, 2007, 12:02:21 AM
It only necessarily means that we cannot describe, or (if you add Godel to the mix) demonstrate them. So you might not be able to prove God exists, in that reasoning, but that does not mean you must shut up about the issue, or fail to explore the implications of either case.
What I said was not in contradiction to your point. He was talking about describing what is not known as though it could be. Another way of putting it is that metaphysical propositions have no truth value. I don't think Wittgenstein should be interpreted as being against freedom of speech, though.
;)I don't oppose speculation about God or quantum mechanics, if it's labeled as such. Religionists rarely say that God is an interesting hypothesis that should be explored. That is exactly what they oppose.
Edit: I shouldn't have said "what is not known" but rather "what is not knowable". It doesn't make sense otherwise.
Quote from: Norbeone on November 12, 2007, 11:43:10 AM
I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:
People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?
Anyway, noone can really know, so i'm just gonna shutup and go have some tea and apple crumble.
To my (biased) mind the arrogance comes in, not so much in claiming to know for certain that God exists, but to claim to know him so well that you know what method he would use to create life, who he wants you to sleep with, what day he wants you to take off work, what he wants you to eat, etc., etc.
But to more important matters: do you have cheddar cheese or ice cream with your apple crumble?
Oh you kidders! Ernie and Don: you guys troll threads for mention of God or religion or other related issues, then leap out with glee to bash posters for any profession of faith, claiming with astonishingly short-sighted arrogance that you know there is no God, that this special knowledge is vouchsafed to you because of your intellectual superiority, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an ignorant, brainwashed fool.
You're mirror images of 71dB! (He even calls himself a "free-thinker!")
Cheddar! Heavenly!
Quote from: longears on November 13, 2007, 04:49:31 AM
Oh you kidders! Ernie and Don: you guys troll threads for mention of God or religion or other related issues, then leap out with glee to bash posters for any profession of faith, claiming with astonishingly short-sighted arrogance that you know there is no God, that this special knowledge is vouchsafed to you because of your intellectual superiority, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an ignorant, brainwashed fool.
You're mirror images of 71dB! (He even calls himself a "free-thinker!")
Cheddar! Heavenly!
You're sounding a bit irrational, creating claims made by myself and others. Don't take yourself so seriously.
"I'm not trying to refute your comment when I say the following:
People accuse me of being arrogant when I say there is no God, but the above quote is claiming (in not so obvious a way) that there IS a God. Surely this is just as arrogant and presumtuous?"
Quote from: Don on November 12, 2007, 12:33:13 PM
Sure is, but that's usually the way it goes in conversation with religious folks.
I see no reason why anyone should call anyone "arrogant" for believing that there is a God, or for believing that there is no God. If you look at the history of atheism Vs theism debate, it seems as if confidence in either worldview can be the basis for rational, intelligent thinking. I think the real problem comes from the people that expect everyone to find the logic, facts, and truths to point toward, and only toward, their worldview.
I wasn't expecting this to be a continuation of topics about whether or not God exists. I thought that believers, there are many in this forum, would talk about
how they experience God in great music.
Quote from: drogulus on November 12, 2007, 01:30:24 PM
Religionists rarely say that God is an interesting hypothesis that should be explored. That is exactly what they oppose.
That's a shame. That's why they're not cool.
Quote from: longears on November 13, 2007, 04:49:31 AM
You're mirror images of 71dB!
You forgot to use this: (http://nicnac.net/media/peace2.jpg)
Quote from: longears on November 13, 2007, 04:49:31 AM
Oh you kidders! Ernie and Don: you guys troll threads for mention of God or religion or other related issues, then leap out with glee to bash posters for any profession of faith, claiming with astonishingly short-sighted arrogance that you know there is no God, that this special knowledge is vouchsafed to you because of your intellectual superiority, and that anyone who doesn't share your opinion is an ignorant, brainwashed fool.
You're mirror images of 71dB! (He even calls himself a "free-thinker!")
Cheddar! Heavenly!
I prefer my version of what I say to your reinterpretation, which suffers from the very biases I point out. Is it possible that you're so blinded by prejudice that you can't even read my posts without distorting them beyond recognition?
I've consistently been opposed to assertions of knowledge where no knowledge can be had (which is why your charge against me is not just false, but stupidly and carelessly so). My response to those who assert they know the unknowable is that they are arrogant and that they are fools, and it compounds their arrogance and foolishness that they make nonsensical claims and then call others arrogant for pointing this out.
Quote from: Sungam on November 13, 2007, 10:45:19 AM
I see no reason why anyone should call anyone "arrogant" for believing that there is a God, or for believing that there is no God.
That's not what I was saying. Saying you BELIEVE or DON'T BELIEVE in God isn't arrogant. But saying there IS a God or ISN'T a God (which is the same as saying I KNOW there IS a God or I KNOW there ISN'T a God) is arrogant. Honestly, I don't claim that there isn't a God, I just say it is very very very unlikely that there is one, based on all the evidence (or lack of) I can find. Therefore I don't believe.
Shrunk: "But to more important matters: do you have cheddar cheese or ice cream with your apple crumble?"
Cheddar cheese?!?!? You must be joking. I usually have custard, but ice-cream would do. ;D
I don't think atheism is the private preseve of lofty intellectuals. It's a rather routine stage of personal development in young people, when they discover that not everything they're taught is true. Either they escaped the usual conditioning through some good fortune, or the hold was broken somehow. High school students of average intelligence have no trouble understanding the philosophical arguments, which is fortunate since there would be no point to education if they couldn't.
The barrier to acceptance of materialism is not intellectual, since everyone is functionally materialist. It's more that an overriding cultural imperative states that we don't need to have good reasons for what we believe, an imperative largely designed to protect certain beliefs from scrutiny. It's therefore permissible to hold beliefs on emotive grounds without regard to objective claims of merit. If you question these beliefs or the grounds for holding them you're likely to be called arrogant or worse.
I may be an arrogant jerk, but if so that's a personal description. There are arrogant jerks on all sides in my experience, but it doesn't decide issues.
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 13, 2007, 10:58:02 AM
I wasn't expecting this to be a continuation of topics about whether or not God exists. I though that believers, there are many in this forum, would talk about how they experience God in great music.
But your expectations don't allow for alternative views or the simple rejection of the main theme?
Quote from: EmpNapoleon on November 13, 2007, 10:58:02 AM
I wasn't expecting this to be a continuation of topics about whether or not God exists. I though that believers, there are many in this forum, would talk about how they experience God in great music.
That's what I was doing. How I experience these things is not less important than how others do.
It's just as provocative to say God exists as to say there's no reason to believe it. That realization is all you need to explain the recurring nature of the debate, not some "hoodlums are spoiling my nice little party" scenario. The believers are in a fight because they're spoiling for it just as much as I am.
Q: Is that GOD I hear?
A: No, it's HARRY pretending to be God .....
Quote from: D Minor on November 13, 2007, 03:15:22 PM
Q: Is that GOD I hear?
A: No, it's HARRY pretending to be God .....
Not a bad idea. Harry being God sounds about as good as anyone else taking on the assignment. With that out of the way, I can confidently state that God owns many thousands of classical recordings.