society

And I need to read it again before replying, but also some other time. Today is a short day.

When it comes down to it I have a sort of unfinished thought about all this. I see myself as a binding force, connecting the external world to the internal so to speak. I am not of the mind that all thoughts I have are products of my activity. They are products of my mind's activity, but I do not know my entire mind.

When I want to know something I need to ask. That is true wether I am asking you or my memory. The procedure is much the same, only where I trun my attention is different.

I have much more on this subject, but as I said, I do not know my entire mind...

Interesting notion, that you are a nexus between the "objective" and "subjective" worlds. Remember the Hindu dictum, Tat tvam asi: that (the outer world) IS you (the inner world). The dichotomy is false, but the idea of the nexus, which is you, implicitly recognizes this.

I, too, do not know my entire mind. In fact, a major gain from these A2K discussions is the opportunity they give us to find out what we think. I believe that without expressing or externalizing our thoughts for our inspection they remain vague, ambiguous, cloudy and unfinished. Then, once we have expressed and examined (by us and others) them we have the opportunity to "correct" or "improve" them. This is particularly important for someone like myself who has RETIRED from an academic life. I used to think and write for a living. Now I'll just turn to mush without the stimulation provided by you and other A2Kers.

This dichotomy you mention, Tat tvam asi, I haven't heard it before. That is you... I've heard it said that your soul is the entire world. I think it is much the same thing. But what do you mean when you say that it is false?

I am toying with the idea of intelligence as an availability rather than an ability. It's as Nietzche said: A thought comes when it wants, not when the thinker summons it.

I agree that these discussions are very helpful in understanding my own mind. I joined A2K in the beginning to practice my english, but as time progressed I quickly discovered all the other benefits of this excersise. I hope A2K endures.

And it is nice to know I'm contributing to the solid and usable composition of your brainmatter.

The differentiation between you/me/ego and everything else is what is false. There is only the Cosmos, a singular reality. That's an issue that has been debated on A2K for some time now. It is the insight at the center of eastern thought and mysticism. If we must use the notion of a soul, I prefer to think that we do not HAVE souls (as properties of different individuals) but that we ARE a Soul ( a property that we all share, that stands for and reflects our unity).

I understand what you mean. But that implies that the whole idea of western thought is almost precicely backwards...(?)

Well, thanks to Plato and Descartes that may be so. The West's dualism (Descartes) and reification of meaning (Plato) may have contributed to the West's desire and technological abililty to dominate "nature." And it may be that the "wisdom" of the East has contributed to its technological backwardness. One must be careful, however, not to draw too exaggerated a distinction between the two worlds (to merely describe the East as not Western and the West as not Eastern. Moreover, the East is becoming increasingly "western" in its orientation, and the West has moved east with the help of many thinkers and "movements", including Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Nagarguna, zen buddhism and, perhaps, quantum physics.

What about statements like "esse est percipi"? I understand this to mean "to exist is to be subjected to perception". I do not know the context though, so I cannot know the true intention behind saying this. But the statement itself sounds backwards to me.

I have the general impression that the eastern way is to find peace in the world, while the western way is to carve the world into pieces. This is, of course, a notion more poetically justifiable than anything else. Imagine a piece of music. My "eastern" ear listens for the total piece and seeks to understand it, while my "western" ear seeks to subdivide the beat, categorize the notes and demystify the whole thing until it is nothing more than a system.

Esse est percipi, as I recall, means "To exist IS to be perceived", a principle of absolute idealism. Your version states that to be is to be perceivable. Mine suggests the more extreme notion that to not be perceived is to not exist.

Interesting comments on music east and west. But I find it very interesting how quickly Western classical music (especially German: Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schuman, Schubert, etc.) has "caught on" in east asia while east asian music has not been embraced by the West. I went to a concert last night and noticed that the majority of strings (first and second violins, and cellists) were east asian (only one violists). I never see east asian wind or brass players.

Cryacuz. Apologies. My interpretation is the same as yours. Your "to be subjected to perception" is the same as my "to be perceived"

Eastern music has always encorporated the violin, though the use of the instrument is somewhat different. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but they sit on the ground with their legs crossed, resting the head of the violin where their ankles meet.

The way music is built up is also wholly different in west and east. Western classical music follows strict compositions, where every note is concieved and the beat is the coordinator, so to speak.

In eastern music it's a little different. There is usually a "pilotnote", one note that everything revolves around, and the musicians play not after the beat, but after the melody.

The intermixing of the two musical approaches has been experimented with wildly. The Beatles, for instance, are heavily influenced by eastern music on some of their works. I too have noticed the growing number of asian string players. There is also a pianist I've come to notice. A young asian virtuos I don't know by name.

There may be many reasons for this "takeover" by the orientals. The first reason that comes to mind is that in our western world of efficiency and profit, few take the time to develop and fine tune their abilities in this department wich is largely considered a waste of time. We educate ourselves for easy money and a life of material riches. These values have not entirely swept away the spirituality of the orient, a spirituality wich is evident in the works of the great composers.

Cryacuz, thanks for your ethno-musicological insights. I think you are referring to the Chinese marvel, Lang Lang.
As a "western" violinist, I was amazed by the ability of small east asian women to make such a great range of sounds on the violin. I use to think that only men with strong fingers and a heavy bow arm, that did not have to be pressed down, could accomplish that. But I now see that an entirely different set of arm motions can accomplish the same effect, and that one need not press down hard on the string with the left hand fingers.

Yes, Lang Lang was his name, and marvel he is indeed.
My experience when it comes to playing music, and in other things as well, is that strength is only a substitute for skill. A person I went to school with long ago was very good at push-ups. He was not the stronges kid in our class by far, but he could do more push-ups than anyone. It's all about technique.