[Vision2020] Musical and Body Intelligence: Investigations and Speculations Expanded
Tbertruss@aol.com
Tbertruss@aol.com
Thu, 10 Jun 2004 02:35:20 EDT
--part1_8e.d1465b7.2df95b28_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bob et. al.
Thanks for your detailed reply.
While it may appear we are discussing obscure issues of theory of art and
aesthetics, the fundamental questions raised here strike at the heart of how we
view life and experience, how valuable we allow ourselves to regard our
emotions when compared with the life of the intellect. And whether or not a
fragmentation of our being into "mind" or "intellect" or "emotional" or "physical" is
theoretically valid or desirable. Many of the problems facing the human race
are linked to this fragmentation: we are driven by emotions uninformed by our
intellect, or live in soulless abstractions devoid of intense emotion where
justifications for inhuman behavior are repeated with chilling detachment from
basic human compassion or empathy.
Healing this fragmentation is crucial to solving some of the crises facing
humanity, and music, with the integration of emotion, body and intellect it
offers, provides an excellent focal point for this endeavor.
It seems you are assuming the mind/body dichotomy in some of your comments
using a more traditional approach where the body (operating separate from and
without "intellectual" content) is separate from the mind (a non physical part
of the person that operates in a realm of "ideas").
While you state some agreement with my basic thesis that bodily intelligence
is essentially linked for the most part for the vast majority of people with
musical intelligence, you assert that in your performance of music the two
types of intelligence are not "bound together as one thing." I stated that we
could have a computer perform music that induces the responses I was describing
that link bodily intelligence to musical intelligence, so the musical
performer's bodily intelligence in regard to the skill of performance is not essential
to my point regarding the linking of bodily intelligence to musical
intelligence. Indeed, some very precise musical performers are rather like machines in
how they play music: perfect but soulless, showing superb coordination but NOT
manifesting the kind of body intelligence connected to music than I am
referencing.
However, the sophisticated hand to eye coordination involved in sight reading
musical text is both a very difficult body coordination skill coupled with
higher level brain function (how does the "body" without the "mind" know the
difference between the notes on the page?), so sight reading music I think does
bind the two intelligences together, at least at the moment of sight reading
notes, in some sense.
I find it instructive that you assert you are interested in the "gestalt,"
that you want the listener to respond to your computer generated music both
intellectually as well as physically, yet you appeared quick to separate the
physical (bodily intelligence) from the intellectual (musical intelligence) when
describing your own playing of music! So you want people to respond to your
computer generated music with their whole being, yet you as a maker of music are
fragmented? Hmmmmmm... (Listen to Larry Fast's Synergy album titled "Computer
Experiments," if you have not heard it, for interesting music composed by
computer.)
This discussion is bogged down in definitions and terminology that do not fit
reality, or that require qualification or redefinition. Consider that modern
science has made the "mind" more and more a "physical" biochemically based
machine, while modern physics with relativity and Quantum mechanics has made
matter less and less the solid dependable "physical" reality it once was. Now we
have "dark matter and energy," which is believed to make up most of the
universe, yet no one is sure what it is! The physical world has become more and
more a shadow play!
The amount of data processing the brain must accomplish to engage in
sophisticated body movements is immense! In this sense the body is a sophisticated
expression of "mind." In the world of artificial intelligence it has been
discovered that to make a robot that can see a complex multi-object three
dimensional environment, remember where it has been, and renegotiate that environment,
is actually a very difficult problem, using massive computational resources!
Perhaps the body in its complexity and design manifests just as much of an
expression of "mind" as the so called higher level thought processes. Computers
can play chess and do calculus much more easily than they can mimic many of
the capabilities that even animals show in complex body movements as they
navigate complex environments. Computers are taking over as thinking machines
sometimes surpassing so called higher human thought. What we thought was the
highest expression of being human may not be so entirely focused in the so called
"higher" brain functions as previously assumed.
We are stuck in centuries old assumptions about our reality as human beings,
the nature of mind and body, and what is important or not or valued or not
regarding how our minds and bodies operate.
In fact, from a purely scientific standpoint, everything we experience is
processed in the brain. I agree completely that a personal response to music "is
not necessarily "in" the music at all" as you state, but is subjective inside
the person who listens. From a materialistic point of view, all experience
and thought is physical, and the mind can be reduced to the body. In this
sense, body intelligence is all their is! Neurons and neurochemicals are
essential for all functions, and the "intellect" is just a part of the "body," made
possible by a special arrangement of neurons and neurochemicals While I do not
advocate a complete materialism, remaining open to metaphysical options, it is
difficult to get around the dependence of all human experience, perception,
emotion, thought, imagination, and all body experiences, on the physical
chemistry of the brain.
Now, referencing a commonality of substrate underlying "mind" and "body,"
it is interesting and instructive to my line of thought that you mention
Ligeti's Lux Aeterna, a piece of music more people have heard than would realize
if you asked them. This music is in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film sound
track. I assume you were suggesting this music does not induce much of a
"physical" or "bodily" response when you contrasted it with "Barbie Girl," which does
induce a "physical" response.
Here perhaps you express the exact kind of fragmentation of mind/body that I
was attempting to shatter and show as false. Maybe I misunderstood your
meaning. But Lux Aeterna can induce in yours truly the most exquisite bodily
feelings, emotions and imagistic emotional content that my pathetic intellect is at a
loss to describe in words, and when words are attempted, a full realization
that the words do not do full justice to the nonverbal experiences is
unavoidable. Indeed, "Barbie Girl" inspires far less of a "bodily" or purely emotional
response, at least in this person's subjective world. Wiggling or not of the
body is NOT what I am talking about.
When I speak of "bodily intelligence" it includes the intense emotional
responses we all feel in our bodies: tears and sunken lips for sadness, a tensing
of muscles and raising of blood pressure for anger, a smile and laughter for
humor, dilated pupils and other responses... ummmm... for lust. Overcoming awe,
beauty, mystery, fear, love, which all induce varying reactions in the body,
can be combined in complex ways with imagistic content and more mental
"thoughts" to create emotions far removed from the stereotypical responses commonly
described, along with numerous other responses more usually associated with the
"mind." That these body responses can be unified with what we usually regard
as more "mental" processes, that music in fact often does induce this sort of
unifying of experiential modes when it is an experience of most value, is
what I am talking about. These bodily perceptions can be viewed as mental, not
physical, utilizing some of the theoretical views outlined above, and the
mental processes of the brain in doing complex musical compositions can be viewed
as physical, if we wish, neurochemically based neural network computations.
We've turned reality upside down and modern science supports this reversal.
To make an analogy, a sophisticated lover in tune with their body
intelligence uses numerous forms of human expression, of emotion, the imagination and
intellect to enhance lovemaking. This same sort of unification of experiential
modes is what makes the grand experiences possible by listening to music of
great value, even listening to great music while making love. Sex, romance and
Beethoven's Grosse Fugue together? Why not?
I wonder, why should Lux Aeterna not inspire intense bodily reactions? Is
this what you implied?
I just put on Lux Aeterna via CD. It is playing at this moment. Immediately
a rush of "emotion" comes over me. My breath increased, and "streaming"
rushes of "energy," like electrical current, are passing over my body. The choir
reaches a peak of very high pitched singing which is exquisitely intense,
inspiring emotions I don't easily know how to put into words. There is an
otherworldly presence that is at once palpable yet transcendent, as though something
of great importance is about to be revealed from some uncharted place in the
universe. The choir again reaches another high pitched climax that startles
and frightens, it is almost too much, words seem like puny symbols, like the
proverbial finger pointing to the moon, compared to the full reality of the music
and my emotions that are rooted in direct experience in my body.
So there you have it. Was this experience mental or physical? Or both? An
expression of "mind" or "body?" Or both? Or do these categories distort the
true nature of the experience? Is there some other way of organizing human
experience that transcends the mind/body dichotomy? Was it all reducible to
neurons and neurochemicals or is there some other type of "matter" or organizing
principle of "energy" that was at play? Can any part of the whole experience
be subtracted without doing irreparable harm to the meaning of the whole
experience? You tell me!
Of course I've heard this piece many times before, so my "body" and "mind"
"know" the music in a manner that enhances the experience. And my cultural
context is no doubt, as you mentioned, part of what enables my response. If I had
been raised in a culture with very little music or only one narrow form of
music, Ligeti might induce total incomprehension of mind or body or otherwise.
But to quickly respond to your comment about the ritual use of music in that
African culture you mentioned, I think even in that ritual music we might find
the unity of musical and body intelligence I have been parsing here.
Of course my experience listening to Ligeti was really occurring in my brain.
We can assume it was facilitated by communication between differing parts of
the brain with differing functions, some involving processing sound, emotion,
imagination, and the image our brain forms of the body, which is a two way
process of sending signals to and getting signals from the body. The complexity
of everything that happened in my brain when I was just listening to Ligeti
is certainly beyond the capacity of my mind to fully understand!
I considered the fact your students could not successfully guess the program
intent in Roman Festivals, and it occurred to me that this fits my thesis in
part, if it is true that translating instrumental music into words is
difficult, because music as a total experience transcends the tools of the intellect.
This is part of what I am trying to get at, perhaps with no success. Music
connects different types of experience together in ways that are not easily
translated into words, or cannot be translated totally into words at all, that
cannot be rendered "literal" by the intellect. If what I am outlining here has
some validity, then the Bernstein theories linking music and linguistics
referencing Chomsky's transformational grammar has some technical difficulties. The
language of music is a very different beast than the language of words.
The fact that when I attempt to put my profound experiences of listening to
music in words I am often stymied is partly an expression, I think, of why
music is such a valuable art form. It inspires experiences of great meaning that
the intellect cannot encapsulate, because of the emotional, imagistic and body
related modes of experience it induces which are not exclusively of the
"mind." Or are these experiences an expression of a different kind of "mind?"
This depends on your theoretical assumptions.
Again the traditional view of mind/body breaks down, like when you appear to
relegate sexual function to a purely physical level in your comments on
"Barbie Girl." You might be implying that music that inspires a sexual response is
music more related to bodily nonintellectual functions. However, I think
modern research into sexual response in humans has shown that so called "higher"
brain functions are critically involved in human sexual response. This is
partly why impotence can be such a psychological problem, and why human sexual
conduct is so "intellectualized." It is amazing, in fact, how an "inappropriate"
comment can derail a romantic moment, demonstrating the interconnectedness of
the "intellectual" and "physical" in human sexual activity.
Consider this form of fragmentation of mind and body which our culture
encourages that is perhaps most sadly and profoundly manifested in our view of
sexuality. Is this why music is so often used to seduce, because it breaks down
the mind/body, or emotion/intellect fragmentation? Is inducing the mind to work
with the body on a deep level part of the art of seduction facilitated by
music?
Sexual experience and romance is a dimension of human life where the unity of
the mind and body, the unity of emotions and passion, beauty and tenderness,
values and principles of caring and empathy, can provide the most wonderful
life affirming experiences. The unity of being possible in sexual experience
might be similar in some respects to the unity of being possible with musical
experiences, yet we all know how deep the chasm is between how we view sexuality
and other so called "higher" aspects of life.
To restate: the assumptions that we function with a sharp fragmentation
between the "intellectual" mind and the "emotional" body is exactly why I think
music has such a healing power for many people. It represents a unification of
the emotional and intellectual that assists in overcoming the fragmentation of
these functions our culture tends to force upon us.
Indeed, the moments in my life when music induces the profound unity of
thought, emotion, imagination, and perception in my body, are so meaningful that I
cannot imagine a valuable life lived without them. And this unity of types of
experiential possibilities can have other effects on a person's approach to
life. Abstract principles of the intellect that instruct behavior that is
emotionally abhorrent to basic feelings of empathy or compassion are less likely
to be followed if there is a unity of emotion and intellect, assuming access to
caring compassionate emotions. And a person who connects their intellect
with their emotions may not be as inclined to fly off the handle in destructive
ways when overcome with
negative emotion, assuming some discipline of values derived from the
intellect.
As you might expect, I do not place intellect and emotion on a hierarchy with
intellect above emotion. I think a sophisticated emotional life, with
emotions connected to the body, with all that this allows a person to experience in
relating to other people and the natural world, to be of far more critical
importance than the very abstract calculative functions of the mind. I would
rather have a rich loving imaginative emotional life with an IQ of 100, than be
an emotional zombie with an IQ of 200.
However, I would rather have both, which music facilitates most excellently.
Ted Moffett
--part1_8e.d1465b7.2df95b28_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D2 PTSIZE=3D10 FAMILY=
=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR>
Bob et. al.<BR>
<BR>
Thanks for your detailed reply.<BR>
<BR>
While it may appear we are discussing obscure issues of theory of art and ae=
sthetics, the fundamental questions raised here strike at the heart of how w=
e view life and experience, how valuable we allow ourselves to regard our em=
otions when compared with the life of the intellect. And whether or no=
t a fragmentation of our being into "mind" or "intellect" or "emotional" or=20=
"physical" is theoretically valid or desirable. Many of the problems f=
acing the human race are linked to this fragmentation: we are driven by emot=
ions uninformed by our intellect, or live in soulless abstractions devoid of=
intense emotion where justifications for inhuman behavior are repeated with=
chilling detachment from basic human compassion or empathy.<BR>
<BR>
Healing this fragmentation is crucial to solving some of the crises facing h=
umanity, and music, with the integration of emotion, body and intellect it o=
ffers, provides an excellent focal point for this endeavor.<BR>
<BR>
It seems you are assuming the mind/body dichotomy in some of your comments u=
sing a more traditional approach where the body (operating separate from and=
without "intellectual" content) is separate from the mind (a non physical p=
art of the person that operates in a realm of "ideas"). <BR>
<BR>
While you state some agreement with my basic thesis that bodily intelligence=
is essentially linked for the most part for the vast majority of people wit=
h musical intelligence, you assert that in your performance of music the two=
types of intelligence are not "bound together as one thing." I stated=
that we could have a computer perform music that induces the responses I wa=
s describing that link bodily intelligence to musical intelligence, so the m=
usical performer's bodily intelligence in regard to the skill of performance=
is not essential to my point regarding the linking of bodily intelligence t=
o musical intelligence. Indeed, some very precise musical performers a=
re rather like machines in how they play music: perfect but soulless, showin=
g superb coordination but NOT manifesting the kind of body intelligence conn=
ected to music than I am referencing. <BR>
<BR>
However, the sophisticated hand to eye coordination involved in sight readin=
g musical text is both a very difficult body coordination skill coupled with=
higher level brain function (how does the "body" without the "mind" know th=
e difference between the notes on the page?), so sight reading music I think=
does bind the two intelligences together, at least at the moment of sight r=
eading notes, in some sense.<BR>
<BR>
I find it instructive that you assert you are interested in the "gestalt," t=
hat you want the listener to respond to your computer generated music both i=
ntellectually as well as physically, yet you appeared quick to separate the=20=
physical (bodily intelligence) from the intellectual (musical intelligence)=20=
when describing your own playing of music! So you want people to respo=
nd to your computer generated music with their whole being, yet you as a mak=
er of music are fragmented? Hmmmmmm... (Listen to Larry Fast's Synergy=
album titled "Computer Experiments," if you have not heard it, for interest=
ing music composed by computer.)<BR>
<BR>
This discussion is bogged down in definitions and terminology that do not fi=
t reality, or that require qualification or redefinition. Consider tha=
t modern science has made the "mind" more and more a "physical" biochemicall=
y based machine, while modern physics with relativity and Quantum mechanics=20=
has made matter less and less the solid dependable "physical" reality it onc=
e was. Now we have "dark matter and energy," which is believed to make=
up most of the universe, yet no one is sure what it is! The physical=20=
world has become more and more a shadow play!<BR>
<BR>
The amount of data processing the brain must accomplish to engage in sophist=
icated body movements is immense! In this sense the body is a sophisti=
cated expression of "mind." In the world of artificial intelligence it=
has been discovered that to make a robot that can see a complex multi-objec=
t three dimensional environment, remember where it has been, and renegotiate=
that environment, is actually a very difficult problem, using massive compu=
tational resources! Perhaps the body in its complexity and design mani=
fests just as much of an expression of "mind" as the so called higher level=20=
thought processes. Computers can play chess and do calculus much more=20=
easily than they can mimic many of the capabilities that even animals show i=
n complex body movements as they navigate complex environments. Comput=
ers are taking over as thinking machines sometimes surpassing so called high=
er human thought. What we thought was the highest expression of being=20=
human may not be so entirely focused in the so called "higher" brain functio=
ns as previously assumed.<BR>
<BR>
We are stuck in centuries old assumptions about our reality as human beings,=
the nature of mind and body, and what is important or not or valued or not=20=
regarding how our minds and bodies operate.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, from a purely scientific standpoint, everything we experience is pr=
ocessed in the brain. I agree completely that a personal response to m=
usic "is not necessarily "in" the music at all" as you state, but is subject=
ive inside the person who listens. From a materialistic point of view,=
all experience and thought is physical, and the mind can be reduced to the=20=
body. In this sense, body intelligence is all their is! Neurons=20=
and neurochemicals are essential for all functions, and the "intellect" is j=
ust a part of the "body," made possible by a special arrangement of neurons=20=
and neurochemicals While I do not advocate a complete materialism, rem=
aining open to metaphysical options, it is difficult to get around the depen=
dence of all human experience, perception, emotion, thought, imagination, an=
d all body experiences, on the physical chemistry of the brain. <BR>
<BR>
Now, referencing a commonality of substrate underlying "mind" and "body,"<BR=
>
it is interesting and instructive to my line of thought that you mention Lig=
eti's Lux Aeterna, a piece of music more people have heard than would realiz=
e if you asked them. This music is in the 2001: A Space Odyssey film s=
ound track. I assume you were suggesting this music does not induce mu=
ch of a "physical" or "bodily" response when you contrasted it with "Barbie=20=
Girl," which does induce a "physical" response. <BR>
<BR>
Here perhaps you express the exact kind of fragmentation of mind/body that I=
was attempting to shatter and show as false. Maybe I misunderstood your mea=
ning. But Lux Aeterna can induce in yours truly the most exquisite bodily fe=
elings, emotions and imagistic emotional content that my pathetic intellect=20=
is at a loss to describe in words, and when words are attempted, a full real=
ization that the words do not do full justice to the nonverbal experiences i=
s unavoidable. Indeed, "Barbie Girl" inspires far less of a "bodily" o=
r purely emotional response, at least in this person's subjective world.&nbs=
p; Wiggling or not of the body is NOT what I am talking about. <BR>
<BR>
When I speak of "bodily intelligence" it includes the intense emotional resp=
onses we all feel in our bodies: tears and sunken lips for sadness, a tensin=
g of muscles and raising of blood pressure for anger, a smile and laughter f=
or humor, dilated pupils and other responses... ummmm... for lust. Ove=
rcoming awe, beauty, mystery, fear, love, which all induce varying reactions=
in the body, can be combined in complex ways with imagistic content and mor=
e mental "thoughts" to create emotions far removed from the stereotypical re=
sponses commonly described, along with numerous other responses more usually=
associated with the "mind." That these body responses can be unified=20=
with what we usually regard as more "mental" processes, that music in fact o=
ften does induce this sort of unifying of experiential modes when it is an e=
xperience of most value, is what I am talking about. These bodily perc=
eptions can be viewed as mental, not physical, utilizing some of the theoret=
ical views outlined above, and the mental processes of the brain in doing co=
mplex musical compositions can be viewed as physical, if we wish, neurochemi=
cally based neural network computations. <BR>
<BR>
We've turned reality upside down and modern science supports this reversal.<=
BR>
<BR>
To make an analogy, a sophisticated lover in tune with their body intelligen=
ce uses numerous forms of human expression, of emotion, the imagination and=20=
intellect to enhance lovemaking. This same sort of unification of expe=
riential modes is what makes the grand experiences possible by listening to=20=
music of great value, even listening to great music while making love. =
Sex, romance and Beethoven's Grosse Fugue together? Why not? <BR>
<BR>
I wonder, why should Lux Aeterna not inspire intense bodily reactions? =
Is this what you implied? <BR>
<BR>
I just put on Lux Aeterna via CD. It is playing at this moment. =20=
Immediately a rush of "emotion" comes over me. My breath increased, an=
d "streaming" rushes of "energy," like electrical current, are passing over=20=
my body. The choir reaches a peak of very high pitched singing which i=
s exquisitely intense, inspiring emotions I don't easily know how to put int=
o words. There is an otherworldly presence that is at once palpable ye=
t transcendent, as though something of great importance is about to be revea=
led from some uncharted place in the universe. The choir again reaches=
another high pitched climax that startles and frightens, it is almost too m=
uch, words seem like puny symbols, like the proverbial finger pointing to th=
e moon, compared to the full reality of the music and my emotions that are r=
ooted in direct experience in my body.<BR>
<BR>
So there you have it. Was this experience mental or physical? Or=
both? An expression of "mind" or "body?" Or both? Or do t=
hese categories distort the true nature of the experience? Is there so=
me other way of organizing human experience that transcends the mind/body di=
chotomy? Was it all reducible to neurons and neurochemicals or is ther=
e some other type of "matter" or organizing principle of "energy" that was a=
t play? Can any part of the whole experience be subtracted without doi=
ng irreparable harm to the meaning of the whole experience? You tell m=
e!<BR>
<BR>
Of course I've heard this piece many times before, so my "body" and "mind" "=
know" the music in a manner that enhances the experience. And my cultu=
ral context is no doubt, as you mentioned, part of what enables my response.=
If I had been raised in a culture with very little music or only one=20=
narrow form of music, Ligeti might induce total incomprehension of mind or b=
ody or otherwise. But to quickly respond to your comment about the rit=
ual use of music in that African culture you mentioned, I think even in that=
ritual music we might find the unity of musical and body intelligence I hav=
e been parsing here.<BR>
<BR>
Of course my experience listening to Ligeti was really occurring in my brain=
. We can assume it was facilitated by communication between differing=20=
parts of the brain with differing functions, some involving processing sound=
, emotion, imagination, and the image our brain forms of the body, which is=20=
a two way process of sending signals to and getting signals from the body.&n=
bsp; The complexity of everything that happened in my brain when I was just=20=
listening to Ligeti is certainly beyond the capacity of my mind to fully und=
erstand!<BR>
<BR>
I considered the fact your students could not successfully guess the program=
intent in Roman Festivals, and it occurred to me that this fits my thesis i=
n part, if it is true that translating instrumental music into words is diff=
icult, because music as a total experience transcends the tools of the intel=
lect. This is part of what I am trying to get at, perhaps with no succ=
ess. Music connects different types of experience together in ways tha=
t are not easily translated into words, or cannot be translated totally into=
words at all, that cannot be rendered "literal" by the intellect. If=20=
what I am outlining here has some validity, then the Bernstein theories link=
ing music and linguistics referencing Chomsky's transformational grammar has=
some technical difficulties. The language of music is a very differen=
t beast than the language of words.<BR>
<BR>
The fact that when I attempt to put my profound experiences of listening to=20=
music in words I am often stymied is partly an expression, I think, of why m=
usic is such a valuable art form. It inspires experiences of great mea=
ning that the intellect cannot encapsulate, because of the emotional, imagis=
tic and body related modes of experience it induces which are not exclusivel=
y of the "mind." Or are these experiences an expression of a different=
kind of "mind?" This depends on your theoretical assumptions.<BR>
<BR>
Again the traditional view of mind/body breaks down, like when you appear to=
relegate sexual function to a purely physical level in your comments on "Ba=
rbie Girl." You might be implying that music that inspires a sexual re=
sponse is music more related to bodily nonintellectual functions. Howe=
ver, I think modern research into sexual response in humans has shown that s=
o called "higher" brain functions are critically involved in human sexual re=
sponse. This is partly why impotence can be such a psychological probl=
em, and why human sexual conduct is so "intellectualized." It is amazi=
ng, in fact, how an "inappropriate" comment can derail a romantic moment, de=
monstrating the interconnectedness of the "intellectual" and "physical" in h=
uman sexual activity.<BR>
<BR>
Consider this form of fragmentation of mind and body which our culture encou=
rages that is perhaps most sadly and profoundly manifested in our view of se=
xuality. Is this why music is so often used to seduce, because it brea=
ks down the mind/body, or emotion/intellect fragmentation? Is inducing=
the mind to work with the body on a deep level part of the art of seduction=
facilitated by music?<BR>
<BR>
Sexual experience and romance is a dimension of human life where the unity o=
f the mind and body, the unity of emotions and passion, beauty and tendernes=
s, values and principles of caring and empathy, can provide the most wonderf=
ul life affirming experiences. The unity of being possible in sexual e=
xperience might be similar in some respects to the unity of being possible w=
ith musical experiences, yet we all know how deep the chasm is between how w=
e view sexuality and other so called "higher" aspects of life.<BR>
<BR>
To restate: the assumptions that we function with a sharp fragmentation betw=
een the "intellectual" mind and the "emotional" body is exactly why I think=20=
music has such a healing power for many people. It represents a unific=
ation of the emotional and intellectual that assists in overcoming the fragm=
entation of these functions our culture tends to force upon us.<BR>
<BR>
Indeed, the moments in my life when music induces the profound unity of thou=
ght, emotion, imagination, and perception in my body, are so meaningful that=
I cannot imagine a valuable life lived without them. And this unity o=
f types of experiential possibilities can have other effects on a person's a=
pproach to life. Abstract principles of the intellect that instruct be=
havior that is emotionally abhorrent to basic feelings of empathy or compass=
ion are less likely to be followed if there is a unity of emotion and intell=
ect, assuming access to caring compassionate emotions. And a person wh=
o connects their intellect with their emotions may not be as inclined to fly=
off the handle in destructive ways when overcome with<BR>
negative emotion, assuming some discipline of values derived from the intell=
ect.<BR>
<BR>
As you might expect, I do not place intellect and emotion on a hierarchy wit=
h intellect above emotion. I think a sophisticated emotional life, wit=
h emotions connected to the body, with all that this allows a person to expe=
rience in relating to other people and the natural world, to be of far more=20=
critical importance than the very abstract calculative functions of the mind=
. I would rather have a rich loving imaginative emotional life with an=
IQ of 100, than be an emotional zombie with an IQ of 200.<BR>
<BR>
However, I would rather have both, which music facilitates most excellently.=
<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett</FONT></HTML>
--part1_8e.d1465b7.2df95b28_boundary--