[size=150]
All music, based upon melody & rhythm, is the earthly representative of heavenly music - Plotinus (AD 205 - 269)
Confucius said -
’ The music of Cheng is lewd & corrupting, the music of Sung is soft & makes one effeminate, the music of Wei is repetitious & annoying, & the music of Ch’i is harsh & makes one haughty ’
The censorship of music without offensive lyrics,the condemnation of it,makes no sense,unless musical notes & their combination have a power. A power able to create mayhem and unrest. Confucius believed they did,he believed like Plotinus that good music was the earthly representation of wisdom and order in the heavens .
The ancient Chinese writings Yo Ki
(Memorial of Music)
Under the effect of music, the 5 social duties are without admixture, the eyes & ears are clear, the blood & the vital energies are balanced, habits are reformed, customs are improved, & the empire is at complete peace
Let us look at how Chinese philosophers may have arrived at this conclusion.
We can see through his condemnation of certain musical styles amongst other things,that Confucius believed in a spiritual universe, governed by a higher intelligence. One Musicians & Artists were expected to reflect.
So which music did Confucius consider most beneficial ?
’ The noble-minded man’s music is mild & delicate, keeps a uniform mood, enlivens & moves. Such a man does not harbour pain or mourn in his heart; violent & daring movements are foreign to him '[/size]
very interesting. I love music and theories of music w/wisdom excite me greatly. If you have any more info on this, please point me in that direction. Thanks.
The “music” that Confucius spoke of is slightly different from what is understood under the English term “music”; “entertainment” is probably a better word, since the music of Confucius included dancers, instruments, lyrics, the whole deal. This is important because many of the depraved forms of music that Confucius condemned would involve things like licentiously clad dancers, an improper number of dancers (such as too many for a particular lord’s status), as well as inflammatory lyrics. The music that Confucius thought was the most beneficial was music that came from the people, specifically the people of Zhou, the dynasty which he held as a golden age. During that time, chroniclers compiled 300 of the lyrics to the folk-songs in the Shijing, the Classic of Odes. It was one of the five Chinese classics that Confucians memorized both for edification, and later the Imperial Civil Service Examination. Naturally. it is filled with all sorts of veiled references to figures in Chinese History and other symbolic references that would have been common knowledge to the original audience and then would have been learned by later scholars. For example, “The Sun” almost always refers to a particularly corrupt tyrant. Interestingly, the poet Ezra Pound was fascinated with Confucianism and created a re-imagined translation of the Classic of Odes. While it has some problems from the perspective of a sinologist, it is an interesting read.
Mencius, who further developed Confucianism and is considered the greatest scholar after Confucius himself, has this to say about music:
Im sure the Master would be delighted to hear that his philosophy has such profound effect on even hardened materialists like yourself Xunzian, who denounce any idea of a spirit and afterlife . I believe he would take it as a great tribute, and surely agree that discussing Gods, their evolution, the beginning of the universe & the spirit, is not so important, but that your happiness, prosperity & longevity is
I can agree with that. After all, the Master rarely spoke of spirits/gods – and many modern sinologists think the ancient Chinese lacked what we would consider a Creation Myth, so he wouldn’t have been likely to ask that sort of question either.
Naturally, since only someone ignorant would assume its impossible they were there @ all. The master disliked ignoramuses, and as I said, happiness is more important.
Im sure the Master wouldnt be overly concerned with what sinologists have to say. And Im confident most of his questions were directed originally in much the same way as Chang san feng directed his own, through physical training. Other than that, his questions were aimed @ other people. Naturally though, if you havent trained to a sufficient standard, you cant comment on those levels of conciousness the master speaks of, which he has experienced through his own Kung fu. For example, you cannot be a strict atheist and a Taoist @ the same time, since it undermines the entire Taoist Philosophy. It is the same for the philosophy of Confucius. But as I say, that your happy is whats important
I agree physical training is an important part of Confucian self-cultivation – Confucius repeatedly stressed archery as a refined means to strengthen one’s self.
But I disagree that atheism and Confucianism are incompatible; indeed, I think that Confucian principles taken to their ends are atheistic in nature. The anthropocosmic Confucian cosmology is predicated upon both organic holism and dynamic vitalism. Spiritual notions are either rendered toothless or non-existent (depending on how far you want to take it) by organic holism, while dynamic vitalism requires the constant production and reproduction to be by, through, and ultimately for nature. There is no place in such a cosmology for spirits, though few thinkers were willing to take it that far due to historical reasons.
Of course, it was always the Masters intention as Ive said, that anyone can embrace the philosophy, happiness is whats matters most, and all teachings are the same, which one you find happiness through is not as important, just that you find it. But then, this is a new age, several hundreds of years after Confucius died, and Socrates, all teachings evolve. The master presents a seed, in time, it grows into something completely different, and the phoenix can fly, only when its feathers are grown.
We are discussing the nature of sound itself, the effect of it on people, and the source from which sound sprang, according to Confucius, and all other masters for that matter, a science, not history, Xunzian. I,ll show you the difference between you and Confucius. Its the difference between these two pieces of music.
Indeed, all teachings do evolve. May I ask your line of transmission for the Master’s teachings? I’m dead serious. Let’s go from 550 BCE until now, with justifications as to why they manifest the Mind of Heaven. We can have a nice side-discussion about what Heaven entails. I suggest we make a debate of it, I’m even willing to go first. Are you game? Fairly standard debate rules:
Opening A: Me, just me.
Opening B: You cannot reference my opening, just you.
Rebuttal A: I respond to your opening.
Rebuttal B: You respond to both my opening and rebuttal.
Conclusion A: I conclude, referencing any of the above.
Conclusion B: You conclude, referencing any of the above, including my conclusion.
You wanna rock it? You can even pick the topic: “Is Confucianism theistic?” “What is the proper line of transmission for Confucianism?” “What does the concept of Heaven entail in Confucianism?” or any other topic relevant to this thread you can imagine. I am 100% down, as the kids say. Let’s do this.
Or we could do it informally here. That is fine too. So how 'bout it?
We could even discuss the Confucian view of music, if you’d like. It is a topic near to my heart.
X,
I’m lovin’ it. I’m a musician. Music is the universal language. It is mathematics with a voice.
Did some of these Eastern ideas travel to the West in Middle Ages concepts of the music of the spheres?
A PBS broadcast about Oliver Sacks, one of my all-time heros, told of a hospitalized woman who never spoke. She was visted by a musician. When he played a song she apparently knew, she sang along, word for word.
it’s difficult for me to claim that some music disrupts one’s internal harmony. When I drove to work, my car stereo would one day be blasting Beethoven and another day “Old Black Betty”, no damn in the wham.
I am unaware of any intellectual cross-pollenation, with respect to music. That doesn’t mean it didn’t occur, Roman traders made it as far as China and later on the Mongol Empire allowed for a lot of cross-cultural dialogue. But I don’t think it would be necessary, as you say music is a universal language. It seems intuitive that many cultures would come to the same conclusions about it Even down to using the microcosm of music to represent the macrocosm.
As for music disturbing harmony, I shouldn’t have to tell a musician that music incites passion. That is the point, after all Naturally, different music will incite different passions. After that, it becomes a normative consideration. If we agree that certain passions are better than others, or more desirable than others, it follows that some music is more desirable than others.
That is part of what Mencius was talking about in the section I quoted. When we discover the passions that music awakens, we want to share them and experience them more deeply.
I am 100% in favor of reviving past consciousness. I think awareness of Pythagorain concepts can help us understand the Confucius concepts regarding music.
I am not sure of spirits other then our own spirits, happy, high morale, despondant, meloncholy, chaotic, stressed or angry or whatever is that feeling state that influences our thinking. Our spirits can be high or low. For sure music has a strong effect on our feeling state, even when we are not aware of how the music is effecting us. So do colors influence our feeling state, or our environment city or rural, concrete and blacktop or a stream and wild life, enclosed or open, forest or desert. Good music and good art are very important to our state of being.
The causal relationship need not be so direct. Rap does serve to promote external goods (fame, fortune, ect. in the form of bitches and bling) over internal goods, which may retard the moral development of its listeners. Granted, rap need not do this, and not all rap does. However much of the corporate rap that is played on the airwaves and promoted to inner city youth does just that. Which is unfortunate and ironic, given the origins of hip-hop, as Chuck D put it, was to serve as “The Black CNN”.
Athena,
Interesting article. And while I agree that music can be modeled mathematically, I ultimately think that such a process runs the risk of robbing music of its moral power. I think as soon as music becomes rooted in mathematics as opposed to humanity it becomes an automaton, and that is dangerous. The other day I was listening to a conductorless take on the Four Seasons and it was shocking to hear what arose, and how a piece that I am incredibly familiar with can change dramatically when presented in a different way. But that is how it should be, arising from well trained, well practiced orchestra.
That doesn’t mean that mathematical studies can’t be used to identify various tropes. Indeed, there was a recent Science article that dealt with just that notion. I could dig it up if you’d like. But how will mathematics tell us that music in flat tones is “somber” and even “sad”, whereas in sharp tones is “joyful” and “uplifting”? These have to identified by a human element, so I feel music ought be rooted in humanity.
Athena,
I like it. But one must remember that all we know of Pythagoras comes from his desciples, as is true of Jesus.
X,
Who says mood cannot be statistically (mathematically) analyzed without damage to its integrity? Or that mathematical underpinnings of our “minds” are limited to reason and have nothing to do with emotion?
As per the issue of young blacks, there is still considerable debate as to why the gangsta mentality-- Obama/Cosby vs street smarts.
Of course it can be analyzed, never would I suggest that the act of analysis destroys authenticity. But I do think it is a matter of approach – music ought be grounded in humanity, then mathematics can be used to model the situation and perhaps refine it, so that it may be returned to humanity. That is different from the system Pythagoras envisioned, where music existed for the sake of the numbers, it was grounded in mathematics, and through mathematics approached humanity. I think that type of analysis is mistaken because it neglects the roots while looking at the branches. Such an approach, in my experience, will not bear fruit.
As for the Gangsta culture, of course it cannot be placed at the feet of rap, rap is merely an element involved. If you ask me, it is a pretty clear case of strain theory in action. Rebellion arises when the system fails a particular group (or groups) of people, so new means and new goals are produced in an attempt to better serve the defecting group. Now, I don’t think I’m suggesting anything too controversial when I state that the American system has failed African Americans horrifically, especially if you look to the origins of hip-hop culture in post-White Flight, disenfranchised inner cities. Xunzi said, “Music embodies an unchanging harmony, while rites represent unalterable reason. Music unites that which is the same; rites distinguish that which is different; and through the combination of rites and music the human heart is governed…” I think that demonstrates why when rebellion occurs, the new means and goals are promulgated through new forms of music and ritual behavior.
But capitalism is a highly adaptable system, so drugs were introduced into the inner-cities. In a sub-set of a capitalist society, where mores are being changed/questioned and the notion of success as has been denied to a particular group remains somewhat ill-defined, drugs represent a very tempting path to salvation. Both in terms of using as well as selling. Couple that with the correlation between violence and poverty that I’ve discussed elsewhere and you have a mighty brew.
Throw on top of that exploiters who both want to profit from the rebellion (it does represent a new market, something capitalists always seek) while preventing the rebellion from actually threatening their position, and the sort of corporate rap that exists nowadays is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
X,
While I see your examinations of black culture as accurate, I still believe your considerations of music smack of romanticism. Math, in its physical manefestation, preceeds and develops into “humanity”. Structure preceeds concept. I am an instrument that plays human. My structure develops as that. Why should we see some sort of schism where none exists?
White hippies had the drugs before they became a black societal issue. Were the hippies disenfranchised or simply fed up?
I’d agree that my view on music smacks of romanticism – I have a romantic view of music I do not think it is flawed to suggest that certain human impulses are pre-rational. That doesn’t mean these impluses can’t be examined rationally, but I think such an analysis can only go so far before it falls flat on its face. We can rationally dissect why we love the ones we love, but at the end of the day such an approach doesn’t even come close to answering, “Why this person and not that person?” Despite the fact that we’ve already answered that question through our actions. I think music works on a similar principle.
I think you and I agree on most basic issues. We are just two different sets of eyes looking at the same thing. Wouldn’t anything considered universal depend on all the eyes it could get? Please note my last post in the noun & verb thread and Krossie’s response. Also, much needed there is your take on Chinese language. If I’m soliciting here, I’m not sorry.
I first heard Yael Naim’s “New Soul” via a Mac Commercial on t.v. Immediately the sound moved me. I had to rush to the piano and find that melody. Why? Was it the mix of little girl and grown woman that came through in Yael’s voice? Was it the novelty of the melody?
I can’t get into the ephemeral divisions of soul and substance. Something that is me alligned with the something melodically expressed. There was a recognition of kinship of this and that.
Even down to using the microcosm of music to represent the macrocosm.
Please note my last post in the noun & verb thread and Krossie’s response. Also, much needed there is your take on Chinese language. If I’m soliciting here, I’m not sorry.