Thread: Music: is it object or subject?

Consensus of the elites (Meritocratic Aristocracy) is what I prefer to Democracy. But if they fail to understand the very obvious needs and favorites of the society, I don't know what to say.

Also, Democratic Art = Pop

Originally Posted by MacLeod

@Lukecash12

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow.



Appreciating who on whose terms? Are you saying that the contexts in which music is listened to (and which have an impact on the listener and their appreciation of the music) are less important than having a relationship with the composer?

The composer on his/her terms. I am saying that having a relationship with the composer can be more significant and have more implications than just looking for whatever it is we can get in and of ourselves from the music. Understanding, learning, examining, relating, etc. can have more potential value than inspiration for inspiration's sake.

Originally Posted by KenOC

Not so. Societies exist and survive through shared lies and myths. This is as true of ours (and maybe truer) as of others. But I'm getting repetitive...

Societies stagnate and repress themselves through shared lies and myths. The evidence is everywhere. The only reason that we are delusional about our own lies and myths is that they are ours. We seem perfectly content to point out the lies and myths of the past and their obvious negative affect on life. Societies exist through whatever measure of understanding and order it's members can share and preserve. Before we had understanding and order, there was no society. We surely had lies and myths before we had groups large enough, cooperative enough, and successful enough to call societies. Lies and myths are what kept people locked in a cycle of fear, death, pain, and ignorance. To anyone who this isn't clear to, there must be some amount of delusion present within. People today must realize that this is the basis upon which they have the safety, amenities, rights, and property that they enjoy. Otherwise, if left to their own devices, the process would simply start again.

So it will seem to anybody who speaks of the "lies and myths" they don't share. But they are seldom aware of the ones that they *do* share!

Originally Posted by KenOC

So it will seem to anybody who speaks of the "lies and myths" they don't share. But they are seldom aware of the ones that they *do* share!

Of course, they are of an unspoken nature, like sacrament. People in modern day America, even very anti-religious and socially liberal, would be surprised to know that there is an air of sacrament behind some of their foundational conventions. They need certain unspoken axioms in order for their system to work, typical liberal axioms such as basic rights, the value of labor, and so on and so forth. Because of their sacraments, ideas like practicality can seem "heretical", which they word as "inhuman" or some synonym. This is because of the utopian sacrament, this ultimate goal. There may be no religious sentiment behind it, but the reasoning and reactions are very similar to those of the religious.

Of course, I don't mean to imply my own views about politics here. I meant to supply a type of hypothetical. A stand-in whose sacraments (or lies and myths as you call them) we can examine. You may even be of those very views, that is: social liberalism. But I imagine you can see along the lines that the word sacrament can apply to different groups, even those that are highly secular. I chose one that could be highly secular, because it was an interesting example, and one that was humorous to apply the word to.