As I was studying the Sacred Geometry, I read something that was so interesting. According to the Platonists, “geometrical knowledge is innate in us, having been acquired before birth when our souls were in contact with the realm of ideal being”.
Now, this might sound absurd, but the people who follow Plato see that everyone has geometry in them as intuition because it has been acquired before birth. This is why when we see geometrical shapes, we react to them, whether we know it or not. When Plato was alive, he asks “his servant boy” to solve a geometrical problem by intuition. The boy had no education what so ever of how to solve the problem, but using his intuition, he solves the problem by doubling the square.
Now, this might sound absurd, but the people who follow Plato see that everyone has geometry in them as intuition because it has been acquired before birth. This is why when we see geometrical shapes, we react to them, whether we know it or not. When Plato was alive, he asks “his servant boy” to solve a geometrical problem by intuition. The boy had no education what so ever of how to solve the problem, but using his intuition, he solves the problem by doubling the square.
I was really intrigued by that story and interested in how our intuition, or innateness is such an important factor that should not be ignored.
I was reading this article called, ‘Music and Cognitive Science’ by Roger Scruton written in 2014. The article is very interesting, which is about how humans have the ability to recognize when the music sounds weird or “absent”. First of all, music is not just a bunch of sounds that are jammed together. Music is like language where there is a certain type of grammar that it follows. “It becomes music only if it also makes musical sense... Sounds become music as a result of organization, and this organization is something that we perceive and whose absence we immediately notice, regardless of whether we take pleasure in the result. It is not simply a style. It is more like a grammar, in being the precondition of our response to the result as music. We must therefore acknowledge that music (or at any rate, tonal music of the kind familiar to the Wester listener) has something like a syntax”.
So, music is an organization that we “latch on to” just as we do to our language. This is why we react to music when it is so beautiful. It is also why we notice that the music sounds weird when it goes out of the syntax.
Anyways, since various scientists/musicologists/philosophers believe that music follows a certain grammar, they studied linguistics to see if there is a connection between music and linguistics, and how humans react to them. Intriguing, no?
And because music is so related to math - and music (harmony) is a result of geometry - they decided to solve this question with an algorithm. But before they tested this on music, they tested it on linguistics. “Linguistics attempts to model language use and comprehension in ways that lend themselves to computational analysis. If we could extend to the realm of musicology the advances made in psycholinguistics, therefore, we might be nearer to explaining what goes on, when people assemble the notes that they hear into coherent structures”.
However, because so many scientists believe that linguistics has nothing to do with music - verbs, adverbs, nouns, adjectives do not mean tempo, pitch, and rhythm in music - there is no further mention of comparison with linguistics.
The model that Dr. David Temperley worked with to analyze music does not have clear conclusion of how humans perceive music. It is not directly related to linguistics, but it is very similar in which people latch on to them. Music is a pattern, a structure, and art that we enjoy. But it sure is interesting how our innateness or intuition allows us to write, understand, perform, and enjoy music all the while we critique, and notice the structure of it.
Since music and the harmony comes from geometry, is it true that geometry is in us as intuition?
If then, what else are we able to detect from our consciousness?
Scruton ends his reseach by saying that musicology is not a science, and that "musical movement is a kind of action, and the 'why?' with which we interrogate it is the 'why?' of the reason and not the 'why?' of cause. The question of how we perceive music cannot be solved with mathematical models or with algorithms. Plus, he hopes that one day, cognitive science will figure out "the forms of inter-personal understanding".
Yes, I hope so too. And I also hope cognitive science will answer the nature of innateness in human beings.
I was reading this article called, ‘Music and Cognitive Science’ by Roger Scruton written in 2014. The article is very interesting, which is about how humans have the ability to recognize when the music sounds weird or “absent”. First of all, music is not just a bunch of sounds that are jammed together. Music is like language where there is a certain type of grammar that it follows. “It becomes music only if it also makes musical sense... Sounds become music as a result of organization, and this organization is something that we perceive and whose absence we immediately notice, regardless of whether we take pleasure in the result. It is not simply a style. It is more like a grammar, in being the precondition of our response to the result as music. We must therefore acknowledge that music (or at any rate, tonal music of the kind familiar to the Wester listener) has something like a syntax”.
So, music is an organization that we “latch on to” just as we do to our language. This is why we react to music when it is so beautiful. It is also why we notice that the music sounds weird when it goes out of the syntax.
Anyways, since various scientists/musicologists/philosophers believe that music follows a certain grammar, they studied linguistics to see if there is a connection between music and linguistics, and how humans react to them. Intriguing, no?
And because music is so related to math - and music (harmony) is a result of geometry - they decided to solve this question with an algorithm. But before they tested this on music, they tested it on linguistics. “Linguistics attempts to model language use and comprehension in ways that lend themselves to computational analysis. If we could extend to the realm of musicology the advances made in psycholinguistics, therefore, we might be nearer to explaining what goes on, when people assemble the notes that they hear into coherent structures”.
However, because so many scientists believe that linguistics has nothing to do with music - verbs, adverbs, nouns, adjectives do not mean tempo, pitch, and rhythm in music - there is no further mention of comparison with linguistics.
The model that Dr. David Temperley worked with to analyze music does not have clear conclusion of how humans perceive music. It is not directly related to linguistics, but it is very similar in which people latch on to them. Music is a pattern, a structure, and art that we enjoy. But it sure is interesting how our innateness or intuition allows us to write, understand, perform, and enjoy music all the while we critique, and notice the structure of it.
Since music and the harmony comes from geometry, is it true that geometry is in us as intuition?
If then, what else are we able to detect from our consciousness?
Scruton ends his reseach by saying that musicology is not a science, and that "musical movement is a kind of action, and the 'why?' with which we interrogate it is the 'why?' of the reason and not the 'why?' of cause. The question of how we perceive music cannot be solved with mathematical models or with algorithms. Plus, he hopes that one day, cognitive science will figure out "the forms of inter-personal understanding".
Yes, I hope so too. And I also hope cognitive science will answer the nature of innateness in human beings.