Thursday, July 08, 2004

Response to SLS

I'm in the mood for a philisophical debate with Scribbs, whom you all might now as the author of The Success Blog. Now, I realize that I'm a science major, up against a humanities (english) major, and I know that SLS can be pretty damn philisophical...smart philisophical...enough to gotten me to say, "Damn, I've never thought of it that way," on more than one occasion. So I'm fully prepared to get my ass kicked. But I feel I've done a lot of quality thinking over the last year and half, and I'm up for the challenge. So it goes.

Story is, "Scribbs," (I've also called him SLS, if your confused) and I had an interesting little IM conversation the other night in which we discussed two different ways that people generally listen to music, and he wrote about it in a Recent Post. I alluded to it as well, in my Previous Post following my glorious reunion with running, to which SLS commented, stating: (This is just part of the comment, I actually recommend reading the entire post)

"I disagree, about the two kinds of people that you say are simply people who "fail to recognize or decide not to recognize the value of either the lyrics or the music". I can't speak for you, but as for me, I do recognize the value of lyrics (which are, for me, not my thing). My point, is that while I recognize the value of lyrics when I actually hear them and internalize them, this is not something that I initially and instinctively do. I cannot change that, because it isn't concious. I place no greater "value" on music than on lyrics; rather, I simply do not naturally "hear" the words of a song. It just doesn't register. "

Here is MY question: Who is to say that there are not other areas of your consiousness that you haven't reached yet, but are reachable by training yourself to think in ways that you are not used to thinking? Take learning another langauge. A lot of the meanings and ideas conveyed in other langauages could never be directly translated in English. Perhaps this means that there are other ways to think that we are unaware of unless we are fluent in another language. Fluent, as in flawlessly able to transition between two languages during one conversation...even mid-sentence, like my mother can do in Spanish and English. Anyway, these other ways to think would inevitably allow us to be consious of things that we never realized our minds were capable of being consious of. My point is that although I like your explanation using the subconsious aspect, it is simply under our current mode of thought to believe that we will never be consious what what we call our "subconsious." But, you can train yourself to think in a different way, just as you train yourself to do physical tasks. You are CHANGING your brain when you learn to do physical tasks. You are CHANGING your brain when learn to listen to the lyrics and music equally. Synaptic Plasticity. You still are just as conscious of the lyrics as you ever have been, but now your SIMULTANEOUSLY more consious to the music. At this instant, you may not think you are capable of that, but how do you know? Maybe your "sub" conscious is merely something waiting to be found in the depths of your consciousness. Its always been there, in your mind, but only in experience can you learn to recognize it. There will always be subconscious, but I think our conscious minds are capable of becoming conscious of our subconscious. My my opinion is very much fueld by my knowledge of neuroscience. It just makes sense to me, even scientifically, that our minds are capable, on their own, of so much more than most people ever will realize. Have faith in the ability of your brain to expand your consciousness. It has the biological and physical tools to do so.

Our consiousness is merely our personal archetype of consiousness. Archetypes have been replaced before, haven't they?



1 Comments:

At July 14, 2004 at 12:28 AM, Blogger scribbs said...

Hmm, interesting. I can't say as I am comfortable getting into a "conciousness" "subconciousness" discussion, I admit that I have no real knowledge of scientific descriptions of the two, but, while I agree with much of what you say, and find it interesting, I would like to say that I, for one, do not WANT to "change" my brain so that I am more concious of lyrics. I think you may well be rght, that I am fully capable of that, and that it is already going on in my "subconcious", but I think that may be just where I like it. As soon as I change my brain, and bring that to my conciousness, I have gained something, yes, but I have also lost something. I believe (with no scientific reasoning oncesoever) that there are things that our subconcious, or instinct, or feeling, or intuitin, may be able to interpret and observe better than our "concious" selves. For me, perhaps this is the way I like to listen to lyric music. As soon as I truly understand what is being said, I lose my ability to freely adapt to the underlying tone and emotion of the author. I suppose it is a tossup which option is better, there is something to be said for both, but for me, an initial listen to a piece of music is an experience. The same can be true for a piece of poetry. Often, i will read a poem for the first time, and only get a feeling, an emotion, and a tone from the author. I understand the ideas they are trying to get across without being cognizant of the actually words or even "plot" of a piece. For me, music is similar. Perhaps the best course of action, for me, is to then approach to song as a poem, which it is, and upon second and third listenings, hear the words on their literal level, just as when reading a poem for a second time. Then, with each subsequent time, read or listen for all of the other layers that can hide within words. In the end, I think you are right, we can, and should train our brains to try to experience art, and life, for that matter, in every way possible, bringing, at different times, each aspect of something to the forefront of our minds. With music, for me, however, the key is at different times, and on my first time, I just hear sounds, not words.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home