Hi guys & gals,
It's been a long time since I posted something on this forum... I think the last time I did I had some idea of making a virtual Kazoo... before that me and my AudioNerdz buddies gladly announced Delay Lama here. Gosh, that's seven years ago already... how time flies.
Speaking of how time flies, that's what I want to talk about. These past few years I've done a lot of philosophizing about well, everything; how everything works, how life works, how we work, how we can solve problems better. I've been coming at it from several different angles: psychologically, culturally, esoterically and of course also in terms of practical, playful music technology.
One of my heroes has become Alan Watts, the British-born philosopher and comparative religion scholar; his recordings from the 60's and 70's have broadened my scope a whole lot, and the great thing is that he in the end says that Music is the best way to understand the Universe. It is One Big Jazz.
Of course it's not so hard to take this figuratively; what I want to investigate is how this is *also* the literal truth: Music is the fundamental organisational principle of Creation, of the Universe.
To that end, I'd like to present to you some information that I've gathered from a couple of interesting sources, such as controversial but oh-so intruiging researchers and practitioners such as David Wilcock, Marko Rodin and Ani Williams. My goal in this is not to flabbergast with flowery esoteric language, in an attempt to get comforted in my specific world view; I want to make some kick-ass new software with it, that works for all of us.
I have the feeling that we might be able to reach a new understanding of how different fields of inquiry are much more related than we've realized: music, life science and computer science.
Thanks! Steven
Sacred Music Technology
-
- KVRAF
- 1534 posts since 18 Jan, 2005
-
- Banned
- 6129 posts since 9 Oct, 2007 from an inharmonious society
Best learning of life from books, has been from this guy, for me anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Murchie
Music of the spheres, and the seven mysteries of life, I've read.
Great reading.
imo though, the greatest thinker was Lao Zi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Murchie
Music of the spheres, and the seven mysteries of life, I've read.
Great reading.
imo though, the greatest thinker was Lao Zi.
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 11 posts since 27 Jan, 2005
@Ubiety yes, I love these intrinsically musical words like 'universe'. I wonder who came up with them, and what they knew about music 
I also like how Deepak Chopra talks about how the innate workings of the universe as something that we can align with personally; in this thread I'd like to explore whether it is something we can also align our music technology to. More, closer & better than we've been doing up until now.
@MCnoone thanks! Hadn't heard of Guy Murchie yet, looks very interesting indeed. I see that he was a member of the Bahå'i faith; so is Marko Rodin, whose work on resonant mathematics I find very intruiging. It seems that there is a lot of technical/topological information to be found in religion; especially their mystical traditions. For instance, the Sefirot figure from Kabbalah appears to describe a 3D wave pattern system; Nassim Haramein has some juicy information on that.
In general, I think, there is a much bigger formative elegance to the universe than we normally realize. Mainstream science still seems to think that life as we know it is a 'glorious accident'; a very lucky fluke in an otherwise totally random universe. I guess this stance has its benefits; it's a good starting point for investigation in any direction. Still, it doesn't allow very much for these different fields of research to come together again, and together evaluate their findings in a commonly understood language, a common context.
What I'm seeing more and more plausible evidence of, is the idea that there *is* a nonrandom, nonarbitrary structure/topology to the universe, that is rigid but doesn't impede creativity; it fosters it. Just like musical instruments have a very rigid octave structure and still/thereby allow for a huge range of expressiveness.
I love how music instruments can be helpful in illustrating points like these In the same way, I wonder whether a next-generation digital music system could be helpful in not only illustrating, but even directly facilitating all kinds of questions that arise in information processing in general. The Rosetta Stone might be a very cool piece of music gear...
On the topic of nonarbitrary topology, with discrete boundaries (forgive my ongoing search for the best terms to use btw), I'd like to introduce you to the work of David Wilcock. He is becoming a quite popular figure in the 2012 debate; he has been doing research on new paradigms of matter & energy for years and years now. He's published three books on his website divinecosmos.com (see http://tinyurl.com/dwbooks) that discuss and synthesize many ancient and modern sources on this topic; I've read most of this material, often with great joy and exhiliration. It can be like reading the 'missing manual' of how the inner workings of the universe function.
I won't try to summarize these books, but then again I will What it comes down to is that there *is* a fundamental medium that everything is generated from, the aether. What's more, the aether has seven discrete boundary levels, seven densities, seven 'sample rates' (or bit resolutions? hmm...) that can be identified from micro to macro, and have a clear resemblance to diatonic musical intervals.
Or... we might better say that the typical musical intervals we're familiar with resemble these seven densities. And that music is the most direct way of experiencing how the universe is actually structured.
More later! If you like
I also like how Deepak Chopra talks about how the innate workings of the universe as something that we can align with personally; in this thread I'd like to explore whether it is something we can also align our music technology to. More, closer & better than we've been doing up until now.@MCnoone thanks! Hadn't heard of Guy Murchie yet, looks very interesting indeed. I see that he was a member of the Bahå'i faith; so is Marko Rodin, whose work on resonant mathematics I find very intruiging. It seems that there is a lot of technical/topological information to be found in religion; especially their mystical traditions. For instance, the Sefirot figure from Kabbalah appears to describe a 3D wave pattern system; Nassim Haramein has some juicy information on that.
In general, I think, there is a much bigger formative elegance to the universe than we normally realize. Mainstream science still seems to think that life as we know it is a 'glorious accident'; a very lucky fluke in an otherwise totally random universe. I guess this stance has its benefits; it's a good starting point for investigation in any direction. Still, it doesn't allow very much for these different fields of research to come together again, and together evaluate their findings in a commonly understood language, a common context.
What I'm seeing more and more plausible evidence of, is the idea that there *is* a nonrandom, nonarbitrary structure/topology to the universe, that is rigid but doesn't impede creativity; it fosters it. Just like musical instruments have a very rigid octave structure and still/thereby allow for a huge range of expressiveness.
I love how music instruments can be helpful in illustrating points like these
In the same way, I wonder whether a next-generation digital music system could be helpful in not only illustrating, but even directly facilitating all kinds of questions that arise in information processing in general. The Rosetta Stone might be a very cool piece of music gear...On the topic of nonarbitrary topology, with discrete boundaries (forgive my ongoing search for the best terms to use btw), I'd like to introduce you to the work of David Wilcock. He is becoming a quite popular figure in the 2012 debate; he has been doing research on new paradigms of matter & energy for years and years now. He's published three books on his website divinecosmos.com (see http://tinyurl.com/dwbooks) that discuss and synthesize many ancient and modern sources on this topic; I've read most of this material, often with great joy and exhiliration. It can be like reading the 'missing manual' of how the inner workings of the universe function.
I won't try to summarize these books, but then again I will
What it comes down to is that there *is* a fundamental medium that everything is generated from, the aether. What's more, the aether has seven discrete boundary levels, seven densities, seven 'sample rates' (or bit resolutions? hmm...) that can be identified from micro to macro, and have a clear resemblance to diatonic musical intervals.Or... we might better say that the typical musical intervals we're familiar with resemble these seven densities. And that music is the most direct way of experiencing how the universe is actually structured.
More later! If you like
-
- Hun #3
- 4265 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from A quaint little village just south of Hamburg, Germany
I once saw this awesome documentary about a scientific experiment involving sand on a plate that would form different patterns depending on what frequency the plate vibrated at. The overall theme being 'In the beginning there was sound' ie 'the word'. (alluding to the famous line in Genesis).crosswick wrote:what I want to investigate is how this is *also* the literal truth: Music is the fundamental organisational principle of Creation, of the Universe.
Opinions vary greatly on the subject of Deepak Chopra. I tend to side with his critics from what I've read.
I loved 'The Tao of Physics' though even though the writer got a fair amount of flak from the skeptic crowd.
But anyway yeah, sound or more generally frequency seems to be a very fundamental part of reality. Fascinating stuff!!
I love how you get all these quantity-turns-to-quality kind of phenomena when you're dealing with frequency. It's all an illusion, tres buddhist. Like the repetition of a single cycle waveform creating different pitches.
Maybe what we perceive as reality is to ultimate reality what a synth note is to a single cycle waveform...
Marco
-
- KVRian
- 882 posts since 20 Feb, 2004
These books are pretty interesting, too. More scientific than mystical, but very insightful.
This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel J. Levitin
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, Revised and Expanded Edition by Oliver Sacks
This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession by Daniel J. Levitin
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, Revised and Expanded Edition by Oliver Sacks
-
- KVRAF
- 2813 posts since 14 Feb, 2001 from What do you care? :)
Sounds like you had some time well spent. Very cool. And yes... the cosmos is based on music... e.g, based on sound. Based on vibration. Even Tolkien hinted at this in the Silmarillion so many years ago, e.g., the Silmarils sang everything into being. I've always thought that was a fantastic idea. I believe very deeply that music is sacred and that the creation of it is a sacred act. It's unfortunate that in the midst of sacredness one finds so much profanity and the music industry as a whole is such a foul attempt at the harnessing of some profound and deep-seated elemental truths to its own purposes. One finds that a lot of music and people's attempts to create it are nothing more than efforts based towards the neverending quest for the Bon Ton - that is, the neverending quest for fame. Fame as an end in itself. The quality of their music reflects that. Still, there is also much created that is truly inspired, truly mindful, and truly deeply felt. A balance is maintained. Welcome back to this place and wishing you continued momentum on your ongoing journey!
Available on iTunes, Amazon, etc.
-
- Banned
- 6129 posts since 9 Oct, 2007 from an inharmonious society
Well that's business.Sequent wrote:It's unfortunate that in the midst of sacredness one finds so much profanity and the music industry as a whole is such a foul attempt at the harnessing of some profound and deep-seated elemental truths to its own purposes.
It has a way of destruction, in order to supply income.
That's when the music is made to conform to the "target" audience.
The "target" being a very narrow one.
Now if you take a genre of say "rap, rock, or metal". It's loud, aggression, or portrait of anger. Some might say it's not in harmony with nature.
That the waves of nature are more like ambient drones.
I disagree with that.
Nature can also become aggressive, and angry. Natures sound would include every musical outcome that man can create, and more.
Although this thread mentions many intelligent thinkers through time.
I would point you to a scientist, who was also a great thinker, and very underrated imo, that would be Niels Bohr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr
He understood much more than most, on the nature of nature.
Just read a few quotes by him, and you'll see what I mean.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... _bohr.html
Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.
Niels Bohr
-
- KVRAF
- 4890 posts since 3 Jan, 2003 from Vancouver
What was he before he became Alan Watts?crosswick wrote:One of my heroes has become Alan Watts, the British-born philosopher and comparative religion scholar
Surely there must be consensus by now...
-
- Narcissistic Messiah
- 4565 posts since 8 Apr, 2002 from https://soundcloud.com/remcoh
-
- KVRAF
- 5948 posts since 19 Jun, 2008 from Melbourne, Australia
Interesting discussion
All of it is the music of the universe, it all comes from the same source. It can never be "all good" or "all bad" (Yin and Yang) ... it can never be "all to ones taste" (i.e. culturally defined) ... all of it is sacred in the same way just because it is ... whether it's Steve Roach beating a gong in a cave or <name your least favourite pop star> gyrating on stage while miming to a tape.
It is all beautiful / sacred / one.
Peace,
Andy.
I totally agree with this statement. As much as I detest (most) "pop music" ... you can't really say "this over here is the sacred music of the universe" but "that other stuff I don't like is not".MCnoone wrote:Now if you take a genre of say "rap, rock, or metal". It's loud, aggression, or portrait of anger. Some might say it's not in harmony with nature.
That the waves of nature are more like ambient drones.
I disagree with that.
Nature can also become aggressive, and angry. Natures sound would include every musical outcome that man can create, and more.
All of it is the music of the universe, it all comes from the same source. It can never be "all good" or "all bad" (Yin and Yang) ... it can never be "all to ones taste" (i.e. culturally defined) ... all of it is sacred in the same way just because it is ... whether it's Steve Roach beating a gong in a cave or <name your least favourite pop star> gyrating on stage while miming to a tape.
It is all beautiful / sacred / one.
Peace,
Andy.
-
- KVRian
- 1433 posts since 29 Jan, 2008 from Arboretum Avenue
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 11 posts since 27 Jan, 2005
@Bonteburg yes, Cymatics! I recently saw a TED talk on these 2D standing wave patterns:
http://www.ted.com/talks/evan_grant_cymatics.html
@ravasb yes, I have the Levitin book next to my bed, only read the first 20 pages or so. Love how he writes that many school children grow up to believe that there is a letter called "ellemenno"
@Sequent yes, Tolkien probably was some kind of Freemason, right? Apparently the whole thing of the Universe being generated from elegant musical geometry is typically what those guys play with, or even safeguard as valuable secrets.
On the topic of profane music: I hear you. Somehow mainstream pop music mostly propagates a kind of glamourous centralism; manufacturing these high & mighty stars for the masses to aspire to. Not a very convivial, distributed, full-duplex situation. Would be nice to develop something new in that; I think there are loads of 'stars' that would love to play more in a two-way fashion with other musicians and audiences.
@S.HUSH Wow, what a beautiful illustration of the concept of 'spin' Which I'm finding to be one of the central issues in sacred music technology. You can literally see the guy plot a toroidal course; a donut shape of some sorts. Wonder how high he gets from it
@MCnoone Good points; *everything* is nature, also the expressions of anti-social behaviour we see in popular culture. Personally, I wonder whether it can be seen as an adolescent/pubescent phase of culture, one we can outgrow. Not that we should never use the word 'biatch' ever again, but that we do have a much bigger palet to draw from consciously. Humorously, too. Nice quotes btw! Niels is such a Bohr
@pough hehe yes nice stage name innit? I don't know, would be awesome to have Wikipedia list all the previous (and current!) incarnations of famous people. Or everyone, that would be nice too.
@Emerald Tablet thanks, Pythagoras certainly is interesting. Here's a chapter from Wilcock's book Shift of the Ages which discusses him:
http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start ... dimensions
@ZenPunkHippy yes. But would you also agree that there is an opportunity to make popular music a little less stupid nonetheless?
@daz.diamond Yay!
It's nice to talk to you guys about this, get it out my system, make some room for new thoughts. I'll post some of them here later; they concern stuff like
http://twitter.com/kruithoph/status/6060864701
http://www.ted.com/talks/evan_grant_cymatics.html
@ravasb yes, I have the Levitin book next to my bed, only read the first 20 pages or so. Love how he writes that many school children grow up to believe that there is a letter called "ellemenno"
@Sequent yes, Tolkien probably was some kind of Freemason, right? Apparently the whole thing of the Universe being generated from elegant musical geometry is typically what those guys play with, or even safeguard as valuable secrets.
On the topic of profane music: I hear you. Somehow mainstream pop music mostly propagates a kind of glamourous centralism; manufacturing these high & mighty stars for the masses to aspire to. Not a very convivial, distributed, full-duplex situation. Would be nice to develop something new in that; I think there are loads of 'stars' that would love to play more in a two-way fashion with other musicians and audiences.
@S.HUSH Wow, what a beautiful illustration of the concept of 'spin'
Which I'm finding to be one of the central issues in sacred music technology. You can literally see the guy plot a toroidal course; a donut shape of some sorts. Wonder how high he gets from it @MCnoone Good points; *everything* is nature, also the expressions of anti-social behaviour we see in popular culture. Personally, I wonder whether it can be seen as an adolescent/pubescent phase of culture, one we can outgrow. Not that we should never use the word 'biatch' ever again, but that we do have a much bigger palet to draw from consciously. Humorously, too. Nice quotes btw! Niels is such a Bohr
@pough hehe yes nice stage name innit? I don't know, would be awesome to have Wikipedia list all the previous (and current!) incarnations of famous people. Or everyone, that would be nice too.
@Emerald Tablet thanks, Pythagoras certainly is interesting. Here's a chapter from Wilcock's book Shift of the Ages which discusses him:
http://divinecosmos.com/index.php/start ... dimensions
@ZenPunkHippy yes. But would you also agree that there is an opportunity to make popular music a little less stupid nonetheless?
@daz.diamond Yay!
It's nice to talk to you guys about this, get it out my system, make some room for new thoughts. I'll post some of them here later; they concern stuff like
http://twitter.com/kruithoph/status/6060864701
-
- Hun #3
- 4265 posts since 25 Mar, 2002 from A quaint little village just south of Hamburg, Germany
hmm, learn something new every day...thanks for the link! TED talks rule!crosswick wrote:@Bonteburg yes, Cymatics! I recently saw a TED talk on these 2D standing wave patterns:
http://www.ted.com/talks/evan_grant_cymatics.html
