When listening to music, one’s mood can be altered profoundly.
But when creating music, the resultant music is profoundly affected by the mood of the composer.

So, which is the creator, and which the created?

It appears that it is neither and both, or rather it is the unity, or relationship that is the result of the combined effort.
This ethereal aspect of duality that links creator and created, begs the question as to whether or not this is the same for all human experience.

Many experiences are only made real by the inter-relationship of ‘giver’ and ‘receiver’ whether animate, or inanimate.

We are designed to interact with our surroundings, not to stand separate from them.
We are not observers of the universe but inextricable participants in the constant interplay of all aspects of our lives.
The interplay is carried out in the form of ‘relationship’ with whatever it is that we are involved with at any given moment.

(subsequent thoughts from 3 days later…)
So, if the last paragraph above is true, then what is the ‘substance’ of  ‘thought’ if not something that has no direct relationship…?
Or does it?

Non-abstract thought is related to that about which the thought is centred.
For instance, if I was to think about my child’s bike, I will remember that the brakes need sorting out and a puncture needs fixing. I also remember that it is red, has old rusty steel wheels (which is probably the real problem with the brakes!) and that the handlebars are higher than I would like, but he’s happy with them.
So there is a direct relationship between me (and my thoughts) and the bike, even though I am nowhere near the bike at this moment.
If the bike didn’t exist, then the thoughts would not have occurred as there would not have been a relationship to be ‘entertained’.
Actually, come to think of it, the relationship is between me and my memories of the bike. So at this moment, the relationship is between me… and me!

Now, here’s a thought… if while I’m away, someone were to take the bike and utterly disassemble it right down to an atomic level so that there was no true remnant left, my thoughts could continue, thereby indicating that the bike exists somewhere in time and space… which brings the question up of ‘Why can’t I remember things that are a part of my future?’ they also exist in time and space, and they have the same status as the bike in that they don’t exist now…….!

So what about abstract thought? To what is that related?
…or is it ever truly abstract…? Can something be thought of that has never been experienced / witnessed / developed from something else…?
If not, then thoughts that are apparently abstract, are in fact related to those things that have been experienced / witnessed / etc, and through the human ability to use imagination, something new can be envisaged… but the new ‘thing’ is still a development of something in the person’s past.

Advertisements