Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

religious beliefs of the classical composers???

I'm just trying to point out that you're misrepresenting Judeo-Christianity.

I'm not.

Personal God + morality = individual comparison to God.

You're so busy waxing dualist that you aren't listening to the argument: the Pagan worldview kept God-as-man out of the equation, and made the gods a force of nature, and that order of nature -- that process -- was what they revere.

Traditionalists, for example, tend to try to make dualistic what isn't, forgetting that a process MANIFESTED in an ongoing physical order means the physical is as essential as the abstract. Schopenhauer -- far brighter than Guenon, Evola and Shakespeare combined -- points this out in the first chapter of TWWR:I.

I'm just trying to point out that you're misrepresenting Judeo-Christianity.

I'm not.

Personal God + morality = individual comparison to God.

You're so busy waxing dualist that you aren't listening to the argument: the Pagan worldview kept God-as-man out of the equation, and made the gods a force of nature, and that order of nature -- that process -- was what they revere.

Traditionalists, for example, tend to try to make dualistic what isn't, forgetting that a process MANIFESTED in an ongoing physical order means the physical is as essential as the abstract. Schopenhauer -- far brighter than Guenon, Evola and Shakespeare combined -- points this out in the first chapter of TWWR:I.

I keep pointing out to you that the "personal God" as literal, individuated sentience is a bastardization of genuine Judeo-Christian doctrine. In these doctrines, God is an abstract absolute that contains and unifies the whole realm of principles. I am also trying to make the point that while there is a correct way to understand paganism - recognition of the pantheon as the totality of metaphysical relationships and principles.

The main argument I was challenging here was that Judeo-Christianity hinges on anthropomorphism. It simply DOES NOT. Much more so than the pagan systems, which invariably have used human-like symbols to represent cosmic realities, traditional Judeo-Christianity dispenses with that which is purely human in its symbolism.

However, these differences in semiotics asside, both doctrinal systems point towards the same point. There is no true schism between them. The only way one can be erected is through ignorance or deliberate guile.

Regarding the supposed 'dualism' that I and other 'Traditionalists' slip into (I'm not even sure why this is relevant to what we were arguing about).... This is also false. Heirarchy does not imply dualism. As I have said, over and over again on these forums and on the other one, there is not an antagonism between form and essence, manifestation and principle. One is contingent, however, on the other. IIt is also worth pointing out that the Traditionalist thinkers themselves deny any antagonism between the world of manifestations and the world of principles - but this isn't the same thing as denying distinctions.

To summarize with some words of Guenon:

"All that is, in whatever mode it may be, necessarily participates in universal principles, which are the eternal and immutable essences contained in the permanent actuality of the divine Intellect; consequently, one can say that all things, however contingent they may be in themselves, express or represent these principles in their own manner and according to their own order of existence, for otherwise they would only be a pure nothingness. All things, in every order of existence, are connected and correspond to one another so as to contribute to a universal and total harmony; for harmony, as we have already said, is nothing other than the reflection of principial unity in the multiplicity of the manifested world; and it is this correspondence that is the true foundation of symbolism."

mathˇeˇmatˇics
  1  : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations   

My definition was more exact, but this is passable: they emphasize that mathematics examines the quality of abstract quantities, which, first of all, is altogether different from the concept of material sensory quantitativity. Two, five apples or 12 apples -- any multitude of apples is fine, as it makes no particular difference to the quality of an arbitrary apple. However, numbers 2, 5 and 12 have completely different number theoretical and operational qualities!

Second point is that you are still thinking that mathematics is just numbers, which is wrong. The numbers are just a means, a starting point upon which a meta-language is realized. Mathematics isn't about numbers, it's about what you can do with them.

Also, some fields of mathematics such as the theory of computation hardly use any numbers in their formulations: Their study is strictly limited to the abstract properties of symbols and operationality.

absolute standard unit for measuring what? Quantity.

Rephrasing: absolute (suprasensual) universal qualities of unit(y) and measurability.

An example: how do you measure infinity? Mathematically you can prove that there are different types of infinities, some even unmeasurable -- arguing that it's only quantities is inane, since the question asked isn't "how much?" as often as it is "by what relation?" or "what kind?"

Symbolism is an exact science much like mathematics, only that it is not as limited as mathematics. It is the employing of forms or images as signs of ideas or of suprasensible things.

Funny, the last sentence could easily describe mathematics.

Mathematics =~ written language, the only difference is in approach. Mathematics utilizes numbers and set theory, while language uses words. Both have a sense of grammar and lexicon, though mathematics is a step higher because it relies less on perception and more on intelligence. Also, language grammar is ultimately arbitrary, logic isn't.

Symbolism is an act when you arrange a set of symbols to describe something of reality (applies to both mathematics and language). No symbolism may be perfectly exact, so what matters is that an accurate approximation of informational content is delivered with good '"symbol/information" ratio.

But where words can mislead you, numbers simply can't because they don't have the property of deception through arbitrarity of definition.

All due respect, you are barking the wrong tree here. Mathematics could and should be an indispensable method for metaphysical understanding, as verbal symbolism is, but you come here acting like charlatan and smartass. You don't build bridges that way, no sir.

EDIT: 69 with Jesus Christ!


All due respect, you are barking the wrong tree here. Mathematics could and should be an indispensable method for metaphysical understanding, as verbal symbolism is, but you come here acting like charlatan and smartass. You don't build bridges that way, no sir.


I agree that it could and should be.... and would further point out that it has been and shall be.

Regardless, Neoclassical's point is valid when we take into consideration the way in which the vast majority of modern humans conceive of mathematics: a system of measuring increments of a fully quantitative nature. That mathematics corresponds at all to the qualitative domain is a concept which is more or less extinct, except outside of inane pop-numerology and movie-star Kabbalah bullshit. I doubt that even the bulk of modern mathematicians ever really have much of a sense of this, at this point.

There is nothing wrong with "math", or the "hard sciences" or any of these other disciplines, except that they have been stripped of their actual value and significance, and made into tools which perform no other role than measuring the "purely physical". This is a problem, because there is really no such thing as the "purely physical".

A lot of the arguments regarding Tradition on this forum and on Corrupt seem to stem from a misconception of what it means to recognize an order of reality "beyond" the physical. The basic assumption is that to recognize such an order would mean to consequently deny all things that occur on the temporal plane (of perception). This isn't the case. Tradition is not "denial of the world", except insofar as the "world" consists of a network of bad ideas and perceptions which distort reality into a demonic/perverted/incomplete caricature of itself, i.e materialism or naturalism - two isms that fail to understand material and nature. Tradition consists of the body of knowledge that recognizes the whole of reality, and incorporates this knowledge into every aspect of "human life" using language which is more than (but still incorporates) that of pure rationality.

This is challenging for many people of the ANUS/Corrupt mentality for what seems to be two major reasons.

1.) It makes "Judeo-Christianity" (ultimately, a misnomer) coherent, revealing it as something not at all describable as an "insane desert religion" or arbitrary moral tyranny. Recognition of the "Judeo-Christian" doctrine actually identifying and containing universally valid truth would require a reassessment of the idea that Judeo-Christian and Indo-European ideas are merely "projections of the Aryan/Jewish psyche" that never link up with each other or contain any sort of objective, impersonal, supra-human element. This is threatening because it calls into question the absolute value and meaning of 'race' - although some reflection should reveal that it doesn't obliterate the meaning of race, so much as move it down a few notches on its hierarchy of importance/meaning.

2.) Some people here are actually just materialists, though they may seek to obscure this fact by offering a more pleasing/romantic interpretation of materialism... which ultimately changes nothing. This reveals itself through the fixation with hard-sciences, and the reliance on raw physics, genetics, neuroscience and neuropsychology to explain virtually everything. This is not to say, of course, that physics, genetics, neuroscience and neuropsychology are fields of knowledge that reveal nothing at all, or have no use.... Only that they have no use when taken in a void, and reliance on their methods and languages over all others suggests the presence of a mind which fundamentally cannot understand reality except for isolating its physical components and examining them in a void. But more than anything else, the materialist mindset reveals itself by suggesting quantitative solutions to qualitative problems, as though reality (human or otherwise) can simply be altered by moving things around as opposed to adjusting their fundamental nature.

At some point, I think that ANUS/Corrupt will overcome these problems. At this point, I think our ability to understand metal (as well as the whole of art) will dramatically increase, not to mention our understanding of the sphere of activity we can very crudely refer to as "politics" and what our role is within it. No doubt this post will cause some people to internally quick and scream, sneer or otherwise shut their brains off, but I hope that a few people can still themselves enough for a short while to simply think on these issues.

All due respect, you are barking the wrong tree here. Mathematics could and should be an indispensable method for metaphysical understanding, as verbal symbolism is, but you come here acting like charlatan and smartass. You don't build bridges that way, no sir.

We do not mean the same things when we talk of quality and quantity. Setting aside quality for now, can you agree that "number is only a mode of quanitity, and quanitity itself only a category or special mode of being, not coextensive with it or, more precisely still, quantity is only a condition proper to one certain state of existence in the totality of universal existence..."? Mathematics is the science of numbers and what you can do with them. You can remain in the quantitative, or you can transport qualitative concepts. However, I vehemently oppose the view that modern mathematics does so!

Yes, it is possible to use numbers as symbols of quality and metaphysical principles; then we have mathematical symbolism.

Infinity cannot be limited at all. That there are no different "types of infinities" is a consequence of this basic metaphysical truth. Mathematics can be used to illustrate this, by the way.

It is a fundamental error to ignore that symbolism is the science of the Intellect, that mathematics is the science of numbers and that numbers can be symbols like words and images, but that the science of mathematics as a whole is not symbolism proper because it specializes on the quantitative. Not everything is expressible, but for that which is, symbolism is the natural language.

I am neither a charlatan nor a smartass. What I find to be error, I try to correct. This is my primary concern; and if only one reader here profited from the discussion, it was not in vain. However, I refuse to build bridges with what I consider erronous convictions. I repeat that symbolism is superior to mathematics when it comes to understanding reality.

It is a fundamental error to ignore that symbolism is the science of the Intellect, that mathematics is the science of numbers and that numbers can be symbols like words and images, but that the science of mathematics as a whole is not symbolism proper because it specializes on the quantitative. Not everything is expressible, but for that which is, symbolism is the natural language.

Symbols are quanta because they don't express the whole of reality.

Before you bloviate, read up on the topic. You're using these spacy concepts to try to seem profound, when for those who have done the reading, it's having the opposite effect... something akin to embarrassment for you.

Back to Topic

Now that the drama is over, we can look at the original topic:

Beliefs of the greats in classical music.

I think we can extend this to Baroque and Modernist as well. The important thing to realize is that they each have a philosophy of faith, and expressed it however they could; for many, this was the Church, although many of those took the time to embed statements of differing perception from the dogma in their works or interviews.

For example, Bruckner was a Catholic, and a devout one, but most theologians found his beliefs inexpressible in current dogma, although he had no problem participating in the religion as it was because his beliefs, as more inclusive, permitted him to express them in many forms (holism) while Catholic belief was limited to a single form. From those who knew him, we can see he was a transcendental idealist in the Blake-Eckhart school.

Bach is another enigma. Devoutly religious! but willing to eschew some of the trappings for a more pervasive sense of religious wonder and sense of moral right. In most important ways, men such as these were more religious than the dogmatics, but expressed their belief in less tangible forms, because all-inclusive belief systems do not need a single form for expression.