100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: structural on June 29, 2008, 12:44:02 AM

Title: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: structural on June 29, 2008, 12:44:02 AM
Does anybody here know were classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn or Mozart christians or Antichristians? If you know, please tell me, and please post the source of the information as well.

I know that I can find the info I need on the net but I really do not have time to search all the net...
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: Moses on June 29, 2008, 01:01:49 AM
Nearly all classical composers were Christian.  Bach was a Lutheran and was known to have said that all his music was intended to revel in the glory of God.  Haydn and Mozart were both Catholic.  Beethoven was raised as a Catholic but his actual faith is questionable, having been said to dabble in deism, pantheism and other theoretical modes of understanding God.  Wagner was also a Christian, although the exact nature of his faith is difficult to determine.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: structural on June 29, 2008, 01:41:39 AM
now I am wondering - how could they make such an intellectual music while being christians?

Because all of the christian music sucks - death latest albums, church music and unblack metal...

Does that mean christian win? (dont misunderstood me, I am an Antichristian althought I sometimes go into church to have some fun)
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: More Celt Than Sassenach on June 29, 2008, 04:47:20 AM
Practically ever classical composer until the 20th century was a Christian of some description.

It is important to note that music encapsulates a particular will that is concentrated. It also purges all wills harmful to the overriding will. Thus a gambler, womanizer and drunkard can make music to equal that of Bach's provided that at least some of their will can reach his height. That will is then isolated and through careful preparation of the music is kept apart from the more baseless wills of that person's character. The reason this is important to note is because it shows that the music a man makes is more then the man himself. It is the best, and only the best aspects of the person, leaving behind a will that most men could never sustain, or in other cases even reach. Will in this sense refers to Nietzsche and Schopenhauer's idea of the will of music. 

If music is more than its creator the creator does not have an authoritative and unquestionable ability to present what his music means. As Moses said Bach intended all his music to reveal the glory of God, but I see in his music the revealing and glorifying of the will to power. A Christian's music is not Christian music.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: Moses on June 29, 2008, 05:20:04 AM
now I am wondering - how could they make such an intellectual music while being christians?

Because all of the christian music sucks - death latest albums, church music and unblack metal...

Does that mean christian win? (dont misunderstood me, I am an Antichristian althought I sometimes go into church to have some fun)

I assume you are talking about modern Church music, try listening to Palestrina sometime.  Christianity is able to be the base of intellectual music because at its core it preserves pure spirituality.  The Christian spirit has nothing to do with the sub-human, sentimentality that has penetrated modern Christianity and the creations made in the name of it.  Keep in mind that the modern world represents the polar opposite of a truly Christian society, it therefore had to weaken Christianity to its current state before it could destroy it.  Antichristianity confuses cause with effect.  The current state of Christianity must occur at the end of the lifecycle of any religion.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: structural on June 29, 2008, 05:36:49 AM
now I am wondering - how could they make such an intellectual music while being christians?

Because all of the christian music sucks - death latest albums, church music and unblack metal...

Does that mean christian win? (dont misunderstood me, I am an Antichristian althought I sometimes go into church to have some fun)

I assume you are talking about modern Church music, try listening to Palestrina sometime.  Christianity is able to be the base of intellectual music because at its core it preserves pure spirituality.  The Christian spirit has nothing to do with the sub-human, sentimentality that has penetrated modern Christianity and the creations made in the name of it.  Keep in mind that the modern world represents the polar opposite of a truly Christian society, it therefore had to weaken Christianity to its current state before it could destroy it.  Antichristianity confuses cause with effect.  The current state of Christianity must occur at the end of the lifecycle of any religion.
yeah, it is more pop/hippy than anything
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: Prospero on June 29, 2008, 10:08:21 AM
Richard Strauss and Frederick Delius both dedicated compositions to Nietzsche. Delius is known for believing more in nature, the will and the life itself than religion. I discovered his "Mass of Life" through ANUS in the audiofile section, I suggest you listen to it.

I do not understand why a christian composer should not have the ability to compose great pieces. Passion, love and strength, feelings that are often perceived in classical music, are pillars of Christianity. I believe composers had a better understanding of religion than most of their peers though.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: death metal black metal on June 29, 2008, 12:04:05 PM
Does anybody here know were classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn or Mozart christians or Antichristians?

You're going to get some really misinformed answers, because you're asking a categorical question and not a syncretic one.

The real question is: what interpretation of religious thought did these composers have?

The answer is that most, while putatively Deists or Christians, embraced a holistic transcendental idealism that enabled them to conceive of the world as whole. This view, best articulated in European thought by Emerson, Blake, Schopenhauer and Eckhart, is what people of an IQ above 145-149 generally reveal as their belief system when asked the right questions.

Similarly, it's impossible to find this out if you ask whether they were believers or atheists. It's not a middle ground -- it's a different direction. The Abrahamic faith has us all looking for an anthropomorphic god in the sky, while the transcendental idealist beliefs of ancient Pagans, Hindus and smart people worldwide have us looking for god in the inherent mathematical patterns of reality.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: DionysianDeath on June 30, 2008, 04:17:16 AM
Does anybody here know were classical composers like Bach, Beethoven, Wagner, Haydn or Mozart christians or Antichristians?

You're going to get some really misinformed answers, because you're asking a categorical question and not a syncretic one.

The real question is: what interpretation of religious thought did these composers have?

The answer is that most, while putatively Deists or Christians, embraced a holistic transcendental idealism that enabled them to conceive of the world as whole. This view, best articulated in European thought by Emerson, Blake, Schopenhauer and Eckhart, is what people of an IQ above 145-149 generally reveal as their belief system when asked the right questions.

Similarly, it's impossible to find this out if you ask whether they were believers or atheists. It's not a middle ground -- it's a different direction. The Abrahamic faith has us all looking for an anthropomorphic god in the sky, while the transcendental idealist beliefs of ancient Pagans, Hindus and smart people worldwide have us looking for god in the inherent mathematical patterns of reality.

You are correct about the sharpest of the sharp recognizing that a given religious doctrine points to a holistically united, singular reality... This is something that it is important to understand about religious doctrine generally speaking. The symbolism it employs is not referring to "literal" physical realities, but metaphysics in general.

However, painting the "Abrahamic" faiths as silly cults that worship man-gods beyond the clouds seems intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian concepts of what "God" is, especially within Judaism and Islam. Much more so than the Indo-European religious doctrines as embodied by the Celtic and Nordic beliefs, the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine dispenses with anthropomorphism... In fact, as "pagan" thinker Alain de Benoist points out in a polemic against Judeo-Christianity, the Indo-European concept of the deity really refers to something in a very different category, very much a human-like intelligence or being, while the "Abrahamic" concept of God refers to something that is much more abstract and less isolated to a specific intelligence.... The Judeo-Christian "god" is the totality/unity of metaphysical principles, as opposed to something that is a manifested, individuated being. Christianity manages to bridge these distinctions by making Christ the localized divine being, which is the temporal manifestation of the faceless/formless/abstract, beyond-human absolute.

Anyway, let's not pretend that it hasn't ever been thought by foolish moderns that a belief in the deity Wotan implies a literal belief in a one-eyed, huntsman-sorcerer in the sky. Acting as though all pagans everywhere have always recognized that their pantheonic systems represent principles and metaphysical relationships, while all Judeo-Christians have worshipped a bearded sky-tyrant is incredibly reductive/false.

I think that at some point, ANUS/Corrupt must overcome its confusion about Judeo-Christianity.

To briefly address the original poster - I highly suggest you recognize the incompleteness of your understanding of Christianity and 'religion' in general, before you try to understand its relationship to art. DeathMetalBlackMetal has given you a good starting hint by pointing out that most of great thinkers of Christendom were those who recognized the transcendent unity of reality expressed in their religious doctrines.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: death metal black metal on June 30, 2008, 07:07:07 AM
However, painting the "Abrahamic" faiths as silly cults that worship man-gods beyond the clouds seems intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian concepts of what "God" is, especially within Judaism and Islam. Much more so than the Indo-European religious doctrines as embodied by the Celtic and Nordic beliefs, the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine dispenses with anthropomorphism... In fact, as "pagan" thinker Alain de Benoist points out in a polemic against Judeo-Christianity, the Indo-European concept of the deity really refers to something in a very different category, very much a human-like intelligence or being, while the "Abrahamic" concept of God refers to something that is much more abstract and less isolated to a specific intelligence.... The Judeo-Christian "god" is the totality/unity of metaphysical principles, as opposed to something that is a manifested, individuated being. Christianity manages to bridge these distinctions by making Christ the localized divine being, which is the temporal manifestation of the faceless/formless/abstract, beyond-human absolute.

I think you're confused about the nature of what is being discussed here. Multiple Gods, in the Nordic-Roman-Hindu-Pagan tradition, are manifestations of Godhead, which is the concept (probably through India, Egypt and/or Greece) that the Abrahamic religions are trying to assess. The Christian God is anthromorphic in his relationship to the individual; the Pagan godhead (equivalent to use of "God" in Judeo-Christianity) is anonymous, universal, and only makes sense in a cosmic context, but is manifested as symbolic gods. This is what you and/or de Benoist seem confused about -- ANUS/CORRUPT suffer no such etymological confusion.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: neoclassical on June 30, 2008, 10:17:46 AM
The Abrahamic faith has us all looking for an anthropomorphic god in the sky, while the transcendental idealist beliefs of ancient Pagans, Hindus and smart people worldwide have us looking for god in the inherent mathematical patterns of reality.
I see two problems with this view:
a) Maths is not a sufficient science of reality, but symbolism is. It's not that maths is not a traditional science, but since it is limited to quantity, symbolism is the superior science.
b) What was known to ancient "Pagans" (a very problematic denomination, to say the least), Hindus and smart people was the core of primordial Christianity as well. The Bible is full of symbolism. What happened is that over the years, people forgot to look beyond the letter.

The quote above is an oversimplification. It is not correct to assume that Christianity had at all times the same characteristics it has today. 2000 years is a time-span that no religion or tradition has really survived. Some religions die (inwardly) earlier than others. Often people attribute intentions to primordial Christianity which are only to be found in Christianity today; they are consequences of corruption and not a fault of primordial Christianity itself:

Quote
23For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.

 24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

 25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;

28For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

(SOURCE (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Apostelgeschichte%2017%20;&version=9;))

Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: nothingness on June 30, 2008, 11:13:04 AM
a) Maths is not a sufficient science of reality, but symbolism is. It's not that maths is not a traditional science, but since it is limited to quantity, symbolism is the superior science.

You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Mathematics utilizes quantities because numbers are the absolute standard unit. The scope of advanced mathematics goes beyond mere quantification: patterns, logic, groups, sets, ordering, and the theory of compution. And what connects all these fields? They are descriptions about universal meta-language of signals and symbolically operating systems.

You cannot understand symbolism without mathematics, because the world and symbols operate precisely according to what can be mathematically shown.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: nothingness on June 30, 2008, 11:20:24 AM
b) What was known to ancient "Pagans" (a very problematic denomination, to say the least), Hindus and smart people was the core of primordial Christianity as well. The Bible is full of symbolism. What happened is that over the years, people forgot to look beyond the letter.

Or maybe some symbolism simply is better than other because it's unambiguous of content?
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: neoclassical on June 30, 2008, 12:08:17 PM
a) Maths is not a sufficient science of reality, but symbolism is. It's not that maths is not a traditional science, but since it is limited to quantity, symbolism is the superior science.

You don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

Mathematics utilizes quantities because numbers are the absolute standard unit. The scope of advanced mathematics goes beyond mere quantification: patterns, logic, groups, sets, ordering, and the theory of compution. And what connects all these fields? They are descriptions about universal meta-language of signals and symbolically operating systems.

You cannot understand symbolism without mathematics, because the world and symbols operate precisely according to what can be mathematically shown.
mathˇeˇmatˇics (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics)
  1  : the science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, generalizations, and abstractions and of space configurations and their structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations   
  2  : a branch of, operation in, or use of mathematics <the mathematics of physical chemistry> 

absolute standard unit for measuring what? Quantity.

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.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: DionysianDeath on June 30, 2008, 12:52:00 PM
However, painting the "Abrahamic" faiths as silly cults that worship man-gods beyond the clouds seems intellectually dishonest, or at the very least, ignorant of basic Judeo-Christian concepts of what "God" is, especially within Judaism and Islam. Much more so than the Indo-European religious doctrines as embodied by the Celtic and Nordic beliefs, the Judeo-Christian concept of the divine dispenses with anthropomorphism... In fact, as "pagan" thinker Alain de Benoist points out in a polemic against Judeo-Christianity, the Indo-European concept of the deity really refers to something in a very different category, very much a human-like intelligence or being, while the "Abrahamic" concept of God refers to something that is much more abstract and less isolated to a specific intelligence.... The Judeo-Christian "god" is the totality/unity of metaphysical principles, as opposed to something that is a manifested, individuated being. Christianity manages to bridge these distinctions by making Christ the localized divine being, which is the temporal manifestation of the faceless/formless/abstract, beyond-human absolute.

I think you're confused about the nature of what is being discussed here. Multiple Gods, in the Nordic-Roman-Hindu-Pagan tradition, are manifestations of Godhead, which is the concept (probably through India, Egypt and/or Greece) that the Abrahamic religions are trying to assess. The Christian God is anthromorphic in his relationship to the individual; the Pagan godhead (equivalent to use of "God" in Judeo-Christianity) is anonymous, universal, and only makes sense in a cosmic context, but is manifested as symbolic gods. This is what you and/or de Benoist seem confused about -- ANUS/CORRUPT suffer no such etymological confusion.

No, I understand the significance of the pagan pantheon. I'm just trying to point out that you're misrepresenting Judeo-Christianity. While it is true that in many contemporary Christians seek a "personal relationship with god" in the most vulgar sense, this has not always been the case. It is a uniquely Lutheran corruption which has only gotten worse over the centuries.

It's just not true that the distinction (if there really is any meaningful one) between the doctrines you praise and those that you revile is one of anthropomorphism. Consider the existence, for example, of the Kabbalah. The Kabaalah is a system employing mathematics (of a qualitative variety!) to describe the metaphysical relationships between different points of creation and "God". Nothing could be more impersonal or disinclined to give the Divine Absolute a human face.

Regarding the conversation about mathematics, I'll just point out that the 'ancients' didn't think of math in a wholly quantitative light. Everything that now falls under the domain of math, science, etc, was once incorporated into a sacred science/art.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: death metal black metal on June 30, 2008, 01:07:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: DionysianDeath on June 30, 2008, 02:05:52 PM
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."
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: nothingness on June 30, 2008, 02:11:24 PM
mathˇeˇmatˇics (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mathematics)
  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!
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: DionysianDeath on June 30, 2008, 06:42:36 PM

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.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: neoclassical on July 01, 2008, 06:35:56 AM
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 (http://books.google.com/books?id=9KyLPwielTEC&pg=PP1&ei=sjBqSLiUGIGkiwHO38T7BQ&sig=ACfU3U3GwyR4iipXZyLhX7vZhMPooB0ouw), 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.
Title: Re: religious beliefs of the classical composers???
Post by: ASBO on July 04, 2008, 09:34:14 AM
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.