In tune

[pakua]

I've just started reading "Confessions of a Taoist on Wall Street". There's little bits of knowledge and wisdom here and there, such as "the more in tune you are with Tao, the more meaningful Yi's answer will be".

That seems to make sense - when you're agitated there's the tendency to ask question after question, and nothing makes sense.

I'm thinking about being in tune, and the answer I get. Would it be fair to say, if I get a favourable answer, that implies I'm in tune, and that all I need to do is do what's natural, stay in tune, follow the path I'm already on?

But that implies getting an unfavourable answer means that one is not in tune, and I wouldn't think that even someone who was in tune all (or most) of the time never gets an unfavourable answer.

I suppose the question is, does being in tune have anything to do with the answers you get?

 

[dobro p]

"I suppose the question is, does being in tune have anything to do with the answers you get?"

The answers you get - don't they depend on who's asking the question, when they ask it, what their state is at the time they ask it, what the question is, and what they need generally?

So, if that's the case, then... yes, being 'in tune' affects the answers you get (but it's only one factor involved). Plus, like you say, being in tune affects your ability to understand and appreciate and apply the answers you get.

But I'd go a step further. I'd say that if you're *really* in tune, you don't need an oracle like the Yi.

 

[luz]

IMHO, I would think that being in tune affects, first of all, whether you get answers at all or not! Not every time that you are able to build a hexagram are you actually getting an answer. Sometimes there is no resonance, no connection.

I think it also means that the more in tune you are the more you can 'see' in the answers, the deeper you can go, the more they talk to you.

I don't think that it affects how 'good' or 'bad' the answers are, though.

 

[dharma]

Pakua,

The way I see it, it doesn't matter how in-tune you are to begin with - the divination process is a way to re-center and re-balance oneself.

Whatever hexagram turns up for me in a reading, whether favorable or unfavorable, despite my state of mind at the time, I see it as an opportunity to get myself in-tune - my belief is that one living within this dimension can hardly ever be in tune enough.

As long as I don't allow my thinking mind to overwhelm the process with too much logic, I am able to participate in this activity in a meditative way that helps me re-center and rebalance myself enough so that the answers I am seeking will well up from within me easily. Thus, the I Ching for instance, provides me with a medium for turning inward and connecting with my inner observer.

Divination, for me at least, is not about discovering what condition I am in, which I can easily do by assessing my feelings at any given time. It is, however, a useful means for healing myself of whatever confusion stands in the way of my knowing what I seek to know... it is what helps me get in-tune with the universal orchestra which then leads me to the experience I call the "tranquility of knowing".

 

[kevin]

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The way I see it, it doesn't matter how in-tune you are to begin with - the divination process is a way to re-center and re-balance oneself.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>
Absolutely!

From the Dazhuan - Great Treatise - 5th & 6th Wings of the Yijing.
(First 35 lines).

<font color="0000ff">"How Change is like Heaven and Earth

This is the first thing. Examine it carefully:
Heaven exalts things. Thus we raise the wine cup to it.
Earth humbles things. Thus we lie beneath it.
In the same way Ch?ien and K?un
the poles of Change
determine the place of all things.

If you have understood this, then look around you:
As low lying and high standing things are spread over the Earth,
So there are low places and high places in Change.
The alternation of moving and resting is constant in Heaven,
So strong and supple lines decide Change.
As events never occur alone but cluster together,
The reading in Change
comes from the spirit they belong to.
It shows when the Way is open and when it is closed.

Remember:
The changes and transformations of Heaven
are in the symbols of Change.
The changes and transformations of Earth are in the forms of Change.
Everything is seen clearly in Change.

This is why the strong and the supple lines rub against each other,
why the eight symbols stir against each other,
always acting and reacting.
Change and transformation are drummed on
by the symbol of Thunder,
moistened by symbols of Wind and Rain.
Bringing us heat and cold.

But the greatest forces are Ch?ien and K?un. Listen:
The process of Ch?ien completes things through the male.
The process of K?un completes things through the female.
Ch?ien knows the Great Beginning.
K?un makes and completes all things.
Ch?ien knows the beginnings because it changes with ease.
K?un makes and completes all things because it is simple.
Because Ch?ien is easy, Change is easy to know.
Because K?un is simple, Change is easy to follow.
When Change is easy to know, a great love arises within you.
When it is easy to follow, the Great Result comes forth.
Great affection lets you endure.
Results that come forth make you Great.
This is the enduring power and virtue (te)
of the realizing person.
When you know Change as easy and simple,
you can grasp the pattern of the world we live in.
You move to the perfect middle position,
released from sorrow and fear"

Stephen Karcher 2000</font>

A most wonderful document... It is little surprise that it has long been regarded as the key to the Yijing.

The day I am really in tune I will probably be dead - Hey Ho... But there is no harm in trying.

--Kevin

 

[jte]

It's a fair question. This is another quote from the Ta Chuan (Wilhelm trans.), on the use of the Book of Changes, the lines:

Translation:

"First take up the words,
Ponder their meaning,
Then the fixed rules reveal themselves.
But if you are not the right man,
The meaning will not manifest itself to you."

Commentary:

"... In conclusion attention is called to the fact that an innate capacity is essential to the understanding of the book, otherwise it will remain locked as if with seven seals. If the person consulting the oracle is not in contact with tao, he does not receive an intelligible answer, since it would be of no avail."

So, I guess that is his take. Not sure if agree 100% with this, but I think it does take at least a kind of openness or a willingness to start making a connection.

- Jeff

 

[dharma]

<blockquote>So, I guess that is his take. Not sure if agree 100% with this, but I think it does take at least a kind of openness or a willingness to start making a connection.</blockquote>

Jeff..
Out of the 100, what percentage don't you agree with, and what exactly is it that you make of that portion, if you don't agree with it? (Of course I ask this in the kindest way! out of curiosity, though it certainly can seem like nit-picking

)

BTW, great quote contributions to the subject by both you and Kevin!

 

[pakua]

Dobro,
"... yes, being 'in tune' affects the answers you get (but it's only one factor involved)."

I'm guessing that someone in tune would not get answers that warn about doing actions that lead to shame, or regret, or falling into error. As long as you don't get those kinds of lines, can you say you're at least "doing ok"?

"if you're *really* in tune, you don't need an oracle "

Yes, probably there's no need, but maybe there would be an interest... perhaps using it more for the bigger "universal" questions?

Dharma,

"useful means for healing myself of whatever confusion stands in the way "

That's such a blessing. Recently I was making myself sick by being upset about something, until I asked Yi, who told me to change my attitude, and almost immediately I felt better.

Paradox - it's a wonderful method that helps you get in tune, but you have to be at least somewhat in tune to use it.

Hi Lightangel,
"I don't think that it affects how 'good' or 'bad' the answers are, though."

This is what I was originally wondering, and I think I agree... Even the sage would find a closed door here and there.

 

[hilary]

An alternative translation of Jeff's quote (from Richard Rutt's beautifully straightforward version of the Dazhuan, book 2 chapter 8):

'First study the statements,
and ponder their purport;
then principles will emerge;
but if one is not the person intended,
the dao will not apply automatically.'

That sounds more like 'if it's not your reading' than any comment on your moral standing. Calling any readers of Chinese - what do you make of it?

 

[dobro p]

Pakua -

What I'm going to say could start a thread that lasted a week (so good thing I'm going to disappear in about a week lol).

I said: ...yes, being 'in tune' affects the answers you get (but it's only one factor involved)."

You said: I'm guessing that someone in tune would not get answers that warn about doing actions that lead to shame, or regret, or falling into error. As long as you don't get those kinds of lines, can you say you're at least "doing ok"?"

I say: The people who are 'in tune' *will* get lines that talk about shame and regret and danger PRECISELY BECAUSE they're doing okay. Life warns the ones it really cares about. It leaves the fuckwits to themselves. I really believe that. Not only that, but in my experience, I seem to shuttle between the two categories. I imagine many other people in a similar situation.

 

[jte]

Dharma and Hilary -

Well, mostly it's just such a blanket statement that I hesitate to think it's always true.

People change, often a great deal. Maybe some people are "right" for the Yi at some points in their lives and not at others.

Maybe for those "trying out the Yi" the Yi is reciprocally "trying them out" to see if they are someone it can work with. (Use of the Yi sort of becomes a two-way street after a while, no?)

There are probably people in this world that the Yi *could* work with but for one reason or another they've never tried it.

There might be other "borderline" circumstances that I'm not thinking of...

And Hilary what you're getting at is very interesting indeed. Assuming that paragraph is at least sometimes if not often true, then what is it that makes you "right"? Inborn talent/connection to the Tao? Open-mindedness? Ability to think metaphorically? Some combination of all of these? Is it actually the same quality/ies for everyone or different for different people?

The idea that it might be a certain type of morality hadn't occured to me, but perhaps...

"The Tao will not apply automatically"
An interesting way to put it. Do some people need to work harder at it than others? What do they have to do to get it to apply?

Lots more questions than answers on stuff like this.

- Jeff

 

[lightofdarkness]

"being in tune with" something is a particular perspective and context-sensitive.

"being in tune" is general, a universal perspective.

modern western music is the latter - and so regardless of key things are "the same". The former represents more of 'just intonation' - LOCAL dynamics that require specialist instruments, specialist tuning.

The latter is more 'interesting' in that it covers more diversity - all of those local perspectives ;-) - BUT the former is useful in that it gives the archetypal forms and so forms constant across all contexts.

the traditional IC is LOCAL and so demands local tuning. The universal IC is useful in that it identifies core, but generic, concepts - universal tuning.

Our collectives teach LOCAL and in doing so can limit understanding of the universals - or more so those universals are discovered in an ad-hoc manner.

By learning all of the basic universals PRIOR to, or in conjuction with, the local allows for one to 'be in tune' in general and THEN customise for local conditions.

By *not* learning the universals first, by allowing them to be discovered ad hoc, means one can be tuned LOCALLY but 'out of tune' universally and that will elicit 'issues' ;-) - the universals serve to give one a general ground from which to work from, and in severe conditions, fall back upon regardless of where you are.

Chris.

 

[yly2pg1]

{"the more in tune you are with Tao, the more meaningful Yi's answer will be".}

{does being in tune have anything to do with the answers you get?}

... the missing one ?

 

[cellofellow]

I've a feeling that what makes you the "right" man for the Yi is being open to the possibility that you may be wrong about all kinds of things, and accepting that the majority of pre-conceptions you have are not set in stone. The Yi basically gets you to look at things differently. If you're not willing to try looking at things differently, but are set in fixed ways of thinking, then the Yi won't work. Just a theory.

Many guitarists use several different ways of tuning their guitar. I'll leave that one with you . . .

 

[pakua]

"The people who are 'in tune' *will* get lines that talk about shame and regret and danger PRECISELY BECAUSE they're doing okay. Life warns the ones it really cares about. "


I haven't experienced life as giving a damn about me or anyone else.

If you are in tune, doesn't that imply that you are not in danger of doing something out of tune ie something shameful, as long as you stay in tune? Are you thinking being in tune is such a narrow path, it's easy to slip off?

Or are you approaching from the angle, someone not in tune is already (possibly) being shameful, or regretful, and probably doesn't care, so there's no point in warning that person?

'splain please.

 

[lightofdarkness]

equal tuning gives us our standard 12 octaves allowing for any piece to sound the same other than the key differences. It has its roots in 15th-17th century Europe. It reflects a focus on a universal.

"Just Intonation" (JI) is more traditional, all music pre 15-17th century was JI oriented. Examples of continuing JI are in Indian sitar music etc, or music from Bali etc where tuning is very local, pieces dont 'fit' in all keys etc such that each context requires customisation, tuning, and even specialist instruments.

Western music today continues with the universal approach but it is running out of 'variations' - IOW the LOCAL variations possible in JI are not available. Synthesisers allow for the incorporation of JI with little effort and there are a some works coming out in more classical music areas working with JI.

Universal tuning reflects the universal IC where no matter what context you are in the patterns are the 'same'. JI tuning reflects the LOCAL IC where each context comes up with a specialist interpretation ('key') and to fully appreciate that particular interpretation you need to be 'in tune' with that context - e.g. ancient China etc (learn chinese, read ancient chinese symbols, not current 'simplified' etc)

From an IC perspective, each person on the planet could create their own IC, unique tuning, unique medium to 'play' it (local dialect/language etc)

These are all 'small world' networks. SUM these and out will pop the universals that make up the 'regular' network of all linked together but without the 'local' colourings.

The universal remains as a focus on frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes. From those patterns come the generic qualities we all share as a species (and so 'universals') that then get localised to a degree of customised instruments, customised tuning (and so NOT playable as a universal)

As our consciousness has developed so we have derived universals in an ad-hoc manner, we had to start with JI before we moved into 'equal' tuning that is more universal. Now we get to a stage where the universal becomes 'boring' and we move back into 'world music' - IOW JI tuning realms as we seek novelty in the form of LOCAL expressions of universals.

This dynamic of universal/local reflects our dealings with reality through linking universals with particular contexts to derive our specialist languages (and so reflecting JI-like properties/methods).

See diagrams of networks etc in my "Book of Structures" page:

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html

In ICPlus/IDM we identify the universals and the closed system where all is linked together. Exposure of that to LOCAL contexts that are for all purposes (as far as genetics is concerned) 'random' and the ad-hoc development comes up with 'small world' networks.

Science aims to 'universalise', as does consciousness, and so establish a predictable 'ground' (bedrock) such that it only has to deal with top soil expressions permitted by that bedrock.

Chris.

 

[dobro p]

Pakua - I owe you an explanation, yeah.

Nobody's perfect and everybody makes mistakes, so everybody draws 'remorse' and 'regret' lines sometimes. Even the people who are 'in tune' are in tune only for a period of time, and then they go 'out of tune' like a guitar does, and they have to then tune themselves again. That was the simple meaning of what I was saying. But there was more to what I was saying than the simple meaning. You said: "I haven't experienced life as giving a damn about me or anyone else." All my life, that's been my belief as well, but recently I'm starting to allow for the possibility that one of the main qualities of the energy that's running through everything is love. A related idea is that when crummy stuff happens to you, it's cuz life knows that you can learn to meet the challenge, or that it's time for you to learn something valuable - the kind of love that a teacher has for a student when it's time for the student to stretch.

I know, I know - there's lots of stuff you can point to that would suggest that the universe isn't running on love or anything resembling love. But two things: it's at least worth considering the possibility of what I said. And also, I've noticed that the people who live their lives according to a belief in those two ideas I outlined - their lives are so incredibly gracious compared to my own, that even if those ideas aren't objectively true for everyone, then believing in them make them so for the believer.

And finally, most regular users of the Yi would agree that it's a kind of light that helps keep you 'in tune'. Also, there are some on this board who believe that the Yi is a light that leads people along a path of development. If that's true, then it's a loving light.

 

[micheline]

 

[jte]

"I haven't experienced life as giving a damn about me or anyone else. "

Interesting. I experience it as caring about me and infer that it cares about others. At this point I'd have a hard time believing otherwise.

This doesn't mean that I can't be hurt or make mistakes. But I (feel that I) *know* that the reason for that isn't that "life's out to get me", but rather simply due to my own mistakes or to adverse circumstances that I couldn't take into account properly. For me, despite the problems, life/God/the Universe/spiritual beings - whatever these things precisely are, are ultimately benevolent. They're "in my corner." And yours, too.

But you've experienced YOUR life and have drawn conclusions accordingly and I respect that your conclusion is the logical one to draw for you (based on your experiences).

Certainly horrible things happen every day. But (in my view) that is against the larger backdrop of the many who get to enjoy life within their particular culture/subcontext. Oh sure, they groan and moan - we all have our problems and issues. But, I think, on balance it's a gift, not a burden. Certainly it is when one's fortunate enough to be in an enviroment where personal needs can be met.

Perhaps I'm not correct in this and we're really worse off being here than not. Or maybe it's a precise 50/50 split and has to be due to some inscrutable cosmic law. Hard to know...

And Dobro I think that was well put...

- Jeff

 

[cellofellow]

Chris, you have a wonderfully logical way of putting things. Am I to gather from your post that you have a preference for the universal rather than the local? I think that, as everybody is unique, then local seems to be the important perspective to me. In fact, I find it hard to agree that there ARE any universals. Another way of putting that last sentence could be, "What is normal, anyway?"

 

[lightofdarkness]

Differentiating and integrating is 'normal' in that the dichotomy is universal (as is the method of deriving details, using recursion).

The ability to communicate through emotions only reflects a universal present in all of us as species-members. LOCAL context will then 'customise' that universal.

;-) perhaps you need to read-up on what you brain does re universals etc and so seeding your thoughts - including the notion of no universals ;-) (recognising that words are universals in their form of representation - the word "HOUSE" is a universal where LOCAL context will then ground it - all labels reflect a focus on deriving universals etc etc)

What you are confusing is personal expression, topsoil stuff, with the elements that seed that expression in general - the bedrock.

differentiating/integrating gets relabelled into nouns/verbs. Recursion then converts the dichotomy into a spectrum from 'noun' at one end to 'verb' at the other with each category inbetween serving as a universal WITH the 'universe of discourse'.

Relabelling those universals is what we do when we name things, and so give us finer precision - but the act of naming is itself a universalisation in that the name is supposed to apply 'forever'!

In the context of the IC, the traditional one usually referenced is a LOCAL expression of a set of GENERAL qualities derived from how our brains work as species members.

As for 'what is normal?' - that is covered in guassian distributions ;-) (and not to forget the differences between hard coding vs context-sensitive dynamics. The natures of such dichotomies as male/female, light/dark, competitive/cooperative are all sourced in the one 'template' dichotomy of differentiating/integrating and THAT is a universal that extends beyond 'us'.)

From a philosophical perspective, universals are 'truths' that do not need mediation to be 'truths' - they are 'immediate' in understanding. Our brains recognise 'thingness' (differentiating, nouns) instinctively and they recognise 'relatedness' (integrating, verbs)

To birds that have adapted to the shadow of a hawk that makes them duck into their nests when newborn, that shadow is a universal in that it is instinctive, immediate.

The notion of key etc with which to set a context for interpretation is a universal, the particulars are in what key; and a universal for many is to be able to detect being 'off' key ;-)

That notion has its roots in the template dichotomy of differentiating/integrating that has its roots in FM/AM processing of our neurology that has its roots in the adaptation to the universe in general through development of the universal manner in which information is processed - patterns of differentiating/integrating regardless of sense (since senses are specialisations ;-))

etc etc etc

for coverage on the differentiating/integrating focus, see the IDM material. e.g. http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/idm003.html

Chris.

 

[cellofellow]

Interesting stuff ~ thanks!

On a somewhat lighter note, as a musician, I have a love/hate relationship with equal tuning. It's great you can play in all the keys, but it does make all keys equally boring! Give me local tuning any day ~ more possibilities!

I know people have mentioned this before, but I would love it if you had something along the lines of "I ching plus for idiots" on your website. I kind of get what you mean, but I'm not dead familiar with a lot of your ideas. Can you put them more simply, or do I just need to keep reading them until I get them? Maybe you could keep your answer short, coz I don't want us both to take over this thread I would very much like to understand your stuff.

 

[lightofdarkness]

the "Book of Structures" page summarises a lot in the context of the IC. What *dont* you get out of that page (or ICPLus in general)? I may be able to keep summarising on that page alone.

http://www.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/myweb/icstruct.html

included would be a link to a summary of the IDM blend, bond, bound, bind focus.

Chris

 

[dobro p]

"Give me local tuning any day ~ more possibilities!"

Yeah. Also, the best way to tune a guitar is locally. And if you don't know why that is, then take up guitar and start to play, both by yourself and then with others. You're always looking for a 'best fit' solution. It's *so* imperfect. And so real. I think it's one of the reasons guitar is such a popular instrument - its a living example of barely tamed dissonance. King of the local instruments. I imagine piano's a bit of a challenge to tune as well.

 

[dharma]

Interesting that the topic of being in-tune has led into the tuning of musical instruments. Though I would love to be, I am not musically inclined and so cannot comment along these lines. However, on the assumption that being in-tune is similar to one's striving for enlightenment, I put a few questions to Yi and found the answers "nicely said". Thought I'd share them.

I consider the answers I got as being relevant to me primarily but I do also see how they might apply just as easily to others.

How is the state of enlightenment generally experienced? 30.4 >22 (Spontaneously and drawing to a quick conclusion or, Now you see it now you don't.)

How can it be made to last? 45.5 >16 (Take absolutely nothing for granted - It's a full-time job.)

What is perfect enlightenment like? (I loved this response!) 25.1.2.5 >64 (Beginner's Mind)

 

[pakua]

"Life warns the ones it really cares about"

If Love is the guiding principle and the background energy of all, which I think I agree with, then it has to apply to all, which means It cares about all.

"A related idea is that when crummy stuff happens to you, it's cuz life knows that you can learn to meet the challenge, or that it's time for you to learn something valuable - the kind of love that a teacher has for a student when it's time for the student to stretch. "

I know that's the traditional view, and I used to believe that, but now I'm thinking, maybe it's just cause stuff happens cause stuff happens. You might stretch, and you might not.

It looks like we were on opposite sides of the fence, and are both switching sides at the same time.

When I say, Life doesn't give a damn, I don't mean it as something negative (well, maybe I'm complaining just a little

). I'm just stating a fact, as I see it. Life neither helps or hinders. I don't see a personal vested interest in It for me. Sure, It may love me, but it's my life and It respects that, and doesn't interfere. Free will and so forth.

At this point, the only thing I see It offering is love, which I can tune into (if I can).

And I think you may be right about those who live according to that belief. I know there are studies that show that people who are able to be positive lead happier lives. Self-fulfilling prophecies, as you said?

What's driving me with this is, I don't want to personalize something that's not. I think we have a huge capacity for self-delusion, and I want to be objective.

 

[dobro p]

"If Love is the guiding principle and the background energy of all, which I think I agree with, then it has to apply to all, which means It cares about all."

In fact, it cares about all. But also in fact, people distance themselves from it, and when they do that, then it acts like it doesn't care at all. So, it looks like it 'takes care of its own', when in actual fact it's just 'waiting for its waifs and strays to find their way back'.

"What's driving me with this is, I don't want to personalize something that's not. I think we have a huge capacity for self-delusion, and I want to be objective."

When I describe it, I personalize it a bit so that people can relate to what I'm saying, but in actual fact, it can't be described, so personalizations are nothing more than mere descriptions. But I put things in quotation marks/inverted commas to indicate that it's just words. As for objectivity, well... objectivity's good when subjectivity's creating problems, but I'm way more interested in going beyond both to get to utility and beauty. Utility and beauty touch my heart and help me every time. Subjectivity and objectivity help me when they help me, and sometimes they don't.

 

[lightofdarkness]

some 'lite' reading associating music and written/spoken language (and so being a language - the mapping of music to emotions maps it all to IDM and the core structure of all languages - be they verbal or non - and so we map into this the 'language' that is the IC where the sequences, te set of qualities, is not of letters but of feelings):

------------------
Neural substrates of processing syntax and semantics in music

Stefan Koelsch

Junior Research Group Neurocognition of Music, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Leipzig, Germany

Available online 17 March 2005.


Growing evidence indicates that syntax and semantics are basic aspects of music. After the onset of a chord, initial music?syntactic processing can be observed at about 150?400 ms and processing of musical semantics at about 300?500 ms. Processing of musical syntax activates inferior frontolateral cortex, ventrolateral premotor cortex and presumably the anterior part of the superior temporal gyrus. These brain structures have been implicated in sequencing of complex auditory information, identification of structural relationships, and serial prediction. Processing of musical semantics appears to activate posterior temporal regions. The processes and brain structures involved in the perception of syntax and semantics in music have considerable overlap with those involved in language perception, underlining intimate links between music and language in the human brain.


Abstract and Full text links at 'Current Opinion in Neurobiology'
http://tinyurl.com/a6rnm

 

[lightofdarkness]

The conclusion of the paper:

Conclusions
The present findings provide information about the processing
of musical syntax and musical semantics. Results
indicate that the human brain processes music and language
with overlapping cognitive mechanisms, in overlapping
cerebral structures. This view corresponds with
the assumption that music and speech are intimately
connected in early life, that musical elements pave the
way to linguistic capacities earlier than phonetic elements,
and that melodic aspects of adult speech to infants
represent the infants? earliest associations between sound
patterns and meaning [36], and between sound patterns
and syntactic structure [37]. Thus, despite the view of
some linguists that music and language are strictly separate
domains [38], the combined findings indicate that the
human brain engages a variety of neural mechanisms for
the processing of both music and language, underscoring
the intimate relationship between music and language in
the human brain.

 

[lightofdarkness]

The IDM perspective is that each 'sense' is a specialisation, LOCAL dynamics/nuances etc that reflect the linkage of the qualities derived universally from our species-nature, or more so the neuron behaviour, of processing patterns of differentiating/integrating - patterns we can all FEEL (emotion being the universal response to sensory data, and emotion being derived from recursion of fight/flight maps to more generic qualities dealing with interactions with the context)

Chris.