|
Post by katycarl on Jan 30, 2007 16:29:29 GMT -5
Raindear: the experiment you mention, of "fasting" from certain types of music for a while to better discern their effects, is certainly interesting. I think I may even give it a try this Lent, for various reasons of my own as well as to discern whether I noticeably experience any of these effects. While there's a lot to be said for the Vatican II proposition of Catholics being fully immersed in the world and transforming culture by our presence, there's a lot more to be said for the continual and much older position that Catholics shouldn't be of the world even if we are in it. In fact, there's no way for us to transform the culture if no one can tell the difference between us and the culture. To me this means a number of rather specific things that are rather different from the two sets of usual propositions about how we should present ourselves in the culture; but that's a whole other topic. Suffice to say that your experiment seems like one good way of remembering our need to be different from the culture.
More later, to speak to other specific points, but I'm out of time again....
[edited for grammar]
|
|
|
Post by syme on Jan 30, 2007 20:09:29 GMT -5
I don't know raindear, but I just continue to see a lot of problems in your argument. Even if we grant that certain types of music might create in us certain physical reactions because of their rhythm, that does not mean that they necessarily lead to lust. Lust involves the mind and the will, and without those parts, there is no sin and all you get is an excited body. But a body can be excited in many ways and for many reasons. Sports, games, foods, and all sorts of activities we consider harmless get our bodies excited as well, but they are not disordered for that reason. I think you are *way* overstating your case here.
Forgive me for continuing to boil down your argument to somewhat simplistic terms, but in the end it sounds to me like you're saying that listening to a drumbeat is a morally hazardous (potentially dangerous) activity.
I beg you not to take personal offense by my saying so, but I just can't take that argument seriously.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on Jan 31, 2007 14:56:29 GMT -5
Katycarl,
Interesting observations...I hope you get a chance to elaborate more upon the "specific things" vs. the "two sets of usual propositions."
Syme,
Don't worry - I am not offended and I understand that this position can appear radical and extreme. (:
There's a couple of problems with what you say. First of all, occasions of sin never "necessarily" lead to the sin. Temptations can always be overcome through heroic virtue. But despite the ultimate freedom of the will, you are not supposed to put yourself in an occasion of sin without serious reason.
Secondly, your example of food is rather interesting and not necessarily in conflict with my point. I am not saying that it is wrong to stimulate the body, but to stimulate a bodily desire: a) toward a bad object; and/or b) to excess (or generally outside the context of reason) Let me make some comparisons with food. Healthy food is a good. However, there some foods only healthy in moderation and there are other foods always unhealthy because they are processed and full of chemicals. It is natural and reasonable to find it stimulating when you smell food cooking at a meal time. But I think one can make a moral criticism of companies which use flashy advertisements or additives like MSG to stimulate people's desire for unhealthy foods. Or again, I think it might be wrong to sell meals in proportions never healthy, e.g. a Super-Sized Coke is not good for anyone, no matter their size. So it is not the bodily that excitement that is the danger, but a disordered bodily excitement.
Thirdly, you are being a little too simplistic. My contention is that there is moral danger in listening to songs with: A) a syncopated drum rhythm; and/or B) a rhythm which overwhelms the most important part of the song (the melody). As I said in one of my previous posts, there are clearly songs with powerful drum rhythms which do not stimulate the body in a disordered way.
|
|
|
Post by counterfactual on Feb 2, 2007 3:02:03 GMT -5
I've been following this argument closely, and silently. I think raindear's argument is strongest in its initial, more philosophical formulation. I agreee with syme that it sounds less convincing when stated more concisely. Of course, this does not necessarily invalidate it.
I also like raindear's whack emoticon. It's like a frown turned upside-down.
|
|
|
Post by ebdonlon on Feb 5, 2007 21:11:36 GMT -5
I agree with counterfactural that "raindear's argument is strongest in its initial, more philosophical formulation." This is because the application of the argument to specific examples becomes rather tricky. Can it be that this very trickiness is the heart of the issue? Isn't there an important difference between articulating a theory of virtue and determining on an individual basis what is or is not appropriate (before we even begin to talk about moral judgment)?
I think that raindear's argument addresses the development of a moral maturity -- what Josef Pieper calls the "education to prudence," "to objective estimation of the concrete situation of concrete activity, and to the ability to transform this cognition of reality into concrete decision."
I do not, for example, think there is anything morally wrong with "the felicities of rapid motion" (as Miss Austen calls it in Emma) but dancing can become the near occasion of sin. Where must we draw the line? I think it often has to be drawn on a case to case basis and that is where the education to prudence comes in...
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Feb 8, 2007 16:27:57 GMT -5
Cheers, ebdonlon. I've been trying to marshal my thoughts on this for quite some time, and I think you've crystallized in much more articulate form what I wanted to say. It is all about prudence -- the question then becomes, what's prudent?
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Feb 8, 2007 21:07:50 GMT -5
Cheers, ebdonlon. I've been trying to marshal my thoughts on this for quite some time, and I think you've crystallized in much more articulate form what I wanted to say. It is all about prudence -- the question then becomes, what's prudent? It's hard to give a one-size-fits-all answer to the question of what's prudent because prudence, by definition, refers to specific situations. Prudence, by nature is practical. Nevertheless, general guidelines that could help are to keep yourself reminded of the presence of God even while you're having fun, exercise moderation in food and drink, select your friends, learn the differences between seeing and looking and between hearing and listening, and have an "escape plan" -- a plan to gracefully exit a party when things go bad. Of course, maintaining a vibrant prayer life helps a Christian detect danger signals in certain situations.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on Feb 9, 2007 10:10:10 GMT -5
Prudence is such an important and challenging virtue! One of my favorite insights from St. Thomas is the relation between prudence and the virtue of docility:
"Prudence is concerned with particular matters of action, and since such matters are of infinite variety, no one man can consider them all sufficiently; nor can this be done quickly, for it requires length of time. Hence in matters of prudence man stands in very great need of being taught by others, especially by old folk who have acquired a sane understanding of the ends in practical matters. ...Now it is a mark of docility to be ready to be taught: and consequently docility is fittingly reckoned a part of prudence." (S.T. II-II.49.3.c)
Of course, docility presents an interesting dilemma - you need the counsel of the wise in order to act prudently, but until you are wise yourself, how can you judge with any certainty who are the wisest counselors? With regard to the wisdom of the ancients, we have the guidance of the Church and the saints to help us judge, but when one needs advice about a very particular situation, it is naturally more helpful to seek counsel from the living.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Apr 25, 2007 9:46:21 GMT -5
Another thought I'd like to throw out there on this, even though it's been awhile. Listening to a U2 song yesterday afternoon, it suddenly dawned on me that even if raindear's contention holds and rock music forms the soul in some misshapen way, isn't there still a place for making quality rock music that's better than the average run, that can still be enjoyed by someone whose soul has been formed in this way, and that might in the long run touch a chord (no pun intended) that brings someone closer to recognition of the truth, who because of a less-than-ideal formation might not have been bringable in any other way?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by syme on Apr 25, 2007 11:11:01 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but I just refuse to grant raindear's contention even hypothetically. Raindear trully exaggerates the corruptive or seductive power of a syncopated rhythm. We're exposed to ten thousand bigger temptations by stepping out of our room every day. Rock music and classical music do different things, and there should be a space for both of them. I respect raindear's concerns, but I just think it amounts to building up a storm in a glass of water.
Regarding your thought katy, I guess you are trying to make room for an appeal to "meet people were they are." To a certain extent that is important, but I fear someone who thinks all rock music corrupts would not be too amenable to it.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Apr 25, 2007 13:13:33 GMT -5
Syme, you're right -- that's exactly the appeal I'm making. I'm not by any means committed to the particular conclusion raindear has made here, but I'm still trying to figure out what it implies practically and to give (him? her?) a chance to talk about what is considered acceptable from this standpoint. Maybe there's conflict within the anti-syncopation crowd on this point. Who knows? That's what I'm curious about. For the record, since this post I've been writing long treatises in my head that come down to this: I believe there is corrupt and corrupting pop/rock/rap/what-have-you music out there, but the question of which songs are which is probably a lot more complex than their rhythmic characteristics (though I agree those play a significant role in the overall effect). Plus, I think a lot of the practical effect will have to do with the disposition and formation of listeners: what they bring to any musical experience and what they allow themselves to take away from it. Raindear's right to say that this is not always or entirely within our control, but to some degree it is, as is our formation. Still wordy, but at least it's down to my 2 cents instead of my $20.
|
|
|
Post by firefolk on Apr 26, 2007 10:13:35 GMT -5
I sort of stumbled across a Russian monastery out west, just a hair over ten years ago now. There was a big conference going on--the Light-House Conference, they called it, since it was held inside a light-house (ah, them zany Russians and their incomprehensible metaphors)--and a large number of monks and interested secular folk, including young college kids, showed up and listened to these old robed and bearded fellows talk about Christian morals in contemporary society. Good times. Anyhow, one of the speakers was a very old and grave monk, undoubtedly a man of great sanctity, who spoke about the diatonic scale and how music which strayed from that scale was intrinsically prone to evils, particularly modern guitar music. To this day I know almost nothing about music theory, and I wouldn’t have presumed to contradict an old wise man on his chosen ground. However--the very next “speaker” was in fact a young monk of some twenty-four summers, who had grown up in San Francisco and had written us a song about the crucial importance of Christian faith in the lives of young people. He also accompanied himself on a guitar, and he was more than a little shame-faced about it; nor was I the only one to note the irony. I dunno, Raindear--I understand your point, and I liked what you said about the importance of docility; but I almost have to advance the argument (and believe me, I’m well aware of how perilous a statement this is) that any given artistic medium is equally prone to good or evil, depending entirely on the use to which it’s put. One considers the difference between Mel Gibson tortured by Gary Busey in Lethal Weapon and Jesus tortured by Romans in The Passion: if you didn’t happen to know the characters or the storyline, it would be difficult to spot an underlying moral difference, but context and authorial intent make all the difference in the world. And if you have an audience who won’t listen to anything but rap or “techno,” isn’t there something to be said for using those media to speak to them? They don't in their nature HAVE to be used offensively, do they?
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 2, 2007 14:24:02 GMT -5
Katy and Firefolk, I think it all boils down to the question of whether a particular genre of music can be intrinsically ordered toward moral evil. For a Catholic, a good end does not justify an evil means. If you think musical genres are morally neutral and only evil according to extrinsic circumstances (lyrics, audience, intention of artist, etc.), you might use certain kinds of music to "meet people where they are." Obviously, I find the scientific and philosophical evidence against that position rather compelling. (: When I heard Fr. Nortz's lecture in person, he quoted a Christian rock band who came to realize the incongruence between their music and their message. During a concert in a foreign country, they interrupted their performance to preach the Gospel to the audience(with translators I assume). They soon realized that the audience was utterly confused - they had no idea the music was Christian and could not understand why the artists were speaking to them about God. The artists were shocked to realize that their music was not a fitting medium for their message. If I may borrow from an article I just read: "This surprise and shock puts me in mind of C. S. Lewis’s comment about people who 'laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in [their] midst.'" [Btw, the said article ( catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0073.html) was a very good critique, though mostly limited to the genre of rock music. It makes an interesting case for communal vs. individualistic music. Be forewarned - some of the lyrics quoted are quite offensive. ] Certainly, your response to music will be influenced by your formation. However, that is a somewhat distinct question. There is a decent, though vague, summary of the technical "measurements" of order and disorder at the end of this article (http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Faith/2001-04/peters.html). Syme, The weight of tradition and science are against you right now. Disagreement is not very persuasive without an argument. (: Fr. Basil Nortz cites sources like How to Conquer the Addiction to Rock Music and The Secret Power of Music when he claims: " Apart from the emotional effects that the progeny of rock music has on man, there are also verifiable physiological effects, such as the increase of adrenaline in the blood stream which makes the music physically addictive. Also it causes the out-pouring of sexual hormones when the volume of the music is high which is practically the norm, especially in concerts and places for dancing. These physical repercussions also serve as indicators of the effect this music can have on the moral life. Since the moral virtues of temperance and fortitude do not reside in man’s purely spiritual faculties of intellect and will, but in the passions of his soul they are more easily disturbed by such bodily changes." You have cited nothing but your personal experiences and judgment which are not irrelevant, but not conclusive either. (:
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 2, 2007 14:46:39 GMT -5
"but I'm still trying to figure out what it implies practically and to give (him? her?)"
Btw, I didn't realize the ambiguity of my screen name. (:
Raindear = decidedly HER.
|
|
|
Post by firefolk on May 2, 2007 15:08:10 GMT -5
Alas. The more time I spend thinking about things (cumulatively over the years, that is), the fewer of my old pastimes seem acceptable to me. Not merely in the Pauline sense of putting aside childish things--like G.I. Joe or He-Man, which I don't find nearly as cool as I used to--but in the sense of things which I would still enjoy if only I could put them in a moral vacuum. Like, say, Monty Python's Life of Brian: which I still find damned funny in many parts, but whose overall irreverence I just can't tolerate anymore. (Incidentally, does anyone know how "irreverent wit" came to be considered a supreme compliment?) I'm already beginning to wince a little when AC/DC's "Hell's Bells" comes on; it's a little sad to think that eventually I won't in good conscience be able to listen to rock at all anymore. Don't get me wrong, I love Mozart and Bach. But they're not nearly as fun to sing along with.
|
|