from Chapter 2 "Foot Tapping" p.57
..."It is no coincidence that making music requires the coordinated, rhythmic use of our bodies, and that energy be transmitted from body movements to a musical instrument. At a neural level, playing an instrument requires the orchestration [italics mine] of regions in our primitive, reptilian brain - the cerebellum and the brain stem - as well as higher cognitive systems such as the motor cortex (in the parietal lobe) and the planning regions of our frontal lobes, the most advanced region of the brain."
orchestration - a synonym for integration?
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Developing Mind Overview
Overview of The Developing Mind, 2nd edition (incomplete)
Mind, Brain, Relationships - introductory
Definition of Mind: The mind is an embodied and relational process which regulates the flow of energy and information.
After defining the mind, on page 5-6:
Mind, Brain, Relationships - introductory
Definition of Mind: The mind is an embodied and relational process which regulates the flow of energy and information.
- it is within the brain and between brains
- the mind is an emergent property or process arising from the distributed nervous system and from communication patterns occurring in relationships
- both experiences (especially within relationships) and the genetically programmed maturation of the nervous system determine the structure and function of the developing mind
- the mind is more than the sum of its parts [that suggests something transcendent or at least separate from its parts, yet if it is merely emergent or entirely dependent on the brain/relationships, in what way is it more than those dependencies?]
After defining the mind, on page 5-6:
"The implications of this definition are significant...One implication is that we don't "own" our minds - that we, our individual "selves", are interdependent on others for the functioning of our minds. This relational part of the definition makes some people uncomfortable. Yet if you are in a family, or in a one-to-one relationship, you know that your subjective, inner mental life is profoundly influenced by others...And so what we need is a link that connects the social with the synaptic."
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Developing Mind 1st edition Notes
from the "Representations" chapter (1st ed, taken 11/13/12 at 11:52am):
p.164 - modules of the mind create and handle specific kinds of representations:
--> What are the different "modules" which are activated in playing the piano and/or giving/taking a piano lesson?
Sensory (Perceptual includes memories of past sensations)
p.164 - modules of the mind create and handle specific kinds of representations:
- sensory
- perceptual
- abstract reasoning
- conceptualization of other minds
--> What are the different "modules" which are activated in playing the piano and/or giving/taking a piano lesson?
Sensory (Perceptual includes memories of past sensations)
- sight:
- the notes on the page
- the piano keys
- the room/environment
- the student/teacher
- (the "audience")
- hearing
- environmental and/or "silence"
- the physical instrument (mechanism/action of piano)
- fingernails on keys
- pedal noise
- Attack Sustain Decay Release of sound
- frequencies
- timbre
- touch
- fingers on keys
- butt on seat
- feet on pedals/floor
- (smell)
- (taste)
p. 165 - Internal sensations (bodily motion, states of arousal, temperature, muscle tension) are "especially integrated on the right side of the brain"
p.166 - these, I think, would still be considered "symbols" because they are neuronal interpretations of the thing itself
- there are "presymbolic" representations which are closer to thing itself (The Mind Only School in Tibetan Buddhism would have something to say about this)
p.167 - all these would be considered "prelinguistic"
- a concept is also prelinguistic (ex. freedom, justice, categories like "mammals", etc.)
p.168 - Linguistic Representations: how much of these are needed for music/making/learning?
--> knowing these imbalances, and knowing the mental/neurological correlates/substrates of music-making/learning, we can emphasize aspects of the playing/learning process which could correct the imbalance!To what extent could the case be made for compulsory musical education? . . .or . . . are there ways to teach compulsory subjects such as reading, writing, and math in more musical and therefore more effective ways?
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Details, details...
Having read the "Representations" chapter in Developing Mind, 1st edition:
In thinking about the distinction between a concept (here considered "prelinguistic") and a word (a linguistic representation), it occurred to me that there are very few objects/beings which have a word/name for that one particular object/being. I don't have a name for the one particular table I am writing on right now (it is my Grandmother's white stone tile table with its ornate black wrought-iron grape vine frame).
The word "table" simultaneously refers to this particular instance of "table" and the generalized concept or category of "table". Perhaps one of the few examples of giving a word/name to a unique instance of a class/category of object/being/phenomenon is the practice of naming ourselves. We attempt to "sum up" the particularity of our children with a unique name. Despite this practice, some people have the same name and in some cultures, many, many people have the same name.
Occasionally we give our dwellings a specific name: I live in the "Crestwood", otherwise known as a "co-op":
Some people name their cars (here we have the "General Lee", from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show),
guitars (this is BB King's guitar, "Lucille"),
animals (these are my cats "Ipam" and "Katia"),
etc., but mostly these things are identified simply by the concept/category they fall into...
Perhaps...
...becoming aware of the particularity of an object/being means becoming more aware of its truth or interdependence or emptiness (using Buddhist terminology). But it is an emptiness, which is to say it is not nothing; it is a very specific collection (and that specificity is important) of attributes/history which are dependent and inseparable. Although the concept/category of the object/being is part of its individuality, we are often content to leave it at that.
In doing some of the seeing/drawing exercises in the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, it seemed to me that a spacious and quiet mind arose from tuning into the particular specifics of visual forms being perceived. These mental states are usually thought of as mutually exclusive, but perhaps when we attend to specifics accurately, we are automatically and naturally connecting with the general or larger truth of things.
Maybe we'd be more happy, caring, and compassionate if we could sense the particularity of every single tree/car/person/stone, such that we could give each one a unique name which expressed that particularity. Conversely, maybe we don't need to take ourselves so seriously when there are so many instances of our category. Just like we don't need to name every single tree that comes into the world, each of us is just another instance/example of the category "human being". Keeping these contradictory views simultaneously in mind seems like a good route...
In thinking about the distinction between a concept (here considered "prelinguistic") and a word (a linguistic representation), it occurred to me that there are very few objects/beings which have a word/name for that one particular object/being. I don't have a name for the one particular table I am writing on right now (it is my Grandmother's white stone tile table with its ornate black wrought-iron grape vine frame).
The word "table" simultaneously refers to this particular instance of "table" and the generalized concept or category of "table". Perhaps one of the few examples of giving a word/name to a unique instance of a class/category of object/being/phenomenon is the practice of naming ourselves. We attempt to "sum up" the particularity of our children with a unique name. Despite this practice, some people have the same name and in some cultures, many, many people have the same name.
Occasionally we give our dwellings a specific name: I live in the "Crestwood", otherwise known as a "co-op":
Some people name their cars (here we have the "General Lee", from the Dukes of Hazzard TV show),
guitars (this is BB King's guitar, "Lucille"),
animals (these are my cats "Ipam" and "Katia"),
etc., but mostly these things are identified simply by the concept/category they fall into...
Perhaps...
...becoming aware of the particularity of an object/being means becoming more aware of its truth or interdependence or emptiness (using Buddhist terminology). But it is an emptiness, which is to say it is not nothing; it is a very specific collection (and that specificity is important) of attributes/history which are dependent and inseparable. Although the concept/category of the object/being is part of its individuality, we are often content to leave it at that.
In doing some of the seeing/drawing exercises in the book Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, it seemed to me that a spacious and quiet mind arose from tuning into the particular specifics of visual forms being perceived. These mental states are usually thought of as mutually exclusive, but perhaps when we attend to specifics accurately, we are automatically and naturally connecting with the general or larger truth of things.
Maybe we'd be more happy, caring, and compassionate if we could sense the particularity of every single tree/car/person/stone, such that we could give each one a unique name which expressed that particularity. Conversely, maybe we don't need to take ourselves so seriously when there are so many instances of our category. Just like we don't need to name every single tree that comes into the world, each of us is just another instance/example of the category "human being". Keeping these contradictory views simultaneously in mind seems like a good route...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)