The Wisdom of Insecurity | Hacker News Reader

The Wisdom of Insecurity

brainpickings.org

62 pointscoltr18 comments

"To understand music, you must listen to it. But so long as you are thinking, “I am listening to this music,” you are not listening"

This is a phenomenon I constantly battle internally in my consciousness when assessing the various layers of musical composition.

So if we stop ourselves from thinking about music as we listen, the result would then consist of "experiencing/feeling" music?

The mechanics of it being a mindless, automatic response to the auditory stimulation. (neurotransmitter release/binding)

I don't know where I'm going with this, but how do you all listen to/analyze/experience particular music of your liking?

I become one with the vocalist, which is really fun with the varying amount of music I listen to. But, I also won't listen to music that I don't connect with, because music is such a personal thing for me.

I think that for many people music is deeply connected with ideas about identity, such as "this is the kind of music I like" and "I am the kind of person who likes this kind of music". This is very visible in popular music, where how the performers look and who they are is as important as the music itself.

Because of this, the satisfaction of listening to music isn't only auditory or aesthetic, but also an identity satisfaction, of feeling one's ideas about oneself confirmed.

It's probably true that humans inject identity ideas into everything, so this is nothing special to music. But it's a strange situation, since music per se is the most abstract of the arts and this extra layer we put on top of it is so obviously extrinsic.

Maybe it's precicely because of the abstract nature of music that people need to judge it based on something more concrete.

Could be, especially when you combine that with its immense emotional power.

I've got no trouble analysing the music I listen to. In a way, it increases my appreciation of it, sort of like watching a film and being able to enjoy how well a specific shot is put together without, well, losing the plot.

Then again, I listen to loads of ambient instrumental soundscapey stuff so it might be a genre that is given to analysis.

On the other hand, I get a similar problem every time I've tried to play a musical instrument. I try drumming and it initially sounds pleasing, at which point I think to myself "hey, I'm drumming!" and it all quickly goes to hell.

The joy of being lost in the moment, and to know we can only do that now, makes every moment valuable. But we find ourselves again and again telling ourselves stories about who we are, and who others are. I've been trying to piece together how it's possible to interact with others without this need for ego narrative, but haven't found the way just yet.

Something struck me about love a moment ago... Perhaps the reason love seems elusive is that isn't reached directly, but is found as a byproduct of living in line with how you are.

My first exposure to this concept was in Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now". I look forward to reading Watt as well to gain further insight, thanks for sharing.

The obvious conclusion of this is that this implies you should have no goals for the future, you should work towards nothing, and just take life as it comes.

I feel that to be a little rediculous.

You can't control the future, but I feel that intelligent planning is important.

> You can't control the future, but I feel that intelligent planning is important.

Gen. Eisenhower had a quote he liked: "In preparing for battle, I have always found that plans are useless but planning is indispensable."

Edit: Having read the article again I'm not so sure that it is truly so laissez-faire. I can vouch for the idea of self-improvement via letting go, for instance. I have improved myself over time, but it only started happening once I stopped caring so much about improving myself and instead let myself drift into being better bit by bit.

Likewise I've found that I feel better about myself and the world the more I allow myself to simply drift and experience it. Conversely I get more agitated and worried the more I try to swim in the current of existence. That doesn't mean I just tread water, you have to meet Maslow's needs after all. But once those needs are met it's prudent to step back every once in awhile, there won't always be a later to push important things off to.

I think it's more about working backward from goals to things you can do now.

Your goal is to lose x pounds by y date? You can't really control that. What you can control is what you eat today, and how you exercise today. (Which could be based on what you did the day before)

It's a little like the "goals vs systems" thinking from Scott Adams.

> The obvious conclusion of this is that this implies you should have no goals for the future, you should work towards nothing, and just take life as it comes.

That kind of black-and-white thinking is exactly what the article is nudging you into letting go of. Nowhere does it say not to have goals. Rather, it says not to confuse those goals with reality, not to spend all your time protecting a hypothetical future when you can only ever live in the present. Nowhere does it say work towards nothing. Rather, it says work is something to be experienced for its own sake, rather than just as some suffering to get through in order to achieve an end.

Yes, take life as it comes, including the fact that setting goals and working towards them might be something that makes you happy. However, when goals become obsessions and happy work turns to fear of failure and anxiety, you're defeating the entire purpose of setting goals and working in the first place.

The core idea is simple, but explained this way it seems to give wrong impression. Also, the title is somewhat misleading. So if somebody is interested in that kind of things I'd suggest reading Erich Fromm's "To Have or to Be?"[1]. It's also heavily influenced by eastern philosophy and zen buddhism and is supposed to explain the same thing as this article does, but in my opinion does it much better (although I disagree with Fromm in many details, but it still feels like a good read).

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Have_or_to_Be%3F

I'm a bit hesitant to take life advice from a thrice divorced alcoholic.

He also lived in somewhat seclusion on a boat, as I remember.

By that logic we'll have to throw out some of the most influential authors. People like Hemingway, David Foster Wallace, Fitzgerald, Mary Shelley, etc. etc. Their reflections on life wouldn't matter, and the study of what they've thought on life would be meaningless. Perhaps from your POV that's true, but I simply don't agree with that.

An author's personal life is not indicative of their wisdom, or perspective. After all this life is simply a variety of events that just happen, all of which can't be perfect, or just the way you want. Life is just the way it is, and you, as a human being, are molded around it. Cognitively that's how a human being works, we learn, and we grow. See it for what life is, and go with it. After a while you'll develop your own perspective from wherever you stand.

But that's just the way I see things...

Why is that?

Alcoholism is very much a disease.

Do you hesitate to take advice from people with cardiovascular disease?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com