My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why music?

hanzosbm

Premium Member
In the second degree we are taught of the 7 Liberal Arts. The argument could easily made that they can be seen as a progression of wisdom. Upon understanding common language and grammar one can express thought and clearly convey ideas. With this skill in hand, one is then able to use that language to give depth and persuasion to their words from which we get rhetoric. Moving on from there, rhetoric must be tested and can be used to logically argue a point if the next liberal art is utilized. With logic in tow, the language of the universe, founded upon logic, can then be understood in the form of mathematics. Math, when coupled with the three dimensional world in which we live, gives way to geometry in explaining shapes. These shapes however are static. In terms of engineering, the next progression from static is to dynamic and understanding the way in which things move. What grander movements are there to understand than those of the heavenly bodies, and thus we have astronomy.

But what of music? It's is beautiful, it speaks to our emotions, it can be translated in a mathematical fashion, but as art, it is not dictated by logic and therefore seems to fall out of line with the rest. Furthermore, the order that the arts are given to us in make music all the more enigmatic. It seems to be an unfinished tangent, and even then is rather clumsy when attempting to insert it into the progression of the others.

Were the creators of the ritual needing a seventh and therefore tossed this in, even though it is a poor fit? If so, why the importance of 7? Were the arts given out of order indicating that after understanding the fabric of the cosmos that one should then look inward to the soul and how it is moved by music? Or does it stand in its rightful place yet is misunderstood?

What are your thoughts, brothers?
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
You bring up very interesting points that, with my limited Masonic experience, had not occured to me. Will be watching this thread to see what others have to say.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
The trivium and quadrivium were imported into Masonry not created by Masonry. As such we can just point to the outside source and see what they have to say. But where the fun in doing that? ;^)

Masonry is supposed to complete the entire man. To tie it all together to make us a better man. To keep our eye on the possible but rarely achieved goal of being a perfect ashlar.

Humans are emotional creatures. In lodge we offer the hand of fellowship to build love. We subdue our passions learning to harness our other emotions to power our actions.

Music is emotional. In lodges lucky enough to have a musician we include music in our meetings. It is said that music tames the wild beast. We all have in us that wild beast.

There's a further level that was likely well known in the past that is no longer well known. It's the physical skill aspect of music. All operative Masons knew the physical skills of carving as well as the intellectual skills of design. Back in the day when recorded music meant sheet music more men knew musical instruments than is common now. There is a cluster of composition, sight reading music, playing music, listening to music, feeling the emotions of music that is not as common as it was a century ago. That cluster parallels designing a structure, writing them on the trestle board, sight reading the plans, carving the stone, feeling the emotion of building a cathedral.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I completely agree with you in regards to music speaking to our emotions. In addition, I think one could argue that there is a need to understand the first 3 arts, maybe even the 4th, to truly understand music. This could be seen as a progression all on it's own and a branch, after mastering those first 3 or 4, speaking to the emotional side with geometry and astrology speaking to the logical side. But again, it is placed AFTER geometry, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

As I've been writing this, I'm considering a different avenue of approach. Each of the arts independently are nice, but it is clear that they are meant to be a progression. That being said, maybe we ought to look at this more like a tree than a vine. I think we all see the progressive nature of the trivium, but, after the trunk of the tree is established with those 3, maybe the quadrivium are to be seen as independent branches.

While today, we view a knowledge of mathematics to be the foundation of geometry, that was not always the case. Yes, the two are related, but with practical knowledge and certain tools, geometry can be performed without mathematics, at least in its rudimentary levels. Consider the ancient problem of squaring the circle; the entire challenge was to do so with geometry and excluding mathematics. Likewise, the movement of the stars, while now known to be dictated by physics, can be observed, recorded, even predicted via logic and without true mathematics. Perhaps the quadrivium are all independent of each other, yet all requiring the common foundation of the trivium.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Doing a bit of reading on Wikipedia (dangerous, I know) I found the quadrivium discussed. Proclus, a 5th century philosopher said:

The Pythagoreans considered all mathematical science to be divided into four parts: one half they marked off as concerned with quantity, the other half with magnitude; and each of these they posited as twofold. A quantity can be considered in regard to its character by itself or in its relation to another quantity, magnitudes as either stationary or in motion. Arithmetic, then, studies quantities as such, music the relations between quantities, geometry magnitude at rest, spherics [astronomy] magnitude inherently moving.

This idea of the study of relations between quantities is an interesting one and brings to mind a special I saw awhile back discussing the seemingly constant examples of mathematic ratios in nature. Part of the special also talked about music and how certain ratios (I.e. notes and their combinations) were more pleasing to the ear. It could be argued that music is essentially an auditory representation of geometry, and if viewed again as a progression, it would be necessary to have at least some understanding of geometry to progress. Just a thought.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
The word "music" is an adjective and not a noun.
I must disagree with you. Not only from a grammatical perspective (there's that first liberal art) but also from a practical one. It is one of the liberal arts, those arts being nouns, it is, therefore, a noun.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Once again, music is a noun, not an adjective. Musical and musically are both adjectives, but music is a noun. Furthermore, I'm currently holding the monitors for 2 separate jurisdictions, neither of which have anything even remotely close to mentioning a muse. They both, however, refer to music as a liberal art, a noun.
I asked for thoughts, and I am fully interested in hearing different ideas, but those ideas need to be based on something. If I'm missing what that something is, please enlighten me.
 

Classical

Premium Member
Nice discussion! I have a Bachelor of Music, so I'm pretty sure it's a noun....

The ancients considered music a discipline on par with mathematics and other human rational/emotional endeavors. Many religions have tried to restrict music and/or ban it outright in human worship of God for just the reasons we are speaking of: In that music affects the heart in ways that are not easily understood by objective means. This scares the hell out of many fanatical religions and I think we can see why.

Actually, now that I think about it, ALL of the seven Arts are pretty scary to petty minds and doctrines of human control. I think this is what Pike was hinting at in his first chapter of Morals & Dogma.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Tell me more :)
I vote music is a noun.
Every thought it was cause Solomon was a rock star of his day ? He is attributed with the Song of Solomon which appears in some of our VSLs :)

(I'm in a silly mood, though there is a comnection there. ..)
 

Classical

Premium Member
Tell me more :)
I vote music is a noun.
Every thought it was cause Solomon was a rock star of his day ? He is attributed with the Song of Solomon which appears in some of our VSLs :)

(I'm in a silly mood, though there is a comnection there. ..)
Just make sure you dial it up to 11!
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I read on Wikipedia that originally, when the ancients spoke of the art of 'music', they were really talking about harmonics. That would certainly make sense regarding the mathematical nature of music having to do with ratios and how they affect harmonics. That being said, it's Wikipedia. Does anyone have anything that could be added along those lines?
 

Browncoat

Registered User
"There is geometry in the humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres." — Pythagoras

Yes, THAT Pythagoras. He was very much into the study of how mathematics relates to music.

 

Emjaysmash

מחפש כל האור
Premium Member
Let me throw this idea out there: I think we can all agree music has mathematics as a foundation. Could the jump from geometry to music possibly have to do with creation beyond the physical? Geometry employs mathematics to physical means: shapes, angles, all or which need to be physically created (be that in building or on the trestle board). Music takes that one step further- creation of mathematical patterns that are not necessary confined to a physical apparatus (although often is in order to be re-created by others) but are fleeting and momentary. Could this not point to a GAOTU that created from nothing? Could it also serve as a reminder of our fleeting creation and that all are to meet death eventually?

Something to think about.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Arithmetic (The Rhetoric of Symbols as Numbers) = Numbers and Operators
Geometry = Numbers and Operators in Space => Space Management
[Trigonometry = The Bridge between Geometry and Music]
Music = Numbers and Operators in Time => Time Management
Astronomy (Physics!) = Numbers and Operators in Space and Time => Physics Management
 
Last edited:

hanzosbm

Premium Member
One thing I'd like to point out, which is a common misconception even made in that video, is the idea that the physical world is all created according to mathematics. It is not. Rather, mathematics is simply a language used to describe the physical world. Just as a digital picture is a collection of small dots of a substance that refracts light with similar properties to physical objects in the world around us, that doesn't mean that the world is created based on pictures. I often here that music is mathematical, and respectfully, this is not true. Music, like everything, can be described through mathematics, but it can also be described through pictures, through written descriptions, and sometimes through color. But that doesn't make music pictorial, literary, or chromatic. Music is simply musical, and we can describe it in a great number of ways.
Now that my little rant is over, I feel that it brings me back to my original question. Yes, music can be described with mathematics, but it does not require mathematics, so it still places it outside of the linear progression of sciences listed.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
One thing I'd like to point out, which is a common misconception even made in that video, is the idea that the physical world is all created according to mathematics. It is not. Rather, mathematics is simply a language used to describe the physical world. Just as a digital picture is a collection of small dots of a substance that refracts light with similar properties to physical objects in the world around us, that doesn't mean that the world is created based on pictures. I often here that music is mathematical, and respectfully, this is not true. Music, like everything, can be described through mathematics, but it can also be described through pictures, through written descriptions, and sometimes through color. But that doesn't make music pictorial, literary, or chromatic. Music is simply musical, and we can describe it in a great number of ways.
Now that my little rant is over, I feel that it brings me back to my original question. Yes, music can be described with mathematics, but it does not require mathematics, so it still places it outside of the linear progression of sciences listed.

I agree with all that you have written, except for your conclusion. The STUDY of Music was purposeful and in line with a continuum toward Physics. You can do all the music appreciation and playing of instruments you want. Without the foundation, study of numbers and operators in time, you're just a user of sound. The study is not about sound. It is about shaping the mind to recognize, understand and apply numbers in time. That also included development of the anticipatory, estimation and sequencing circuits of the brain. Its study develops these and quite a few other things too!
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
The study is not about sound. It is about shaping the mind to recognize, understand and apply numbers in time. That also included development of the anticipatory, estimation and sequencing circuits of the brain. Its study develops these and quite a few other things too!
Whew!!! Heavy stuff.
 
Top