In 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗰 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 Gilbert Rouget argues that “𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘳𝘩𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.” In other words, there is no intrinsic power of music which induces trance. Music here acts not on the physiological level, but as a code (a). It plays a symbolic role, which cannot be separated from the specific cultural context in which it is employed. He also claims that “𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥.”

This is how the main thesis of his essay could be summed up and he proceeds to argue his case brilliantly. One of the most relevant examples in this regard is that the musicians providing the music in possession cults never become entranced during the ceremony (the only exception here is the shaman: “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 (b) 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦; 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘪𝘴.”)

I adore Rouget’s book and yet I cannot come to terms with precisely the thesis on which it is based. Intellectually, I am very enthusiastic about it, but experientially I am far from being convinced (or wanting to be convinced). I refuse the idea that music has solely a cultural relation to trance and I seek to find an argument which marries both the cultural and the natural. Nor do I understand why Rouget makes such a radical distinction between nature and culture – I believe instead that the two actually act upon each other and often work side by side: “𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦? 𝘐𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘺. 𝙋𝙨𝙮𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙥𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙘 𝙚𝙣𝙜𝙖𝙜𝙚𝙨 𝙨𝙤 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙣 (𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙤𝙙𝙮) [my emphasis] 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 – 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘐 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦.” (David Byrne, in this splendid interview: https://www.philosophyforlife.org/…/david-byrne-on… )

Although Rouget goes to prove his theory with very solid examples, it fails to explain why, nevertheless, certain sounds induce certain effects in people. If there is no intrinsic power of music (sounds in general), how does one explain a situation, like in this rather naive example, where a person who is not familiar with Indian metaphysics (who is thus unaware of the codified systems the mantras are part of) gets to listen to certain mantras (without even knowing they are called this way) and feels certain effects of those mantras? (c) Sure, it could be argued that in this case, although there are certain effects, we are not dealing with possession trance – but Rouget’s claim that music has no intrinsic power which induces certain states concerns all relevant situations, not just possession trance.

***

“𝘈𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴. 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.” (Rousseau)

“𝘐𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 <<𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴>> 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤, 𝘙𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 – 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 – 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 (<<𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘊𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘦?>> 𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 Essai [sur l’origine des langues])” (Rouget)

𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱

5 fragments from Sadhguru:

1 – “𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯? 𝘛𝘰𝘥𝘢𝘺, 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘶𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘷𝘪𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥. 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹 𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘬𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘱 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘴. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘱 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘥𝘪𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 – 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘪𝘤𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦.”

2 – “𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥. 𝘈 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘺 𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘴. 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘴 – 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.”

3 – “𝘈 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.”

4 – “[𝘐𝘯] 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤, 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘐𝘯 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 – 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘴, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 – 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘋𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘥𝘳𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴. 𝘐𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤, 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵-𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦. 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 <<𝘫𝘪𝘯𝘨-𝘣𝘢𝘯𝘨>> 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵. 𝘌𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢 𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴.”

5 – “𝘈 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭, 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘫𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 [𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦] 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯. 𝘚𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦, 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘳𝘩𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤, 𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘬 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯, 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘐𝘯 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵.”

𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵

“𝘙𝘩𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘭; 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘱𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘳𝘶𝘪𝘵 (…) 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴; 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘢𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦.” (Francis Bebey)

“𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 – 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭/ 𝘯𝘦𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭/𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘢 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺, 𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘵 – 𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵? 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘐’𝘮 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘧 𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘋𝘕𝘈-𝘮𝘢𝘺𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘐𝘚 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧. 𝘐𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯? 𝘾𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙮 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙨𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘 𝙚𝙢𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 [my emphasis.] 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 – 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘤 (𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘤 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦) 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸, 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘨.” (David Byrne)

“𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 – 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 – 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱, 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘶𝘱 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 (…). 𝘓𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰 (…) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘻𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘹𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭 (…) 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 (…) 𝘐 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘶𝘵𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘺, 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵? (…) 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘴, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘰 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘴𝘪-𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘥 𝘨𝘰 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘦? 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘗𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘨𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘱𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘴? (…) 𝘐𝘵’𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦’𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘺𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵’𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘴.” (Jordan Peterson)

Do Peterson’s remarks hold true for every type of music? I often describe a song/musical composition/concert as “transcendental” as the ultimate form of praise. But could this be used as a criterion for good music vs. bad music, for instance? I’m not sure. Plus, the fact that I am so impressed about pieces which I deem transcendental might be due to very subjective, personal reasons – it doesn’t necessarily speak of some common, universal inner structures that, once touched, lead to a transcendental experience. But I’m not sure about this either.

𝗙𝘂𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀

Could it be that, in the grand majority of cases, Rouget theory is valid, but there are certain sounds, those “key sounds” that Sadhguru talks about, that work differently (i.e. contrary to Rouget’s theory)? Is this too naïve an attempt to make peace between two opposing points of view?

“𝘈𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘴 (…)” – but is it really a matter of nerves per se? What if music doesn’t act directly on our nerves, but on some other inner dimensions which in turn have an effect on the grosser layers, like our nerves? Secondly, does it have to be either/or? Can we admit the possibility that although music acts on our nerves, it is nevertheless not reducible to this effect? (“𝘗𝘴𝘺𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺, 𝘱𝘩𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺… 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 (𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺) 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭”)

If everything is sound/vibration (d), is there such a thing as music and non-music? If such a difference exists, is it cultural or existential?

No insinuation: is the parrot’s behaviour a cultural reaction?

𝗘𝗻𝗱𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲𝘀

(a) Francis Bebey talks about (African) music as a code in yet another way: “𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵, 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘨? 𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦. 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘈𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘦𝘤𝘩. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 <<𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯>> 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘵-𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘮, 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯.”

(b) This is the term used in the English translation of the book.

(c) The potentially powerful effects of mantras is one of the reasons why some of them are kept secret and a person can only have access to them through initiation.

(d) There are various metaphysical doctrines affirming this idea. For a detailed exposition of one such doctrine, I recommend Hazrat Inayat Khan’s 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗰.

(Featured image: still from the Youtube video above)