Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz

[sean applegate]

And do you trust your sense perception? If I underhook you on your left side the universe will not allow you to whizzer me on your right will it?

All I have is my own perception. I don't trust it, but it's the reality I see. Trying to understand how others percieve things is all I can do to escape that.

[Kevin Bergdorf]

You would have to read the linked articles in the thread to understand, Have you done that?

It has to so with intervals and musical temperament.
Im sure you'll understand if you look into it. Not all systems divided the notes 100 cent apart like guitars are setup for. (equal temperament)

The concept of this entire 432 A, thing is based on is not just tuning down but a different way of dividing the musical scale. If you just tune down to A=432 you are still playing in equal temperament not "just intonation" aka Pythagorean. Fixed fret instruments cant do it.

http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth5.html
http://www.acousticmasters.com/Acous...ers_Tuning.htm

OK, so it is a scale issue. I get it now. Thanks

[Kevin Bergdorf]

All I have is my own perception. I don't trust it, but it's the reality I see. Trying to understand how others percieve things is all I can do to escape that.

There is a reality higher than your perception.

[sean applegate]

There is a reality higher than your perception.

Sure, why not...but prove it

[Kevin Bergdorf]

Sure, why not...but prove it

Not necessary; it's already within you. You have a rational mind and thus can (and do everyday) directly interact with a whole universe of truth without the use of sense perception. If it weren't so, we couldn't have this conversation. And incidentally I do agree with you that collective perceptions are worth more than any one individual's in understanding the material world.

[sean applegate]

Not necessary; it's already within you. You have a rational mind and thus can (and do everyday) directly interact with a whole universe of truth without the use of sense perception. If it weren't so, we couldn't have this conversation. And incidentally I do agree with you that collective perceptions are worth more than any one individual's in understanding the material world.

I agree, but still is only a theory. Until it can be proven, which most likely will never happen, all we can understand is our own perception.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

It is similar to scale issue. When you set A at 432, the rest of the notes that build your musical alphabet do not all ly an even space apart. You could do it that way but you would be ignoring intonation and end up with a bunch of dissonance when building scales and chords. Like the wolf interval. This is largely why string instruments historically went fret-less> movable frets> set frets.

It is similar to scale issue. When you set A at 432, the rest of the notes that build your musical alphabet do not all ly an even space apart. You could do it that way but you would be ignoring intonation and end up with a bunch of dissonance when building scales and chords. Like the wolf interval. This is largely why string instruments historically went fret-less> movable frets> set frets.

Sure, why not...but prove it

Interesting topic. Ive gone down this road before as did the greeks and others who were smarter than us. Before you can decide if true qualia exist, the first bump in the discussion is a topic of epistemology. As in what can we really know, what does it mean to know something? We have to first settle this in order to decide if anything can be "proven" to your satisfaction.

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Not necessary; it's already within you. You have a rational mind and thus can (and do everyday) directly interact with a whole universe of truth without the use of sense perception. If it weren't so, we couldn't have this conversation. And incidentally I do agree with you that collective perceptions are worth more than any one individual's in understanding the material world.

Not necessary;(what is not necessarily?) it's already within you. (what is in you?)
What do you mean by a "universe of truth"
How can one interact with something lacking perception. Even if the entire proposed shared reality were actually internal, you would still have to be able to perceive the internal.
We could all be figment of Sean's conciseness but in order to interact with us he still must perceive us. The "others" could all be you but still offer a wider perspective of your realty.

If we are all beings with individuals realities and living in a shared reality as well, then the the value of collective perceptions or simply other perceptions should not be limited to the material.

[sean applegate]

Not necessary;(what is not necessarily?) it's already within you. (what is in you?)
What do you mean by a "universe of truth"
How can one interact with something lacking perception. Even if the entire proposed shared reality were actually internal, you would still have to be able to perceive the internal.
We could all be figment of Sean's conciseness but in order to interact with us he still must perceive us. The "others" could all be you but still offer a wider perspective of your realty.

If we are all beings with individuals realities and living in a shared reality as well, then the the value of collective perceptions or simply other perceptions should not be limited to the material.

True, but all we find is our own perception. Perception is life, knowledge, and truth. We have only what we know( or think we know).

[Aaron Gustaveson]

True, but all we find is our own perception. Perception is life, knowledge, and truth. We have only what we know( or think we know).

i agree with the first sentence. Perception is also death, ignorance and false conclusions.