Why You Should Convert Your Music To 432 hz

[sean applegate]

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

Sure, and everything else we think we know

[Kevin Bergdorf]

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.

On a fretted instrument (guitar) tuning all six strings to 432 instead of 440 does not impact the distance between notes on the fretboard. Agree?

[Aaron Gustaveson]

On a fretted instrument (guitar) tuning to 432 instead of 440 does not impact the distance between notes on the fretboard. Agree?

Right. and in order to play in this type of musical system which is called "natural" or more properly "pythagorean" and is a type of "intonation only" system, you would have to be able to move the frets or be fret-less. There are an infinite number of vibrations between each fret on a guitar that the instrument is not designed to produce. Some of these lost notes caused by set frets are part of the system and would be needed.

There are two major differences in modern set interval music and Pythagorean music;
1. where the musicals notes are centered on the range of sound detectable by humans. ie A @440 vs A @ 432
2. the difference of frequency between each note. (how far apart notes are) Remember it is arbitrary which frequencies we give a name to and make part of the system, how much we like the way they sound together determines which ones get in. In the most common tuning today the notes are evenly spaced apart and thus instruments can have fixed frets. There are infinitely more notes that a fret-less guitar can play vs a fretted guitar, literally infinite but our ears can only hear with a certain accuracy.

You could build a guitar with frets set for this system. It doesnt necessarily have to be fret-less but the frets on a normal guitar are not set in the right spots.

[Kevin Bergdorf]

Right. and in order to play in this type of musical system which is called "natural" or more properly "pythagorean" and is a type of "intonation only" system, you would have to be able to move the frets or be fret-less. There are an infinite number of vibrations between each fret on a guitar that the instrument is not designed to produce. Some of these lost notes caused by set frets are part of the system and would be needed.

There are two major differences in modern set interval music and Pythagorean music;
1. where the musicals notes are centered on the range of sound detectable by humans. ie A @440 vs A @ 432
2. the difference of frequency between each note. (how far apart notes are) Remember it is arbitrary which frequencies we give a name to and make part of the system, how much we like the way they sound together determines which ones get in. In the most common tuning today the notes are evenly spaced apart and thus instruments can have fixed frets. There are infinitely more notes that a fret-less guitar can play vs a fretted guitar, literally infinite but our ears can only hear with a certain accuracy.

You could build a guitar with frets set for this system. It doesnt necessarily have to be fret-less but the frets on a normal guitar are not set in the right spots.

Thank you- I just finished reading through the article at medieval.org, so your response was timely and insightful.

[Kevin Bergdorf]

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. E

Not necessary to build a logical proof; it was an argument from normal experience. I didn't think it necessary to prove that sean applegate has a rational mind that is distinct from his sense organs. Agree/disagree?

The rational mind is within.

Through mental apprehension, introspection and judgment which don't rely on or require sense perceptions. e.g., mathematics, logic primarily.

[Kevin Bergdorf]

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.

Do you mean it's only a theory that...

1. Sean Applegate has a rational mind? (I would commend this theory to you), or
2. That you engage in introspection, reflection, comprehension of ideas which does not involve your senses? or
3. That no communication is possible without shared beliefs about invisible realities?

[Aaron Gustaveson]

Not necessary to build a logical proof; it was an argument from normal experience. I didn't think it necessary to prove that sean applegate has a rational mind that is distinct from his sense organs. Agree/disagree?

The rational mind is within.

Through mental apprehension, introspection and judgment which don't rely on or require sense perceptions. e.g., mathematics, logic primarily.

OK I see what you were saying.
Not sure that the mind is distinct or separate from the sense organs though, they are all part of the nervous systems and all necessary for typical human perception. We just arbitrarily divide the brain (which host the mind) from the rest of the nervous system.

Apprehension of the non-material is possible with out perception. Not interaction but conciseness none the less, so you could be conscious of things in this way with out perception.

Introspection is not a form of interaction. But you would still have to be able to perceive yourself and separate yourself from the rest of the universe to be introspective . Otherwise you'd just be "spective" (joke) This could be done without perception but Im not sure a mind could be introspective if it never had perception at one time to allow it to know its distinctness from the rest of realty.

Mathematics and logic, I can see an argument for them being out side of perception But for a mind without perception to develop the concept of numbers and math or systems of logic, that would be crazy.

[sean applegate]

Perception originated all of this. If there are laws to perception, which may or may not actually exist, than they govern it. Perception created math and logic. The idea that we can know anything past our own perception is great, but without solid proof. Even learning of others perception is still only our own perception of what they perceive to be truth. Deciding whether or not someone has a rational mind is only based on the person evaluating that minds perception of what is rational. I may think it's perfectly rational for gravity to not exist. Maybe I'm right. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe what you perceive gravity to be is something else entirely.