Nikhsefa: Theory of all - Aspiration to Unity

Shalom Veto
To me it the claim that this graduality is more harmonious, is not obvious at all - worst, it seems to me like deluding ourselves. I don't mean to be offensive - I am writing this because maybe you can open my eyes to these values

As far as my "unity" criteria, the way I meant it, total blackness is perfect unity. if all the space of the world was homogenous, it would have been perfect unity. therefor I won't be able to say that our world is better than that homogenous world.

BTW I do have an account about my preferences of complex melodies sometimes: it is because life is complex, in the bottom line. 

Dear Nikhsefa,

Although I do think that we could reach a common judgement about what is more harmonious and what is less and even to understand why harmony for you is total unique blackness and for me it is a gradual merger of all the diversified colors of the rainbow, that is not the important point on the theoretical level.

The point is that we all start from the reference point that human will is geared towards harmony. Beyond this point it becomes an issue of study and research how to classify the practical level between harmony and disharmony. Even if one will claim that killing is more harmonious then letting live, he will bear the burden of proving and demonstrating how killing is more harmonious.

Lets take your example of complexity. I think that we agree that complexity has a value only because arranging its parts can reach a higher level of harmony than simpleness even if only from the richness of diversity. But if complexity would be such that it we did not distinguish anything in its variety and it could only be a cause for more chaos, we wouldn't value it at all.

Shalom Veto! I am sorry I didn't answer till now... I don't remember why I stopped this dialogue... do you want to continue where we left off?
I hope all is well with you...

kuli ozen

 
My aspiration-to-unity theory did not include complexity in what-is-aspired-to.
It said that we aspire to an all-inclusive-unity. That means a unity that includes all things (I didn't define what should be included in the term "things", but I didn't want to talk so metaphysically. They could be different motives in a musical piece, or different people, or forces in nature. The difficulty of defining "things" in this context is another reason that I started to speak in different terms and put the aspiration-to-unity theory aside.)
Sometimes the only way to unite things that are different is by having a high level of complexity. But I never said that complexity has a value in itself.
 I did mention that personally I like musical pieces with a higher level of complexity than other people like - and that is because in my experience I find that the only way to achieve an inclusive unity in life is with a higher level of complexity. For this reason, complex music - at least in some moods - relates more to my life. But I don't agree that we always prefer a higher level of complexity and find it more harmonious (which by the way is a vague term that requires definition if we want to use it in our theory).

I hope that you appreciate this problem for your view.