Had this thought the other day

[ccravens]

It's no mystery, really. It's just human nature. We have been anthropomorphizing things since time immemorial. Our emotions get the better of us and we feel connected to inanimate objects which give us pleasure. It may be an illogical quirk of humankind, but I hope it's one we never evolve away from. Just so long as we realize it's an emotional human trait that allows us to experience life beyond the mundane.

So I admit that this may be way too deep for a mando forum (although not off topic), but my deeper question is why that we do this. I do it rarely, but have been guilty of it before. You seem to say that it is an emotional irrationality, or an illogical quirk. I am willing to accept that explanation, while still admitting that it does not answer the "why" question.

I believe that the desire to, as you said, "experience life beyond the mundane," or I would say the physical realm (since an instrument is a physical, inanimate object), may have something to do with all of this. Which still doesn't answer the "why" question, or rather leads to another deeper "why."

I don't believe songs just come, or are plucked "out of the air" in some form of musical mysticism, nor do I believe that my instruments have some songs "in them" or they can bond with an owner, or have feelings of any sort.

So my question remains, that despite this knowledge and set of beliefs, why am I still tempted, as many posters say they actually do, to give personal traits to an impersonal inanimate object? Or to make personal, objective songwriting into a subjective mystical experience? The "why" question, not judging other's opinions, is really what interests me here.

Maybe I need to move this to a philosophy forum somewhere...

[Tobin]

Oh boy - that could certainly go into a very deep discussion! And you're right: it's a deep philosophical question that people have pondered for thousands of years, and will likely ponder for as long as we exist. We will probably never have a satisfactory explanation as to why we do the things we do which are not purely logical. But it's who we are, and there's a certain satisfaction in accepting it for what it is, as well as enjoying the humanity of it.

For better or worse, we humans have a spiritual side that we cannot turn off. For some, it leads to religion. For others, it leads to the arts (musical, visual, and all other forms). For some, it manifests in charitable works and altruism. For yet others, it leads to the love of the natural world and animals. Some find it in medicine and healing. And we all, probably, find it in combinations of these things to varying degrees. But we are all chasing the same thing: connection to something beautiful and beyond ourselves that we can't quite identify. Every culture that has ever existed on Earth has recognized it, and we all call it something different. But we know it's there and we obsessively pursue it.

Assigning human traits to an inanimate object is a small, but critical, part of this. It's about connecting to the world around us on a deep spiritual and emotional level that we may not be comfortable admitting.

[JeffD]

So my question remains, that despite this knowledge and set of beliefs, why am I still tempted, as many posters say they actually do, to give personal traits to an impersonal inanimate object? Or to make personal, objective songwriting into a subjective mystical experience? The "why" question, not judging other's opinions, is really what interests me here.

Maybe I need to move this to a philosophy forum somewhere...

Well there is a philosophical angle for sure, and one I have pursued with some rigor in the distant past.

Cutting to the chase, one particular strain of thought is that intelligence, or consciousness, or sentience, is not a property we have, it is a property others detect in us. And through language and interaction with our community we "conclude" that we have that property that we detect in others.

The idea is that humans have hard wired evolved "sentience detectors" that, when pinged, make you believe the object you are interacting with is conscious and intelligent like you, at least to some extent.

One of the strongest phenomena to "ping" our "sentience detectors" is when something tracks our eyes. I mean for example, one strong way to make a robot machine appear sentient is to give it the ability to point its "eyes" at us and follow our face.

According to this strain of thought we have no absolute knowledge that a puppy (or anything else) is sentient except that it does all those things that ping our hard wired sentience detectors, it responds to our call, it follows our eyes, it returns what feels like affection. But there is no way to actually access the consciousness of that puppy and verify its existence directly.

So it is no great mystery that these detectors are often pinged inappropriately, when a car starts after begging it, or a computer works only after saying good morning to it, or when we feel our own affection for a teddy bear or a mandolin, etc.

Its a strain of thought, not a scientific fact, but it is interesting.

For further reading see Gilbert Ryle, A.J. Ayer, Thomas Nagel, and Wittgenstein.

I never could have predicted talking about this stuff on a mandolin forum. You folks are great.

[foldedpath]

For the "why" question, you might want to read the Wiki page on anthropomorphism.

My personal theory (mentioned somewhat in that article) is that we evolved from highly social primates, and we are still extremely hard-wired to be social.

When other humans aren't around to interact with, or the nearby humans aren't as immediately interesting as say, the musical instrument in our hands, we transfer that need to be social and interactive onto inanimate objects. And so we imagine that the instrument has human properties that relate back to us.

If we had evolved from something different, like a solitary predator species that didn't live in social groups, then maybe we wouldn't have this tendency.

[red7flag]

While there is a general tendency to anthropomorphize, I see some instruments I have as being more amenable. Collings a brand that I enjoy playing does not get much love. The instruments made for me, Hester, Ellis, Mowry reach a special connection. I think when you have experienced a special event with a particular instrument, that instrument melds with that memory. People here in the Cafe refer to "mojo" being the knicks and bruises that an instrument accumulates over time. And rather than a negative is seen as memories of past playing, kind of like an old friend. You know the negatives and in some cases love them for it, or in spite of it. We are then talking a morphing of memories and feelings. The instrument becomes something that is special to you in a way that a stranger picking up the instrument and seeing the battered instrument can only imagine. Think of the stories Willie's guitar could tell. Whoops, there I go anthropomorphizing again.

[Tobin]

Another good point, foldedpath. I guess that's why Tom Hanks talked to a volleyball. When we can't find social interaction or can't find meaningful social interaction, we create our own. It can be a sign of a descent into madness, like with prisoners who are kept in solitary confinement so long that they talk to themselves and lose the ability to have normal interactions with people.

JeffD, I don't know about you, but if I live long enough to see robots that look me in the eyes, I may just freak out and do violent things.

[JeffD]

JeffD, I don't know about you, but if I live long enough to see robots that look me in the eyes, I may just freak out and do violent things.

They already exist. I have seen them. And yes, I found it very easy to be provoked into violence.

It explains the classic horror movie trope where the eyes of the painting follow you.

In technology design there is this concept of the "uncanny valley". The idea is that we already have the technology to make devices that "ping" our "sentience detectors" and appear to be alive and conscious and aware of us, and it is deeply disturbing. The acceptance of various "robot like" technologies, talking cell phones, talking ATM machines, AI search engines, robotic violins, Alexa, whatever, in our lives very much depends on staying close enough to the uncanny valley to make them fun and intuitively useful, and yet to avoid crossing into the uncanny valley and make them disturbing. Its a real challenge. There are philosophical debates as to where the borders are and if they change over time with experience, etc.

[Bertram Henze]

One of the strongest phenomena to "ping" our "sentience detectors" is when something tracks our eyes. I mean for example, one strong way to make a robot machine appear sentient is to give it the ability to point its "eyes" at us and follow our face.

How is it then that R2D2 appears to be much more sociable and smart than C3PO? I think it's because eyes tend to reveal the truth about presence or absence of sentience. A lack of eyes at least gives you the benefit of reasonable doubt.

[JeffD]

How is it then that R2D2 appears to be much more sociable and smart than C3PO? I think it's because eyes tend to reveal the truth about presence or absence of sentience. A lack of eyes at least gives you the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Cool idea. Perhaps, without eyes or a face, R2D2 was farther from the uncanny valley, and so less threatening and more easily accepted. Its hard to say. In fiction we suspend disbelief and are therefore not as threatened by "sentient" robots to begin with.

[farmerjones]

For everything I ever learned there seemed to be three stages: Novelty, P.I.A., then Acceptance.
Acceptance = Making it Subconscious.
Piano is my latest learned. It's boarder-line Novelty/P.I.A.. Earlier, I may have personified them as I experienced different units. Fiddles, Mandolins, Banjers, Guitars, are like wrenches. They are just tools. But what they create when they get cranked up still astonishes me. The right tune can move this fifty something, grizzled old man to tears. Often, it's like someone else is playing it.

Mike, I understand it as a canoe. Chop down a tree, and remove everything that isn't a canoe. That's the way I compose a Waltz. There's only so much that is a Waltz. So I hold much contempt for composition, and holding it high on a pedestal.
At the same time, I've never found the need to write a song, for twenty or thirty years. It's enough to play other people's music. If I louse it up enough, it ends up being mine anyway.

I don't want to completely figure this out. Demystifying things, isn't always the key to happiness.

[fscotte]

Piano may initially feel less expressive because it is one of the hardest, if not the hardest instrument to play fluidly and with expression. Most folks never get beyond the rigid sheet music stage. You're playing two instruments at once, essentially. Now do improv with both hands at the same time.

Few have gotten to this level. Dr John was the greatest, the Chris Thile of "new awlens" style piano. I'm currently 1/3 the way through learning this improv. Heaven starts at :50 sec into the video.

[Billkwando]

Oh boy - that could certainly go into a very deep discussion! And you're right: it's a deep philosophical question that people have pondered for thousands of years, and will likely ponder for as long as we exist. We will probably never have a satisfactory explanation as to why we do the things we do which are not purely logical. But it's who we are, and there's a certain satisfaction in accepting it for what it is, as well as enjoying the humanity of it.

For better or worse, we humans have a spiritual side that we cannot turn off. For some, it leads to religion. For others, it leads to the arts (musical, visual, and all other forms). For some, it manifests in charitable works and altruism. For yet others, it leads to the love of the natural world and animals. Some find it in medicine and healing. And we all, probably, find it in combinations of these things to varying degrees. But we are all chasing the same thing: connection to something beautiful and beyond ourselves that we can't quite identify. Every culture that has ever existed on Earth has recognized it, and we all call it something different. But we know it's there and we obsessively pursue it.

Assigning human traits to an inanimate object is a small, but critical, part of this. It's about connecting to the world around us on a deep spiritual and emotional level that we may not be comfortable admitting.

Reading your various comments about this, it brings to mind a quirk of mine that I have never admitted aloud (that I can recall, anyway). I'm a big burly man, but I can't leave a stuffed animal lying face down. It doesn't come up a lot (and my wife only has a couple of them lying around, and we have no kids) but I've been that way pretty much since always.......and since always, I've internally acknowledged the absurdity of this animal-upending to myself.....but it hasn't stopped me from doing it. If it's fallen over, or I knocked it over, I sit it back up again.

This may have only happened 30 times (maybe less) in my lifetime, but since I never fail to laugh at myself when it does, it's something that I associate with the previous times I've done it, and remember.

I've certainly had the urge to hug a couple of my guitars a time or two as well (but I didn't!, haha).

I think, at least for myself, that our (or my) sometime-tendency to anthropomorphize things from time to time is something that I'm comfortable enough with, and that I've never chosen to question too deeply. I wonder if my avoidance of pondering it at length aligns with what Tobin said, and that perhaps part of me fears that questioning that part strikes at the very heart of what makes us human.

Something else in a similar vein, that we don't need to touch on really, is that most of us have seen animal cruelty stories in the news, and we cannot imagine what sort of broken, badly wired person would be able to maliciously neglect or hurt an animal (someone mentioned puppies earlier, so this isn't too far from that topic).

On the topic of guitar/mandolin hugging, and instruments in general.... While I'm not particularly religious (but I do come from that sort of background), I've always thought that the biblical concept of not idolizing objects is good practice, whether or not we have to answer for it in the end. If only because you never know what could happen. You could have a house fire, etc.

So, I try not to get too insanely attached to physical things (except for my Neo Geo system....that ship sailed years ago......but I like to think that my attachment is to the games as experiences, rather than to the physical console......or at least that's what I tell myself!, haha).....because you could lose everything at any time (meteor, plane crashes into house, etc)

I got into a bit of a "discussion" with someone in the comments of one of my YouTube videos, that frankly creeped me out a bit. He thought I was "abusing" one of my guitars. I read his personality between the lines of his comments, because I've dealt with these kinds of people before, once or twice.....and when I quizzed him subtly, his response confirmed that he was exactly the kind of person I thought he was.

(No need to watch the actual video, it's not one of my better ones)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_aVjIHW5ok&t=296s
He's the one with the username that ends in "69", if you're interested.

The comments explain everything, but to touch on the issue at play there.....and maybe this deserves its own thread, but I do not understand people who refuse to let another person play/try out their instrument, in a social setting (considering the caveats I mentioned in my YT comment, of course). Nobody has ever refused me this courtesy, mind you, but I have known of people who refuse to let anyone touch their guitar....and in at least one case, it could probably be chalked up to the person being a poor player and not being able to allow themselves to watch someone else play their own instrument better than they can....but I dunno.

Hopefully some part of this post makes sense.....as someone else mentioned, I never expected to open up the ol' thought box, and dump out all its contents in this way, on a mandolin forum!

[Billkwando]

At the same time, I've never found the need to write a song, for twenty or thirty years. It's enough to play other people's music. If I louse it up enough, it ends up being mine anyway.

I feel like this should be a separate post (but still, sorry for the double, it wasn't premeditated!), plus I only saw this just now after I finished mine.....but I'm kinda in this boat too. I have a great ear and feel like I'm an expressive, creative person, but I've never really written a song beyond a handful of simple attempts way back in high school (and a couple random, halfhearted tries since). This does bother me somewhat, because I feel like I'm wasting my very real potential, not to mention all the money I've spent on instruments...

However, I DO feel that there is something to be said for music appreciation "from the inside out". That is to say, that appreciating a song by being able to play it adds a whole new layer to the pleasure of experiencing a song only as a listener....and that's what I've been doing my entire life, from adolescent to adult.

I really need to learn music theory and find a simple system/framework/routine for coming up with song ideas, so that at least I can try and do it enough times to decide whether I'm just bad at it, or if I've just been holding myself back (and worrying about the regret that comes with the fact that my life is almost certainly over halfway over, and what I could've done if I'd only seriously tried to learn the hard part of music sooner).....but you know, I suppose it's better late than never.

Partly why I got a mandolin (I've only had it maybe a month, though I did play a bit many years ago) is because it makes me feel bursts of creativity, and makes me want to make music....so hopefully at some point I will. The other fear is that I make crap music and then subject my friends/family to it, and they'll all feel compelled to politely tell me it's good. Fear of failure is crippling.

If I can't, I hope I can make my peace with it like you have, because there's nothing wrong with appreciating music in the way you're doing it, if that's what brings you joy. It has certainly brought me lots.

[bratsche]

I cannot anthropomorphize an inanimate object. Instruments to me are just tools for creatiing the music. Sometimes I can enjoy one very much, and admire its beauty and sound. I may even "bond" with one particular instrument a great deal, and another not at all, but that would be because it either suits or doesn't suit my playing style and sense of sound, and I've never given them names or imagined them to be male or female. Animals are a whole other story, though. To me, only with a live, flesh and blood being can I have "that" very special kind of one-on-one connection.

bratsche

[Billkwando]

I cannot anthropomorphize an inanimate object. Instruments to me are just tools for creatiing the music. Sometimes I can enjoy one very much, and admire its beauty and sound. I may even "bond" with one particular instrument a great deal, and another not at all, but that would be because it either suits or doesn't suit my playing style and sense of sound, and I've never given them names or imagined them to be male or female. Animals are a whole other story, though. To me, only with a live, flesh and blood being can I have "that" very special kind of one-on-one connection.

bratsche

I agree with you on instruments, I don't anthropomorphize them either, really. No male or female, that either (though some might call them "she" like a boat, that's not me).

Naming them......eh, only one of my guitars has a name, "KK", but that's because its model number is LA-85KK....but I'd be lying if I said it wasn't a term of endearment. Funnily enough, that guitar is neither the oldest, nor the most valuable. The name only came about very recently too. Prince named his guitars, so I will point at that and pretend I'm not crazy.

Actually, KK became KK because all of my other guitars have memorable designations, that I didn't give them..... and in conversation, I didn't like saying "my red guitar" when I was referring to it (and due to various factors that none of you care about, it's not an easy guitar to refer to without calling it "my red guitar", or "KK"). So yeah guilty on that one.

[JeffD]

It not always a positive thing. My first few years trying to learn the fiddle I had the very strong that I was "fighting" the fiddle.

And when you stub your toed and yell at the coffee table, it is fulfilling for some reason.

[ccravens]

Who said mando players weren't deep thinkers?

[sbhikes]

I don't think I anthropomorphize my mandolin at all. It's just a mandolin. I didn't think piano was all that terribly hard as a child, but sometimes the piece I was given was hard to play and my piano teacher was mean to me.

I came to the mandolin differently from piano. I came to it from the fiddle. I had no sheet music and no instruction, just the jam. I had no idea what notes I was playing because there are no keys, holes or frets on a fiddle. Because I lacked instruction, I never could get the bowing so I gave up and went to mandolin. I play it like a fiddle. I have a better idea what notes I'm playing now that I can see them with the frets, but I still have no sheet music. My sheet music abilities have totally atrophied. I can read really basic stuff on a the treble clef only, and I struggle at it. I don't know the chords on mandolin, although I have figured out some double-stop type of chords on my own. I don't really know how to play the mandolin at all, but music comes out of it nevertheless. It doesn't go from my eyes and reading part of my brain to my fingers. It goes more from my ears or my mind to my fingers. I sometimes teach myself music that I've got in my head similarly to how I can learn to play a tune at the jam. But I don't know music theory, I can't really improvise, can barely read music, don't know really know chords and don't think the instrument is alive in any way. Hard to explain. Maybe it's just easy to play.

[LadysSolo]

[QUOTE=fscotte;1585856]Piano may initially feel less expressive because it is one of the hardest, if not the hardest instrument to play fluidly and with expression. Most folks never get beyond the rigid sheet music stage. You're playing two instruments at once, essentially. Now do improv with both hands at the same time.

Piano is the instrument easiest for me to play with expression. I do not write music, but often when I am really "getting into" a piece of music, it just carries me away, and I feel like I am one with the instrument and music. I have that experience rarely with mandolin, but I have been playing piano for 53 years and mandolin for only a little over two years. I think it will come.... That is, however, the best feeling, just becoming one with the instrument and the music. It's almost trance-like, and it is easy and fun when that happens.

[JeffD]

I don't anthropomorphize my mandolins. The pocket knives I collect get jealous.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From ccravens - "...we feel connected to inanimate objects which give us pleasure.". I feel exactly like that about many 'inanimate' things,but i don't feel 'connected' to them,they simply give me pleasure through 'ownership'. I didn't feel 'connected' in any way to any of the items i've bought,but i did feel an immense pleasure. The 'other' pleasure that i gain from my banjo / guitar & mandolins, is the pleasure of being able to make music (sort of) on them - the pleasure of achievement.

I will say that i have felt a 'loss' whenever i've parted with an instrument that i've had for a long time,but that was me simply being sorry to see it go - or was it - mmmmmm ??,
Ivan

[Tobin]

I didn't feel 'connected' in any way to any of the items i've bought,but i did feel an immense pleasure. The 'other' pleasure that i gain from my banjo / guitar & mandolins, is the pleasure of being able to make music (sort of) on them - the pleasure of achievement.

Everyone will, of course, experience different types and different levels of "connection" to their instrument. I think you stated it well with the "pleasure of achievement" being a prime motivator. For a lot of folks, the joy they feel when they play good music on an instrument is a well-deserved sense of pride in flawlessly executing a difficult task. It's something that only a small percentage of humans can, or will, achieve. I think many here can identify with that! It's the feeling of being on top of the world when you leave a jam session beaming with pride at how you played. That's good stuff, and it's addictive in a good way.

But there's another level that some people experience. When that instrument becomes a natural extension of your own body, it is easy to feel "connected" to it on a deeper spiritual plane. This has been the case with humans and their tools for centuries. Whether it's a sharpshooter with his rifle, a musician with his instrument, or a stone sculptor with his chisel. When we spend countless years with that same tool in our hands, learning to use it to its highest potential and fine-tuning our muscle movements to deliver precise results, we do indeed become connected to it in some way. It feels like picking up an old friend, and we know we can do things together with that tool that make us proud.

Personality types play a big part in this. If you're familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality types, there are 4 preferences which they use to define personalities. At least 2 of the 4 traits revolve around how we perceive the world, or how we approach reality. I think it's pretty fair to say that those who have Intuition (N) and/or Feeling (F) in their personality types are going to be more predisposed to feel strong connections to their instruments.

[sbhikes]

As an INTP/INFP person, I often feel sentimental feelings about things, but I don't ever, for instance, give my car a name or actually think everything that I am fond of has spiritual or sentient properties. I do feel that way about rocks and mountains and trees and streams, though, so I'm not entirely lacking in that department.

[farmerjones]

The Myers-Briggs personality test didn't have a radio button in the middle. The more I read, the more I missed that middle button.
Must I be so imbalanced? Am I out of fashion? (as he puts on his tie-die t-shirt and tire tread sandals)

[belbein]

never thought of the piano as having the music inside it

Very interesting idea. Now that you mention it, I think I view it the same way. Maybe it's because with piano, I took music lessons, and I was both encouraged by a classical musician (my mother) and taught by classical musicians (my teachers) ... and for all of them, the music was that score on the piano, and it was to be processed with 100% accuracy by me as I typed on the keyboard. With mandolin--and guitar, and banjo--the music is not confined to the score, and I'm trying to match what's in the air or in my head ... so the music isn't so clearly located or anchored in the score and the keyboard. Maybe.