And well, the only book aesthetic that really gave me something, is the work of Pierre Schaeffer, a Polytechnic (and not roast!) that consecrated her entire life to trying to give a model, i.e. to propose a scientific theory of music. About ten years ago that he is dead and his book, whose first edition, the threshold is from the year 1966, is entitled Treaty of musical objects. As well, what is needed, it is to speak of a box, for example, on equal terms precise and technical which employ Schaeffer to talk music. Everything, absolutely everything is done! It is necessary to begin by acquiring, or falsify, imagine a new scientifically speaking vocabulary and not only music, but also painting, dance, sculpture, etc.

We are facing a task absolutely colossal, and susceptible to mobilize generations and generations of researchers! I used the expression speak scientifically to designate what? Simply what we call, in the These Sciences of nature, theory. What does the theory? To be more clear, neither more nor less. They know that perhaps that the word theory comes from a Greek verb theamai which means see et which gave origin to the word French Theatre (theatron, in Greek). That means that I get to the third part of my exposure to know that which I am going to propose some tracks of reflection. I’ll begin emphasizing the essentially abstract nature of art. Generally, not discusses abstraction as the subject of cognition (logos). What you must understand is that this is nothing more than a matter of logic: is also a matter of technique.

There would be no art but we had the Faculty of technical abstraction, and therefore that all art is abstract. Concrete art doesn’t exist, although there is no specific music and there is also no specific dance, nor concrete paint, etc. Plato, Kant and Hegel had been repaired in that art is Abstract: they joined to the intelligence, and had every reason.

IQs Get Higher as New Generations Emerge

You've probably heard about the results of studies that show that young people even children take tests at iq better parents. The results are amazing, the difference in iq may not exceed 50%! The question arises: "Is earlier so badly taught in schools? Or children can now learn to become better ". And if so, then why are not children show good results in tests and examinations? That is, it turns out that when tested specific knowledge, no phenomenal results there, and when carried out psychological test or a test for iq, the children show great ability. Based on these results, even had a theory that schooling contributes to the suppression of innate abilities of children, drives them into a certain framework. Well, perhaps this is so.

But there is a simple and logical explanation. Remember how many times you take the test at school? and Whether you have them at all? And how many articles about how to prepare for the tests you've read? (Link to this article notes) The fact that constant training can significantly improve test results. Now psychological and iq tests are carried out on a lot more in schools. Universities move to the Bologna system, which involves constant testing. It is not surprising that the children show good results during the tests. Incidentally, the best results shows the younger generation is during the tests of logic and erudition.

The results of the professional tests, which require certain knowledge – much modest. But even in this case, the ability to correctly calculate time to carefully read the question and choose the most appropriate answer seriously affect the result. In addition, a person who regularly deals tests less afraid of them, and therefore less nervous. And as a consequence reduces the number of random and mechanical errors. The conclusion is simple. If there is any chance that you are in employment will have to pass tests, not lazy, look for the tests on the internet and go several times. There are good sites with collections of tests (see link in notes). You are certain that within a few days will pass them much better. Good luck!