NIELSENS BEFINDLICHKEIT

BETWEEN (THE HERMENEUTICS

OF) BILDUNG AND (THE
PHENOMENOLOGY OF) MUSIC
FREDERIK PIO
Aarhus University, Copenhagen, Denmark
frpi@edu.au.dk

Among other things, the work of Frede Nielsen gradually took the form of an
analytical clarification of the integration between subject matter and pedagogy; in other words, how the reciprocal relation between musical subject matter and pedagogy can be unfolded in an inner (that is non-dualist) state of
things? This issue is ascribed key importance for the realization of music pedagogy in a professional core as a distinctly separate research-based discipline,
characterized by having differentiated itself from musicological or artmusical
competence and general pedagogy into an autonomous synthesis. A central
foundation for this program Nielsen found in Klafkis Bildung-theoretical concept of categorial Bildung. However I argue that significant features in Nielsens music-phenomenological base (including his theory of music as a multidimensional universe of meaning) partially pulls his thinking and analysis
beyond the Bildung-position of Klafki. In that way Nielsens Bildung-theoretical base (in the pedagogical dimension after Klafki) in connection with his
phenomenological orientation (in the musical subject-matter dimension after
Philosophy of Music Education Review, 22 no. 2 (Fall 2014)

frederik pio 157

Husserl) creates a tension in the latter part of his work. In sum, Heideggers
theoretical elaboration of a synthesis between phenomenology and hermeneutics is suggested as a plausible phenomenological position that potentially is
capable of resolving this tension.

Keywords: Bildung, Klafki, Kant, Heidegger, Music as multidimensional universe of meaning

INTRODUCTION
We will begin with a brief overview of the overall theoretical horizon in which
Frede V. Nielsens work was carried out.
Bildung. Each generation encounters the demand in their time to recreate
the handed down tradition with a view to the future. This gives rise to the principal question of the Bildung (German word for the totality of educational and
human formation) of the rising generation. The eternal question remains: What
content in teaching and education must be selected as exemplary values and
knowledge in this pedagogical process of recreation? If this question is evaded,
teachers and pedagogues can end up as technicians, who deposit their professional identity in methodological techniques. It thus remains of primary importance that a Bildung-theoretical ballast be developed; that is, a basic view of society, art, and of human nature as part of pedagogical philosophy. All this leads
deeper than just applying a pedagogical method. Thus Didaktik (German word
for the science of teaching understood as the theory of Bildung content and its
selection) is concerned with a whole reflection on the Bildung of the person in
the world as such. Bildung thus functions as the theoretical foundation for the
thinking of Didaktik. With that the analysis of Didaktik is ultimately committed
to the Bildung-analysis of the human being with special reference to educational
content. The central task of schooling is thus to teach that subject matter content
which can buttress human Bildung.
Bildung-theoretical Didaktik especially emphasizes (together with learning-goals) didactical reflection of (a) criteria for selection of teaching content
together with (b) the purpose of the subject. It is around the reflection of purpose
and selection of content that teacher decisions concerning the taught subject
can bring about a process of Bildung. (Other didactical categories are also part
of the reflection but they are considered secondary.) Thus a given position on
Bildung will have consequences for the goal, purpose, and content of teaching.
In that way Bildung theory has direct subject matter didactical implications.1 The
considerations of the Didaktik/Bildung relation are throughout connected to an
interest in foundational problems in the humanities and fundamental research

158 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

of a theoretical and philosophical nature.2 The ideal of Bildung as an overall
formation of the human being is thus tightly interwoven with the analysis of legitimization as regards the teaching and its content.3 It is the Bildung perspective
that is capable of touching upon the foundational analysis of the legitimization of
a subject; as Nielsen explains: both music and music education must base their
most vital rationale and legitimization in their relations to human life. . . . That
is a part of our everlasting Bildung process.4
The integration of subject matter and pedagogy. Among other things Nielsens work gradually took the form of an analytical clarification of the integration
between subject matter and pedagogy. In other words, how the reciprocal relation between musical subject matter and pedagogy can be unfolded in an inner
(that is, a non-dualist) state of things. This issue is ascribed key importance for
the realization of music pedagogy in a professional core as a distinctly separate
research-based discipline, characterized by having differentiated itself from musicology and general pedagogy into an autonomous synthesis.5
A central foundation for this program Nielsen found in the Bildung-theoretical concept of categorial Bildung. Thus the theoretical starting point for Nielsens
analytical clarification of the field-of-relations (relationsfelt) between subject
matter and pedagogy originates from Klafkis theory of categorial Bildung.6 Even
in Nielsens retirement lecture in 2012 he presented a highly innovative model
illustrating a new way to grasp theoretically this field of relations between subject
matter (art) and pedagogy.7 This remained as a constant dimension in Nielsens
considerations. It was in this overall theoretical horizon that his work was carried
out. As a specialty, however, he lifted this horizon of Bildung theoretical Didaktik
into the field of music education by means of phenomenology.
A phenomenological foundation for subject matter Didaktik. Nielsen sees that
Western reflections on music for centuries have been dichotomized between a
position of autonomy-aesthetics (formalism: the essential meaning of music is
found in the internal structure of the music itself) and heteronomy-aesthetics
(referentialism: the meaning of music lies in the reference to an outer reality
which is external to the music itself). Nielsen sees that beyond these pairs of opposites phenomenology holds the promise of a distinctly third non-dualistic approach.8 This non-dualist approach of phenomenology has performed the most
encompassing and in-depth examinations of art.9
To grasp and describe musical meaning in such a phenomenological approach, Nielsen fleshes out a theory of music as a multi-dimensional universe
of meaning with a view to the analysis of the relation between music and the

frederik pio 159

human being in its Befindlichkeit.10 Befindlichkeit is a phenomenological concept so named by Martin Heidegger and it denotes the human way of being in
the world in an attuned presence.11 Nielsens reference to Heideggers concept
of Befindlichkeit as a general existential sensation (generel tilvrelsesfornemmelse)12 is rather widespread in the later writings.13 This is due to Nielsens point
that music as a multi-dimensional universe of meaning reaches into the very existential dimension of the human being. Here music is seen as corresponding with
the persons . . . spiritual and entire existential consciousness and feeling of self
(selvfornemmelse), something one could call . . . the persons Befindlichkeit.14
Nielsen designates six layers of meaning in the musical object: (i) acoustic,
(ii)structural, (iii) kinetic, (iv) tensional, (v) emotional and (vi) existential.15 These
six layers belong together because they are heard together. Thus an important element in the theory of a multi-dimensional universe of meaning is the notion of
correspondence between the musical object and the experiencing person. The
six dimensions of meaning in the musical object are thus object-characteristic
(genstandskarakteristiske), that is, they appear as qualities of the musical object
itself (Noema). Yet they are at the same time act-characteristic (aktkarakteristiske), that is the dimensions of meaning can only manifest themselves when
called forth through a musical experience of a person (Noesis).16 Accordingly the
entire spectrum of all six dimensions of meaning in the musical object ultimately
leads back to the question of the totality of the experiencing persons Befindlichkeit in the world, that is, the attuned presence (of Befindlichkeit) summarizes
the singular persons relation and experience of the music in question. About
this perspective on Befindlichkeit, it follows that the person by entering into a
relation to the object also enters into a relation to certain dimensions of him- or
herself, that is, enters into a relation to potential aspects in ones own existence.17
This leads to an existential problem18 in a way where the experiencing person
potentially meets him- or herself in the core of the musical work. This entire
process of musical experience obviously has to do with the formation of identity,
ones self-concept, and ability to develop as a human being. In other words, Nielsens theory of a multi-dimensional universe of meaning is a theory of musical
Bildung.19 He summarizes the basic claim of his theory of music as multi-dimensional universe of meaning in this way:
The outer structure merely makes up certain dimensions in a coherent universe of meaning. . . . It (the structure) leads intoand is mutually rooted
inother, deeper placed layers of meaning, for instance layers of kinetic-motorical, tensional, emotional, spiritual and existential nature. The layers or
dimensions of meaning mutually influence each other in a way where each
single aspect is only comprehended when the others are taken into account.20

160 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

However the question should be addressed: to what extent can the project and
perspectives of Nielsen outlined above in actual fact be unfolded and redeemed
within the theoretical frame of Klafkis categorical Bildung?

BEYOND KANT? CATEGORIAL BILDUNG

Around 1960, Wolfgang Klafki attempts to systematize the highly varied field
of Bildung theories. At the same time this effort turns out to be a decisive stepping
stone in the development of Klafkis own conception of Bildung toward categorial Bildung. He identified material Bildung theories which are content and
goal-oriented by objective, cultural substance; formal Bildung theories which
are content and goal-oriented by the human beings development of its inherent
possibilities; and categorial Bildung which is content and goal-oriented by the
reciprocal opening between the person and cultural content.
Material and formal Bildung theories focus the teaching respectively towards
the object-dimension (the musical material) and the subject-dimension (the
pupil). The theoretical challenge is to conceive of an inner relation (of unity)
between the formal (subject-oriented) dimension and the material (object-oriented) dimension. It is here that categorical Bildung rooted in hermeneutics was
proposed by Klafki as a solution to this dilemma. As ivind Varky has noted,
The thinking of categorial Bildung appreciates Bildung as an organic whole,
and the process of Bildung is regarded as a helix of recognition (erkendelsesspiral) in hermeneutical meaning.21
A central element in Klafkis theory is the notion of the two-sided opening
(doppelseitige Erschliessung22). This is a double pedagogical process in which a
reality in the world (spiritual or physical) is opened in relation to a person. But
during this process the person in question is also opened as a consequence of
the absorption into the reality in question (as taught content). So this illustrates
the Bildung-idea of a reciprocal process of opening.23 Categorial Bildung is thus
a hermeneutical process: (i) one enters into a relation to a phenomenon (a musical performance or work or a song); (ii) this phenomenon potentially exercises
an influence; (iii) this way of being personally affected leads to a changed relation to the musical phenomenon in question (there is a spectrum here from a
non-existent or tiny modification of ones outlook all the way to an existential
change); (iv)with ones own point of departure potentially displaced (by a little
or much), ones interpretation of a musical phenomenon calls forth new aspects
of the music in question; (v) and this potentially affects one to a little or a more
encompassing extent.
Thus a hermeneutical helix of recognition is set into motion between a
distinct part (a musical phenomenon) and a totality (ones own presence in a
specific horizon of meaning that conditions any understanding). In this dou-

frederik pio 161

ble-sided process a force of Bildung endures as an understanding of categorial
nature occurs (per Klafki). This has to do with the fact that all understanding
comes about through interpretation. To interpret is to categorize. Thus the understanding that shapes a person is categorical.
As we shall see below, it is this mindset (from general Didaktik) which Nielsen lifted into a music-directed context by means of his theory of music as a
multi-dimensional universe of meaning. As we shall see, Nielsens theory of music
as a multi-dimensional universe of meaning remained a mainstay in his music
pedagogical position. This gives rise to the question of whether the theoretical
insights into the musical phenomenon unfolded by Nielsen can in actual fact
be redeemed to the fullest extent within the Bildung-theoretical framework provided by Klafkis notion of categorial Bildung. In other words, Klafki announces
a process of double-sided opening, but the potential reach of this idea is not
fulfilled in a way that does justice to the full depth of Nielsens music phenomenological insights.
Klafkis Kantian foundation. I will make my case around the thesis that the
potential depth of Nielsens concept of existence (inscribed in his multi-dimensional universe of meaning theory above) is not satisfactorily redeemed by
a Klafkian categorial Bildung. Below I shall try to expose the dilemmas brought
about by the claim that it does. There seems to be a movement in Nielsens thinking from categorical Bildung through the draft of an existence-based Didaktik
toward to the conception of music as a multi-dimensional universe of meaning.
This movement makes up a continuous expansion of the perspective in which
Nielsens phenomenological description of music as a multi-dimensional universe of meaning (and its pedagogical implications) cannot be fully contained or
encapsulated by Klafkis notion of Bildung. This point needs some elaboration,
since Nielsen at first sight explicitly remains within the Kantian horizon delimited by Klafki. This certainly does not seem to indicate a tension in relation to
Klafki. Thus Nielsen says that Bildung . . . lead[s] to . . . personal Mndigkeit.
Mndigkeit is a concept . . . rooted in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. . . .
In a famous formulation Kant links Enlightenment and Mndigkeit . . . . 24
Here Nielsens goal of Bildung surely is a Klafkian self-determination and
autonomy of the subject in the Kantian rationalist tradition. This formation of a
subject of pure reason (Mndigkeit), however, executes a schism in the process
of Bildung. The subject in its mental-cognitive autonomy is now separated out
from the world (the object dimension). Klafki dates the initiation of this (subject-object) schism in Bildung-thinking back to the European Enlightenment at
the end of the eigthteenth century.25 This rationalist project (of Kantian Enlightenment) revolves around the concept of Mndigkeit (competent authority) in

162 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

Kants answer (from 1783) to the question What is enlightenment? (Beantwortung der Frage was ist Erklrung). This rational view of the subject directed by
the sciences is characterized by the way it systematically refrains from uncovering
the human in its ontological circumstances (Faktizitt26); that is, in its primary
being-in-the-world (in-der-Welt-sein). As a consequence of this mental-rationalist
determination of the subject (Kantian Enlightenment) the subject-object split is
intensified and aggravated. These thoughts come to shape the field of pedagogy
as Kant expounds a theoretical view of Bildung (as a secularized process of reason) in his text On pedagogy (ber Pdagogik) from 1803.
This broad background-horizon seems to provide the premise of Klafkis
Bildung-theory of double-sided opening. Thus Klafki executes his categorical
conception of Bildung on Kantian premises and this background understanding deposits a risk that Klafkis theoretical enterprise ends up in the idealization
of the autonomy of mental reflexivity, an autonomy that potentially refers the
subject to the outer edge of the world (as a subject opposite an object). Bildung
according to Klafki thus happens as a becoming-visible (Sichtbarwerden) of general . . . content on the objective side and as absorption (Aufgehen) of general
insights . . . on the subjective side.27 Symptomatically, critique has been raised
against Klafki that most of his examples demonstrating the potency of categorical
Bildung seem oriented towards objects or things,28 thus ignoring the open,
situated processes of the students being in the world.
As a consequence of these dualist premises, Klafki cannot fully execute the
announced process of double-sided opening that makes up the hard core of his
categorical Bildung-theory. From a Kantian position that idealizes a mental,
autonomous reflexivity; Klafkis double-sided opening can be initiated but can
hardly be accomplished. Musically it ends in a potentially distanced, disinterested enjoyment (Kant) that carries out correct (theory-controlled) correspondences to the phenomena in the world.29 Below my claim will be that it is rather
the ontological Bildung-tradition from Gadamer to Heidegger that accomplishes
a deeper and more authentic double-sided opening.30 Gadamer and Heidegger
accomplish this by pointing to a kind of existential dimension involved in the
processes of Bildung (and Besinnung). In other words Heidegger wants to move
from an aesthetical, disinterested enjoyment (cf. Kant) to an ontological phenomenology of tears.

KANT IN NIELSENS THINKING

Nielsens basic subject model (basisfags-model). Nielsens Kantian foundation
is highlighted in his analysis of the foundational subjects supporting the theory
and practice of music-pedagogy as a distinct integrated discipline in its own right.
Nielsen sees that the teaching subject music is rooted in several possible basic

frederik pio 163

subjects (basis fag) over a spectrum from Ars-based (competence cultivated in
academies of music) to Scientia-based (competence cultivated in musicology)
fields of knowledge.31
Below I will try to show that the Kantian mind-set in this thinking creates a
tension in relation to Nielsens attempt to posit his music-philosophically rooted
Didaktik on a foundation of Bildung. That is a notion of Bildung which can buttress the existential phenomenology that makes up the core of Nielsens theory
of a multi-dimensional universe of meaning. My claim being that the notion
of Bildung that can support Nielsens theory of a multi-dimensional universe of
meaning does not seem to be Klafkis Kantian approach but rather in the tradition of Gadamer and Heidegger.
Nielsens Ars/Scientia basic subject model32 highlights how specific fields of
professional knowledge and competencies of musical character have been institutionalized as basic subjects around respectively an Ars dimension: an aesthetic
orientation (artistically based); and a Scienta dimension: a scientific orientation
(research-based). However the structure of this institutionalized perspective creates a schism in relation to the world of musical phenomena. This world is split
up into the beautyfull (aesthetic art of music) as contrasted with the true (science of music) in two distinct types of institutionalized practice of educational
culture.
This type of rationale is of course primarily a consequence of political decisions as to how to arrange and organize the educational institutions of society,
and thus they are an external frame that simply conditions music didactical thinking. A critique of subject matter didactical nature must nevertheless be raised,
not least because the rationale depicted in this model has removed itself from
the Greek thinking of antiquity (that was Gadamers and Heideggers point of
departure). In this context, an intimate proximity between the true (science) and
the beautyfull (arts) endures.33 Thus in this perspective the depicted institutional
reality is in a certain sense an artificial reality.
This basic subject model depicts a foundation for music teaching that revolves
around a scientific epistemology contrasted to aesthetic art. In this opposition
between Scientia (a scientific dimension of truth) and Ars (an artistic dimension
of aesthetic beauty), something goes missing. This dichotomy erases the possibility of comprehending music, and experiencing it, as an inherent part of a lived
world.34 The Ars/Scientia dichotomy refers the musical phenomenon to an aesthetic paradigm. With that, any claim on behalf of music that art can somehow
manifest truth (and not only beauty) finds itself monopolized by a methodologically specified concept of science (Scientia). With that the knowledge-containing inner-side of the musical artwork (that plays such a central role in Nielsens
multi-dimensional universe of meaning theory) is erased or made invisible by this

164 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

Ars/Scientia dichotomy. In other words, when the notion of truth (in the basic
subject model) is explicitly tied to the methodological objectivizations of science,
then music is necessarily reduced to an aesthetic contrast (Ars) to scientific truth
(Scientia). This logic is however in conflict with Nielsens multi-dimensional
universe of meaning theory. The theory (as it shall be elaborated below) explicitly
determines the musical artwork as a knowledge containing phenomenon in an
existential perspective. Thus a much broader concept of truth is in the works here
in this existential perspective unfolded by Nielsen.
It is a point that a number of theoretical references indicated by Nielsen as
foundation for the position of such an Existence-Didaktik (such as Otto Bollnow, Knud E. Lgstrup, Karl Heinrich Ehrenforth, Christoph Richter, and ivind
Varky) are explicitly rooted in the Gadamer-Heidegger tradition rather than the
neo-Kantian tradition (as Klafki and Husserl).35 So in Nielsens line of thought
a tension is created between a neo-Kantian foundation (not least Ernst Cassirer
whose text An Essay on Man influenced Nielsen) and Nielsens descriptive deciphering of the musical phenomenon inspired by existential phenomenology.
This principle dilemma can be shown to appear elsewhere. The deep concept of existence implied by Nielsen in his music phenomenological analysis
can thus be shown to be thinned out in the Bildung theoretical grounding of the
perspective in Klafkis Kantian frame. This becomes clear when one looks into
theory of the music as multi-dimensional universe of meaning as an existential
category.
The multi-dimensional universe of meaning as existential category. The attempt here is to make the concept of existence come into view through a critique
of Nielsens notion of correspondence from his book Almen musikdidaktik (General Music Didactics).
Nielsens claim that the analytical point of departure must be the correspondence between layers of meaning in the musical object and layers of consciousness in the subject experiencing the object.36 This notion of correspondence is
tied to the description of music as multi-dimensional universe of meaning. More
specifically this theory is propounded in chapter four of Nielsens book Almen
musikdidaktik (General Music Didactics).37
I will address here that which Nielsen designates as the existential layer of
musical experience.38 The phenomenologically highlighted point here is that the
specific layers in the musical object correspond to dimensions in the listening,
perceiveing subject, so that these attune to each other in the process of the constitution of an aesthetic object.39
Such an involvement of an existential dimension, however, posits the question
of whether Nielsens mention of layers of consciousness in the perceiving person

frederik pio 165

(together with the Husserlian descriptions of the settings of consciousness) to a
higher extent should be aligned with the underlying notion of existence. In other
words, should the existential layer of musical experience rather be understood
as (x) a being-in-the-world instead of as (y) layers in the consciousness? This
question implies that the notion of existence to a higher or lesser degree must
connote an ontological lifeworld-perspective; this as a supplement to the (Husserlian, Klafkian, Kantian) notion of experience in terms of conscious-internal
layers (the world as mental re-presentation).
It seems to be Husserls epistemology that makes up a foundation for Nielsens correspondence model (as part of a theory of multi-dimensional universe
of meaning.)40 Nielsens Kantian foundation is indicated in the selection of Husserls very scientific phenomenology. Nielsens model of correspondence seems
to be inspired by Husserls basis in the conscious, mental Ego.41 Further, it is
a point that the notion of categorical Bildung and the thinking of correspondence in Nielsens perspective are directly tied together in a reciprocal logic.42
In continuation of this belongs my claim that Nielsens Kantian rootedness (with
Husserl and Klafki) is slowly eroded by music phenomenological insights pulling
his thinking beyond the Kantian perspective. Thus it is an unclarified question
of whether Nielsens model in a too high extent is rooted in a logic marked by
mental-analytical correspondence. The consequence of this is that Nielsens
model comes to miss the contact with an existential-oriented disclosure of the
musical phenomenon in its way to open the world. Such an existential disclosure
is validated as it represents a more authentic and encompassing double-sided
opening than in Klafki.
Nielsens thinking remains in the logic of correspondence and it thus refrains
from an existential turn towards the life-world from which the meaning of music
stems. However, such a turn seems necessary since it situates the person in an existential space of openness in the world. This category of world, however, seems
to be missing as an ontological category in Nielsens model, even though Nielsen
identifies an entire didactical paradigm covering this theme in the shape of an
existence-didactics.43 The rationale of correspondence remains in a (epistemological) subject-object duality that shields the position from an ontological
notion of truth.44
This is not unequivocal, however. At the same time, Nielsens description of
music as a multi-dimensional universe of meaning seems to contain a dimension
of musical experience which can only with difficulty be contained in the Bildung
theoretical frame of Klafki. More specifically, Nielsen continues to clarify his
relation to the claim that art carries recognition (aesthetical rationality); that is,
that music potentially contains a dimension of truth and not only beauty. This
acknowledgement pulls Nielsens position away from a narrow determination of

166 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

truth grasped (with Kant) as a purely rationalist knowledge, methodologically
disciplined by a scientific epistemology.
Nielsen pulls away from such a narrow conception of truth by means of the
claim that the musical artwork contains a significantly broader notion of truth
under the perspective of life itself. In this respect this takes Nielsens musical
Bildung perspective into the vicinity of Gadamer (rather than Klafki). Thus it is
Gadamer who sees that a musical recognition of the world is repressed by a cognitive paradigm of rationalization: Shall there be no recognition in art? Is there
not a claim to truth in the experience of art, that surely is different from the claim
of science, but certainly in no way inferior to it.45
With Gadamer we understand that songs and musical performances must
contain a specific insight into the human condition, a way to make sense of the
world. For sure the category of existence is included in the model which illustrates Nielsens description of music as multi-dimensional meaning. However, to
have a value of Bildungin a more Gadamerian senseunder the perspective
of life, the existence-category could be moved from the subject side of Nielsens
model46 to the background of the model itself (in an ontological sense). As we
shall see below, in the later part of Nielsens production one can see considerations of such related character.

BEYOND KLAFKI AND KANT?

In 2007, Nielsen returns to his doctoral dissertation from 1981 (an investigation of musical tension), and thus (26 years after the initial consideration) the
phenomenon of tension (bodily, psychic, communicative) is revisited. Among
other things, in the relation between the person and music tension is now seen
as an anthropological, fundamental concept (antropologisk grundbegreb) that
has a significant say in the matters of our general Befindlichkeit.47 This stroke
points beyond Klafki and opens up a more lucid indication of a musical Befindtlichkeit as an experience of a concrete, bodily presence in a distinct horizon of
meaning, involving more deeply situated dimensions of meaning.48
The importance of the category of tension is once more underlined for the
comprehension of the relation between the person and the musical phenomenon. This relation is now referred to with explicit reference to Heideggers notion of Befindlichkeit together with Gadamer and his hermeneutic concept of
pre-understanding (Vorverstehen) as a circumstance of recognition (erkendeforhold) inscribed into a distinct horizon of knowledge (videnshorisont).49
The concept of tension seems to be of central importance . . . because tension . . . is not solely a categorical entity, but also something bodily, felt and
sensational, something which stamps our entire Befindlichkeit.50

frederik pio 167

In a consistent way this philosophical determination of tension seems to
buttress Nielsens description of the aesthetic object as an expression of recognition (erkendelse) in the broad sense of the word.51 This type of recognition
has a disciplined dimension as a kind of aesthetic rationality. This rationality is
aesthetic because it is a kind of reason that you . . . cannot reject on account of
its lacking rational character.52 This is elaborated as the world of musical phenomenon is potentially seen as an artistic objectivization of:
something in the immense universe, that lies outside of our intellectual, discoursive way to recognize the world . . . a more or less white region (hvidt
land) as we are well aware of, because we perceive, sense, experience or
faintly suspect it as immediately there, because it evokes a response in us, in
our psyche, mind, soul or whatever we choose to call this part of us.53

Here Nielsens thinking of musical Bildung does not seem to be confined

within Klafkis clearly ordered and mono-rationalistic way of conceiving of Bildung as a categorical (consciousness-centered) occurrence. On the contrary, here
Nielsens mindset seems more aligned with an existential approach to hermeneutics and phenomenology (after Gadamer and Heidegger). In the musical works
or songs that we call forth in our experience, there lies an insight (into the human
condition) folded into these musical phenomena. As far as I can see this notion
of an artistic-musical way of conceiving the world seems to pull Nielsens theory
of a multi-dimensional universe of meaning away from being a purely aesthetic
object (as an object of beauty, cf. Kants disinterested delight). Instead, Nielsen
emphasizes that the musical structure penetrates, points beyond itself and into
the inner.54
With reference to Schopenhauers will of the world (verdensvilje) and
the concept of energy that the music psychologist Ernst Kurth borrows from
Schopenhauer, Nielsen speaks obscurely of the tension he finds in music as a
universal, cosmic foundational category (grundkategori).55
Summing up, one can say that in the latter part of Nielsens production a
leeway is opened in which an unfinished consideration seems to be in progress.
This consideration takes place in a field of tension between a disciplined, narrow,
and consciousness-centered categorial Bildung rooted in a Kantian rationalist
tradition and on the other side a deeper and more encompassing existentialist
concept of Bildung, which is necessitated as a consequence of the insights of
music phenomenology achieved by Nielsen. These insights among other things
involve the theme of ontology.56
What is suggested above is that Nielsens path of thinking was not concluded
when it ended. I have tried to substantiate the claim that there was a continuous
developmental dynamic in Nielsens mindset, gravitating towards a more Ga-

168 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

damerian approach to Bildung, as the theory of a multi-dimensional universe
of meaning became rooted in Heideggers concept of Befindlichkeit. In this tradition the aesthetic object is called forth in a more obscure and existential experience of truth (not only beauty).57 This existential experience is rooted in an
attuned frame of mind and thus it can only partially be explicitly explained in a
rationalist transparence.
Nothing of this is determined in any definitive way, however. We are dealing
with fluctuating features and tendencies that can be traced in the later writings
of Nielsen. All this however remains aligned with the central importance of what
Nielsen always called for: the . . . posing [of] new questions that challenge the
dominant understandings and self-knowledge.58

NOTES
1
Frede V. Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung? in Nordisk musikkpedagogisk forskning. rbok, L. Vkev, S.G. Nielsen, et. al., (eds), vol.13 (Oslo: Norges
Musikkhgskole, 2012), 18
2
Nielsen, What is the Significance of Research for Music Education in Practice,
Philosophy of Music Education Research 17, no. 1 (2009): 2628.
3
Nielsen, Music (and Arts) Education from the Point of View of Didaktik and Bildung, in L. Bresler, (ed.) International Handbook of Research in Arts Education (Dordrecht: Springer, 2007): 272.
4
Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung?, 27
5
Nielsen, Music (and Arts) Education from the Point of View of Didaktik and Bildung, 278.
6
Ibid., 267.
7
Nielsen, Fagdidaktikkens aktualitet og kunstens ndvendighed. DPU-Resigning
Lecture presented June 8th, 2012, 14. The manuscript is available at: http://edu.au.dk/
fileadmin/edu/Temaer/musik/FredeVNielsenAfsked.pdf. The streamed lecture is available at: http://vimeo.com/44644835
8
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive,Psyke and Logos, no.
28 (2007): 66.
9
Cf. Martin Heidegger (1935/36) Die Ursprung des Kunstwerkes; Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1948) Der Zweifel Cezannes; Nikolai Hartmann (1953) sthetik; Roman
Ingarden (1962) Untersuchungen zur Ontologie der Kunst: Musikwerk, Bild, Architektur,
Film; Mikel Dufrenne (1973) The Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. See Nielsen,
How Can Music Contribute to Bildung?, 18.
10
Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung? 19.
11
Frederik Pio, Introduction to Heidegger for the Pedagogical Subjects (IUP: University
of Aarhus, 2013), 164ff.
12
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 81.
13
See for instance ibid., 64, 69, 74, 77, 81; Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute

frederik pio 169

to Bildung? 19, 22; Nielsen, On the Relation between Music and Man: Is there a
Common Basis, or is it Altogether Individually and Socially Constructed? in B.Stlhammer, (ed) Music and Human Beings (rebro: rebro University Press, 2006),
176.
14
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 69
15
Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung? 20.
16
Ibid., 6768
17
Ibid., 74
18
Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung?, 1822
19
Nielsen, On the Relation between Music and Man: Is there a Common Basis, or is
it Altogether Individually and Socially Constructed?, 176
20
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 68
21
ivind Varky, Musikk strategi og lykke. Bidrag til musikkpedagogisk grunnlagstenkning (Oslo: Cappelen akademisk forlag, 2003), 114.
22
Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik (Kbenhavn: Akademisk forlag, 1998), 79.
23
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 271
24
Ibid., 269
25
Wilhelm H. Pettersen, Lehrbuch Allgemeine Didaktik (Mnchen: Oldenburg Schulverlag, 2001), 159.
26
Cf. Martin Heidegger, Ontologie (Hermeneutik der Faktizitt) (Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann [1923] 1995).
27
Wolfgang Klafki, Studien zur Bildungstheorie und Didaktik (Weinheim: Beltz Verlag,
1974), 43.
28
Ibid., 3845.
29
For a critique of the Kantian position see the famous discussion between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger which took place in Davos, Schwitzerland in 1929. The material from this gathering was later compiled and transcribed as the Davoser Disputation
zwischen Ernst Cassirer und Martin Heidegger (Anhang) (first included in the 4th edition), in Martin Heidegger, Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik (Frankfurt a.M. Vittorio
Klostermann [1929/34]1998), 274296.
30
Cf. ivind Varky, The Concept of Bildung, Philosophy of Music Education Review 18, no. 1 (2010): 8596.
31
Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik, 110; Nielsen, Faglighed og dannelse I de musisk-stetiske fag, in Hans Jrgen Kristensen and Karsten Schnack, eds, Faglighed og
undervisning (Kbenhavn: Gyldendal [Carpe], 2000), 72.
32
Ibid.
33
Cf. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Artworks in Word and Image: So True, so Full of Being!
(Goethe), Theory, Culture and Society 23, no. 1 (2006): p. 67.
34
Jrgen Vogt, Der schwankende Boden der Lebenswelt (Wrzburg: Knigshausen and
Neumann, 2001).
35
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 279, note 12.

170 philosophy of music education review, 22:2

Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung?, 21; cf. Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik, 137.
37
cf. Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik, 127161. Cf. section 4.4 On the layers of meaning in music, 133f, and also section 4.5 On the correspondence of the layers of meaning
with layers of consciousness in human beings, 137f.
38
Ibid., 136
39
On this point Nielsen was inspired by his reading of Dufrenne: The aesthetic object has depth because it is beyond measurement. If we want to grasp it truly, we must
transform ourselves. The depth of the aesthetic object is measured by the depth of the
existence to which it invites us. Its depth is correlative with ours. Mikel Dufrenne, The
Phenomenology of Aesthetic Experience. (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, [1973]
1989), 398, italics added.
40
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 64, 72; On the Relation between Music and Man: Is there a Common Basis, or is it Altogether Individually
and Socially Constructed? 173
41
Heidegger is quite clear that Husserls thinking first and foremost refers to the subject
(die transzendentale Subjektivitt). See Martin Heidegger, (1969) Zur Sache des Denkens
(Tbingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, [1969] 2000), 70. Thus according to Heidegger ultimately Husserl ends up in a Cartesian position (cartesianische Position). See Heidegger,
Zollikoner Seminare. (Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann, [1987] 2006), 187. Later
Husserl remedies this critique by introducing in his final Krisis-paper the celebrated notion of life-world (Lebenswelt).
42
Nielsen, How Can Music Contribute to Bildung? 24.
43
Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik, 44f.
44
Heidegger develops an ontological notion of truth through the critique of a dualist,
epistemological notion of truth: A correct and valid proposition uttered by a human
subject regarding an object is not a characteristic mark (Merkmal) of truth . . . [R]ather
truth has to do with the disclosure (Entbergung) of that which is present (das Seiende) in
a way such that an openness occurs through it. To this openness all human relations and
composure is exposed (ausgesetzt). Therefore the human is a being in the way of ex-istence (Ek-sistenz). Heidegger, Wegmarken (Frankfurt a.M.: Vittorio Klostermann [1967]
1996), 190.
45
Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode (Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr [1960] 1990), 103.
46
Cf. Nielsen, Almen musikdidaktik, 136137.
47
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 81.
48
Nielsen, On the Relation between Music and Man, 168, italics added.
49
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 72; On the Relation between Music and Man, 173
50
Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 77
51
Ibid., 71
52
Nielsen, Fagdidaktikkens aktualitet og kunstens ndvendighed, 13
53
Nielsen, Faglighed og dannelse i de musisk-stetiske fag, 74.
36

frederik pio 171

Nielsen, Musik og bevidsthed: et fnomenologisk perspektive, 74
Ibid., 81
56
Cf. ibid., 82; Nielsen, On the Relation between Music and Man, 177. In a wider
frame, this tension also concerns the evaluation of Nielsens position between Didaktik
and pedagogy. But there is no room for that analysis here.
57
This notion of truth is developed as a music didactical category in my keynote from
Stockholm (2014) forthcoming in the yearbook on Nordic Research in Music Education.
Frederik Pio, On Heideggers Relevance for a Phenomenologically Oriented Music
Didaktik: The Unheard, in E.G. Hemming, S.-E. Holgersen, et. al., eds, Nordic Research in Music Education. Yearbook, vol. 15 (NMH-publikasjoner 2014:1; Oslo: Norges
musikkhgskole).
58
Nielsen, What is the Significance of Research for Music Education in Practice, 23.
54
55

Copyright of Philosophy of Music Education Review is the property of Indiana University

Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.