The ob­ject of know­ing is in­volved in the mu­si­cal proc­ess of know­ing: as the mu­sic, em­bed­ded in the acous­tic space, in the sound-spaces, in the motif-spaces, in the melody and se­quence-spaces, as well as in the in­fi­nite space of the har­mony.

The ob­ject of know­ing in­cludes the mu­si­cal rep­re­sen­ta­tion of cos­mic evo­lu­tion just as well as the rep­re­sen­ta­tion of the un­fold­ment of our very in­di­vid­ual life: our birth, our in­di­vid­ual growth, and our in­di­vid­ual per­fec­tion, but also the de­vel­op­ment of so­cial groups and en­tire peo­ples, in­deed, of man­kind as a whole.

The ob­ject of know­ing there­fore does not con­sist of fixed mu­si­cal pa­rame­ters – which, from a su­per­fi­cial point of view, might at best rep­re­sent the un­change­able atom, the un­change­able plant, the un­change­able ani­mal, or the un­change­able man.
Real clas­si­cal mu­sic shows all ob­jects of know­ing in per­ma­nent mu­si­cal change: in per­pet­ual trans­for­ma­tion, in play­ful united un­fold­ment and – in the more subtle layers of mu­sic – in in­creas­ingly har­mo­ni­ous, mutual pervasion.
Truly clas­si­cal mu­sic af­fords the lis­tener the knowl­edge about the per­ma­nent change of any­thing that may ever change.

In the grosser layers of mu­sic, the changes are more con­crete, more spe­cific, more pro­nounced, more de­tailed, and more re­lated to sin­gle, eas­ily com­pre­hen­si­ble ob­jects.
In the sub­tler strata of mu­sic, how­ever, the ob­jects of know­ing be­come more and more ab­stract, more com­pre­hen­sive and more gen­eral – and the changes, then, which they ex­press, denote ten­den­cies and trends, or in­flu­ences, rather than lo­cal­ized con­crete ef­fects of forces.

More­over, in the more subtle mu­si­cal force-fields the ob­jects of know­ing are rep­re­sented more clearly than on the grosser lev­els of mu­sic.
And once the lis­tener en­ters the sub­tler fields of mu­sic, he per­ceives these fields of mu­si­cal state­ment more and more dis­tinct – more ab­stract though, yet in­creas­ingly clearer.

The dif­fer­ence of knowl­edge in the more gross or in the more subtle mu­si­cal force-fields may be com­pared to the dif­fer­ence be­tween a per­fectly formed chew­ing gum and a dia­mond per­fectly cut to the same shape.
Just as light pene­trates the dia­mond and, as op­posed to the chew­ing gum, pro­duces its sparkling brilliance and clar­ity, like­wise the light of a more con­densed proc­ess of gain­ing knowl­edge in­creases the clar­ity of our prac­ti­cal in­sight into the sub­tler ele­men­tary layers of mu­sic.

For even though the chew­ing gum may con­sist of the same ba­sic ma­te­rial as the dia­mond, the lat­ter is of a much higher de­gree of den­sity and or­der, and is there­fore more able to il­lus­trate the prin­ci­ples of form­ing.

The same prin­ci­ple ap­plies in mu­sic: just as the chew­ing gum is more suited for wrapping the dia­mond than vice versa, the mu­si­cal sound-space is easier trans­formed into the body of the motif-space than vice versa; and in the same way the motif-space is easier trans­formed into the body of the har­mony-space than vice versa.

The proc­ess of mu­sic has a natu­ral struc­ture, and the mu­si­cal proc­ess of know­ing pro­ceeds in cor­re­spondence with this hi­er­ar­chy of mu­sic.
Step by step it ex­tends over all the mu­si­cal force-fields – from the grosser to the finer, and into the in­fi­nite field of the har­mony.