By the word, “doubt” means “double,” or “double fullness”; and between these two fullnesses many questions may arise.

In music, the harmony is the one fullness; it encompasses all music and all music that sounds, too.
This first fullness is the fullness of music on the level of self-knowledge just as the musical creator experiences it.

The second fullness is the fullness of music in the musical force-fields of the sequences, the motifs, and the tones as it reveals itself to us in space and time.
This second fullness is the fullness of our outer musical experience, and it reveals itself to us within our systematic process of musical cognition, within our dynamic relative experience of music.

These two fullnesses of musical knowledge are approached in very differing ways.

The one fullness, the fullness of the harmony, is made accessible through our synthesizing feeling.
And it swings from the level of our self-consciousness to the worlds of the sequences and the motifs even to the musical sound-space.
The second fullness we access by our analyzing understanding; this fullness reaches from the musical sound-space to the motif-spaces and the sequence-spaces, and even into the infinite space of the harmony.

If, in our process of musical knowing, the absolute sound-substance is not effective, and if our mind, our intellect, and our senses are not permeated by the vibration of the absolute sound-substance, then our feeling and understanding become uncoordinated because by their very nature by virtue of the synthesizing function of the feeling and the analyzing function of the understanding these two powerful forces of cognition diverge from one another and thus tread simply opposite paths of musical gaining knowledge.

The absence of a common knowledge of the absolute sound-substance on the level of feeling and understanding must split our intellectual process of cognition into two separate paths that contradict each other by their very nature and which could, even with the greatest efforts on the side of the musician or the listener, not be united without the perception of the absolute sound-substance.

Necessarily, such a rift in our process of gaining musical cognition disunites our entire process of finding truth and confronts us with two fundamentally different, if not opposed, statements for every single musical phenomenon.
Based alone on this rift in our process of cognition, the contradiction of these statements forces our feeling and our understanding into opposing roles, and each of these tools of cognition then tries to reserve itself the sole right of the proper finding of truth.

Set to action, a process of cognition split in that manner pro-duces discomfort in the listener because, as this torn process of knowing proceeds, his two tools of cognition, feeling and understanding, are at jar like a married couple bickering.
Denying each other the exclusive right of finding truth, they both claim that very right for themselves and both are right from their respective points of view.

In this manner arises in the listener what is commonly termed doubt, an expression of utter non-comprehension of truth although the latter is allegedly capable of integrating two completely opposed insights.

In the process of gaining knowledge in music the natural and successful dissolution of such understandable doubt is a direct result of the enlivenment of the absolute sound-substance in our musical tools of cognition. That means it occurs on a level completely different from where the heated conflict between our faculties of knowing, i.e. feeling and understanding, takes place.

Enlivening the absolute sound-substance within the musical tools of cognition puts the composer, and the music listener just as well, on the level of musical unity beyond space and time and within, for this cosmic vibration creates the unity between the feeling and the understanding.
Thus, the threat of a conflict between these diverging forces of cognition is eliminated by virtue of their natural, structural integration on a superior level.