Actually, you backed up what I saying with what you thought we're flaws. I may have not been clear enough on it. I'll try to explain, and most I agree with. The bottom line is that when you talk about hearing something or associated with sound, that what I'm supporting. Science of music is a different matter, it is made to make sense of organized music.

Originally posted by chris mood

1) How can you learn to hear something that you don't know exists? One must 1st learn about the scale and it's make up before they can start to hear it. I think this especially true with man-made scales such as diminished and whole tone.

I've had a discussion with griphon about this, I think it was him. The inner ear (mental ear that hears melodies in your head) can only produce accurately what it knows and has heard. This is mostly true, well to get valueable use of it. Someone who has never heard a particular scale can (I'd say accidently) come up with something in a scale he's never heard. But it's always hazy to them, and the understanding won't be there.

Originally posted by chris mood

The major scale emulates the sound of nature, so our ears are used to hearing this, but other exotic scales have to be heard before are ear can start to write melodically w/them.

I also agree that sound is based on nature. Actually sound (pitches/notes) and everything we hear as music comes from nature, not just the major scale. The major scale is based on the western organized group of pitches. Like the hungarian major and minor are based on the hungarian group of pitches. It's more of a cultural thing. Like when you hear a brazilian tribal tune, they know nothing of the major scale or even scales yet they can produce music. However strange it is to our ears, but our music would probably be strange to them. Watch the nature channel.

Originally posted by chris mood

So it comes to the point what came 1st the chicken are the egg (science/emotion)

Definitely emotion. Emotion comes from sound or pitch. A certain pitch has a different impression (emotion) to it, than a another pitch. Like the difference between F# and Eb, and not just in the aspect of singular pitch but there relationship as well. When you go up in pitch, I guess you feel lifted in sense, when it goes down, you feel depressed. Since sound itself is as old as time, it definitely came first. Even primal animals communicated with pitch, especially whales and dolphins. They were around long before us. Even a dog, when he growls (which is low register) means "get lost", and a yipe (high register) means something else. Birds also communicate in pitch, along with most animals. Any movement of particles produces sound, even air. Just wave your hand by your ear and you can hear the wind. Also, science needs something to study before there can be a science about it. Music theory is a part of the science of sound.

Originally posted by chris mood

2) I feel it is a major misconception that learning theory will inhibit your creativity, you can't break the rules if you don't know what they are.

I agree. Theory will not inhibit your creativity the way you put it. It actually can do nothing but help, knowledge is power. A misuse of theory can hinder you, if you know the rules and strictly follow them. Especially when you only use them, and not your own creativitiness. I know quite a few people who do this.

Originally posted by chris mood

I think the ear naturally hears the diminished chord resolving by half step, so one must teach oneself not to resolve this chord by half step and "learn" the sound this will emulate.

I agree. But take someone who only follows the rules, like diminished chords have to resolve 1/2 step. Since music is organized sound, that would only be one sound and you would be missing out on alot. A diminished chord can actually go to a V chord (inverted or not) in a major scale. It's not as natural as the first one but it can work, but any resolution can work if thats want you want. See you don't always want a natural flow to music, there needs to be dynamics in it to make it somewhat interesting. Music that is natural flowing all the time is usually rather weak and/or boring. Same thing with the V chord naturally going to a ii chord. This is hindering you, if you strictly follow these rules. So yeah I believe you should learn and experiment. As a musician, or should I say artist, we need to experiment to evolve.

Originally posted by chris mood

I think if you don't learn theory chances are your jazz songs will sound a lot like everybody else's vrs. if you do.

Really in depends on the person writting the song. But if you know that one chord progression works great for jazz, and you continously use it. Well, you going to write a song that sounds like the norm. Just like writting a rock song with the chord progression C, G, F. Done billions of times. On the other hand, if you use the theory you were taught to understand and build on your creativeness, it will definitely help set your song apart. Like if you took the rock prog. C, G, F and made it C Gb F. Theory will help you understand what you did, and maybe make it more paladiable to the ear. Someone without an theory knowledge may be oblivious to it cause they don't understand how it could work.

Music theory opens up alot of possibilites and maybe a path to start from. I still say follow your ear, because it's knows right (for you). Theory is still theory, it should be studied but more on the side of achieving understanding rather than what the strict rules are.