Re: [crazy_music] Joe Monzo's pathologies and dysfunctions

> From: <xed@...>
> To: <crazy_music@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:38 AM
> Subject: [crazy_music] Joe Monzo's pathologies and dysfunctions
>
>
> Like a Unarius saucer cultist who always
> responds to demands for proof that flying
> saucers exist by quoting passages from the
> sacred text of the saucer cult, "The Book
> of Unarius," Joe Monzo is unable to respond
> to the vast mountain of evidence I have
> cited against the validity of Arnold
> Schoenberg's claims.

I'm not unable. I'm unwilling.

You have refused to respond relevantly to what
I've posted about Schoenberg, which leads me to
believe that you won't take the trouble to understand
what I'm writing, so I'm not writing any more of it.

And you also refuse to stop the name-calling and
accusations, which doesn't help matters.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----
From: <xed@...>
To: <crazy_music@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2001 12:38 AM
Subject: [crazy_music] Joe Monzo's pathologies and dysfunctions

> Thus I will not respond directly to any of Monzo's
> meaningless regurgitations of Schoenberg's incoherent
> writings unless and until Joe Monzo provides the
> hard evidence to counter the hard evidence I have
> cited that Schoenberg's claims are false.

Excellent!

Since I have no *intention* of providing "the hard evidence
to counter the hard evidence [mclaren has] cited that Schoenberg's
claims are false", but rather merely to point out the errors
in *mclaren's* interpretation of Schoenberg's theory, I will
therefore not be *able* to provide that evidence, and Brian will
therefore "not respond directly to any of Monzo's meaningless
regurgitations of Schoenberg's incoherent writings".

So for all of you out there who *are* interested in my
knowledgeable clarifications of less-understood aspects
of Schoenberg's theory

(many of which Brian got totally wrong in his summaries,
as I point out in the post Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2001 5:32 AM
Subject: [crazy_music] The brilliant visionary genius Arnold Schoenberg),

we can all now rest assured that I can continue posting my
"meaningless regurgitations of Schoenberg's incoherent writings"
here, with absolutely no more interference from Brian.

> Since my citations from the scientific literature,
> and since it takes an experiment to break an experiment,
> Joe Monzo must cite direct quotations from the psychoacoustic
> and psychomusicological and cognitive psychology literature
> detailing experiments which disprove the scientific results
> I have cited. Moreover, Joe Monzo must provide at least
> 3 scientific results for each one I have cited, since
> the rule of thumb is that once reproducible experiments
> have been published, it takes a *whole* lot of contrary
> scientific evidence to discredit 'em.
> Likewise, Joe Monzo must provide countering citations
> from music history and philosophy to disprove my citations
> showing the intellectual bankruptcy of Schoenberg's ideas.

I "must", just because Brian says I "must"? Not.

Sorry, not interested in attempting to disprove your citations
from the scientific literature which show that Schoenberg's
theory is invalid. Much more interested in acheiving a proper
understanding of my cult hero's "incoherent writings", and in
the analytically and compositionally useful ideas which I get
out of that endeavor, which are many.

> Until Joe Monzo resopnds in this fashion with hard
> evidence, instead of meaningless quotes from the sacred
> texts of his cult guru, I will not respond except with
> a copy of this post.

Gee, now *that's* not a waste of other people's bandwidth.

> PREDICTION: Like a creationist unable to resopnd
> to criticisms of his cult beliefs except by quotes
> from the Bible, Joe Monzo will never respond to
> the direct evidence I have cited against Schoenberg's
> claims except with more citations from Schoenberg's
> own writings.

Well, that's a pretty easy prediction to make, since I've
already stated such plainly.

> Sadly, that by Joe Monzo response is meaningless -- for you
> cannot prove or disprove a belief system solely
> from inside that belief system. You must always
> test any belief system with evidence from *outside*
> the belief system.

If other people did not understand or had misconceptions
about Schoenberg's theory, especially if it was because
of *mclaren's* obfuscations of it and errors in describing
it, then happily, my posts are not meaningless.

Fortunately, as I keep stating and mclaren keeps ignoring,
I am not trying to prove anything, except that Schoenberg's
harmonic theory is a rich field worthy of much study.

> Joe Monzo's persistent refusal to do this marks
> him as a kook and a member of a fanatical musical
> cult.

Whatever.

My own opinion is that my "persistent refusal to do this"
marks me as a composer and music-theorist and not as a
scientist, which is a situation I'll happily accept.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com