Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning morality, religion/science as a crazy nonlinear feedbacksystem

The problem is that it's all a non-linear feedback system. Life is
tough and we all feel more comfortable seeking the moral advice of
"authorities of morality" (and don't pretend you're a hippy freethinker
with no such reference points, you may not love GWB, but surely one of
Ghandi, MLKing, ??? you might find admirable) or codices of morality (the
bible, Marx, Ayn Rand, whatever), because we're not always so sure. But
then we also have to recognize that these people/codices get it wrong
sometimes, and then we have to refer to our own inner moral sense. But
then that might fail at times--like if poor drug addicts use religion as a
crutch to lift themselves our of poverty and make a better life, that's
less harmful to others, that's surely a good thing? But then if that
same religion tells them that it's cool to go fight in an immoral war,
then they suddenly need to rely on their inner moral sense? Such are the
difficulties. . .

But yeah, science definitely does not get off scott-free.

Consider: We could think of ridiculous experiments that would,
theoretically "expand our knowledge"--i.e. could be actions taken "in the
name of science" but we would all be against them happening: experiments
involving measuring the effects of irradiation of people, for example.

We would all say, "no, you can't do that on purpose!" . . of course, such
experiments were done, (as experiments, outside of measuring the effects
of the bomb), and shock us today.

But that's the point: science can be as evil as religion. Only our own
personal sense of morality can hold it in check, just as with religion.
But some times our own personal moral sense is @#$%@#$% up. So then we
need the discipline of religion, or science.

It's a big non-linear feedback system.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

we tend to associate ethics and religion, but it is quite possible, if not preferable to separate them.
they really don't need each other, unless you insist that the power that be has an ethical concern.
which i don't and prefer to deal with ethics under philosophy.
religion under cosmology

Christopher Bailey wrote:

>The problem is that it's all a non-linear feedback system. Life is >tough and we all feel more comfortable seeking the moral advice of >"authorities of morality" (and don't pretend you're a hippy freethinker >with no such reference points, you may not love GWB, but surely one of >Ghandi, MLKing, ??? you might find admirable) or codices of morality (the >bible, Marx, Ayn Rand, whatever), because we're not always so sure. But >then we also have to recognize that these people/codices get it wrong >sometimes, and then we have to refer to our own inner moral sense. But >then that might fail at times--like if poor drug addicts use religion as a >crutch to lift themselves our of poverty and make a better life, that's >less harmful to others, that's surely a good thing? But then if that >same religion tells them that it's cool to go fight in an immoral war, >then they suddenly need to rely on their inner moral sense? Such are the >difficulties. . . >
>
>But yeah, science definitely does not get off scott-free.
>
>Consider: We could think of ridiculous experiments that would, >theoretically "expand our knowledge"--i.e. could be actions taken "in the >name of science" but we would all be against them happening: experiments >involving measuring the effects of irradiation of people, for example.
>
>We would all say, "no, you can't do that on purpose!" . . of course, such >experiments were done, (as experiments, outside of measuring the effects >of the bomb), and shock us today. >
>But that's the point: science can be as evil as religion. Only our own >personal sense of morality can hold it in check, just as with religion.
>But some times our own personal moral sense is @#$%@#$% up. So then we >need the discipline of religion, or science. >
>It's a big non-linear feedback system.
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> we tend to associate ethics and religion, but it is quite
possible, if
> not preferable to separate them.
> they really don't need each other, unless you insist that the
power
> that be has an ethical concern.
> which i don't and prefer to deal with ethics under philosophy.
> religion under cosmology

Something like that, for me, too...

I often feel like I've been brainwashed so many times I'm
threadbare. I was raised Roman Catholic (we had some hardcores in
the familiy, too!) and then I lived through the whole godless
Commies vs. Righteous God-fearing Americans coldwar BS, and the
vestigial (???) anarcho-syndicalism and whatnot of the smarter
hippie-types, and Marxism, and on and on.

In any case, atheism was trendy THEN, but for me maybe a creeping
agnosticism eventually gave way to the feeling that I should really
study these things for myself rather than parroting my friends' and
*their* heroes' views. It takes a long time researching, and
careful consideration of what's there, and who's got time for that?

Most importantly, I've found that being hostile to a book beforehand
makes it very difficult if not impossible to read. If I can pack up
my hostility, and my superficially smug, smart-aleck, would-be
intellectual Westernisms (???) and just read the stuff as wide-
openly as possible, I usually learn something. If not about the
book, about myself.

Especially with stuff that's really old, I think one begins to
realize that their brains really WERE hard-wired differently, so
that the nuggets of wisdom are harder to pick out, now (like the way
Billy Bob's character in Slingblade comes to terms with the content
of the only book he ever learned to read, maybe?). And even going
back just a 100-200 years or so, the language is so different. It's
beautiful in a way, and completely daunting in another. Depends, I
guess. If you hate Blake, maybe Fielding will tickle you. Good
luck, anyway!

The first thing I learned studying music composition is to choose
your 'vocabulary' as carefully as possible. That means everything,
scale, intonation, &c., &c. I keep trying to live up to THAT ideal,
at least.

-------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, I stumbled on the National Socialist Greens the other day.
That's right! Nazi's with green flags and big Swastika's in the
middle. Same old Hitler with an environmentalist skew. Amazing.

I guess they intend to send out pink-mohawked chrome-spiked-leather-
jacket wearing thugs in the deep of night and rough you up for not
composting. "What's this teabag doing in the garbage, mother*&^%
$#?!?!?" Or send you to the gulag to sort recyclables? (I WISH it
were that silly, it would almost be attractive!)

Oh, my lord...(sorry ;-)

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

the problem religion has with ethics is that it has to set itself above it, hence examples like abraham being told to kill his son.
Religions has to set itself over ethics.

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>On Saturday 01 October 2005 10:44 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>we tend to associate ethics and religion, but it is quite possible, if
>>not preferable to separate them.
>> they really don't need each other, unless you insist that the power
>>that be has an ethical concern.
>>which i don't and prefer to deal with ethics under philosophy.
>> religion under cosmology
>> >>
>
>agreed. and just because science can be used by unethical people for unethical >purposes doesn't make it inherently unethical.
>
>i supposed the same can be said for religion, but even doing good within >religion entails some degree of lying/stretching of truth (e.g. there's this >all-pwoerful sky dude who gets mad when you slander others, so that is why >slander is a no-no)
>
>i prefer ethics from within. getting it wrong ans learning it rigth is part of >life, scary as it is.
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Saturday 01 October 2005 3:48 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> the problem religion has with ethics is that it has to set itself above
> it, hence examples like abraham being told to kill his son.
> Religions has to set itself over ethics.

yes, and hence the worst breaches of ethics are from religious fanatics.

-aaron.

> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >On Saturday 01 October 2005 10:44 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >>we tend to associate ethics and religion, but it is quite possible, if
> >>not preferable to separate them.
> >> they really don't need each other, unless you insist that the power
> >>that be has an ethical concern.
> >>which i don't and prefer to deal with ethics under philosophy.
> >> religion under cosmology
> >
> >agreed. and just because science can be used by unethical people for
> > unethical purposes doesn't make it inherently unethical.
> >
> >i supposed the same can be said for religion, but even doing good within
> >religion entails some degree of lying/stretching of truth (e.g. there's
> > this all-pwoerful sky dude who gets mad when you slander others, so that
> > is why slander is a no-no)
> >
> >i prefer ethics from within. getting it wrong ans learning it rigth is
> > part of life, scary as it is.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

science believes that every thing can be analyzed and that will eventually gives us a a clear picture of why something is the way it is. these are models

We don't have to travel very far to find a place where such nonsense is probably useless.
music.

you can analyze all you want why beethoven is a better composer than korngold and while it maybe will come out "reasonable' there is nothing to determine that it is based on anything beyond one's faith in the system. to explain it the former involving more structural ingenuity might be correct but under such criterion, totally serialized music would be the best possible music.
usually such analytical standard leaves composers like your favorite Sibelus out in the cold.
never once was he mentioned in the 5 colleges i went to

yet they will have plenty to say about Milton Babbit.
while you might have a theory for melody. tchaikowsky will break every single one of these so called rules from the first note on.
one the other hand he will repeat whole passages without the slightest concern that he does so without any variation of any kind

Still persist the myth that we will be able to analyze such things and produce results from such analysis.

-- Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson
<aaron@a...> wrote:

Hi Aaron,

> i supposed the same can be said for religion, but even doing good
within
> religion entails some degree of lying/stretching of truth (e.g.
there's this
> all-pwoerful sky dude who gets mad when you slander others, so
that is why
> slander is a no-no)

That is a childish and wearisome caricature of "religion". But it
is a fair characterization of the goals of all kinds of tyranny.
Unquestioning obedience. Obey, or we'll rain fire and brimstone on
you. Right?

> ...hence the worst breaches of ethics are from religious fanatics.
>

At least we've progressed from "religion", to "religious fanatics".
Whew! Whether the statement is remotely true or not...

> i prefer ethics from within.

Look at televangelists, or listen to Christian radio. They're
highly skilled at manipulating the kind of *extremely selective*
self-examination that most people can muster.

Everybody thinks it comes from "within", their obedience to
political power, 'the social contract', and all that hooey. Whether
it springs from imagined 'laws' of Nature, or imagined 'laws' of
God, it's still just obedience, to avoid really facing what comes
from a hard look inside oneself.

But, check out Edward Teller's evasions when asked about his
motivations, for example. Was he arrogant? I don't know, but
apparently he was a great scientist who fervently believed in 'The
American Way of Life'. Is that a religion? I think it is. And so
is "science". Power-mongers can always tweak it to serve their own
ends, just like they do with "spiritual" teaching.

"...endowed...with two precious faculties -the power to think and
the desire to rebel." --Michael Bakunin

"People sometimes inquire what form of government is most suitable
for an artist to live under. To this question there is only one
answer. The form of government that is most suitable to the artist
is no government at all." --Oscar Wilde

And THAT, my friend, is why it's not that [artists] are
misunderstood, it's that they're understood too well. ;-)

Science depends on its 'hierarchies' (!), its 'priest class',
doesn't it? No wonder you're still having to defend it. I'm
kidding, sort of.

But it *does* seem completely absurd to me that a believer in
science would be astonished at being questioned, fundamentally.
That's the drill isn't it? To have to prove it over and over
again? Wouldn't it be nice to be a [Christian?] soldier and not
have to prove anything except that you can blast 'em to Kingdom
Come?

And didn't mathematicians have to rewrite their own rules so they
*could* prove things over and over again, so guys like Cantor and
Gauss wouldn't lose their minds every time? That's what I thought I
read, anyway. Sorry if I read it wrong.

For many, obedience -whether to God or to science- is eminently
preferable, and sometimes I don't blame them.

Cheers mate,

Pete

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗justinasia <justinasia@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> > > we tend to associate ethics and religion, but it is
> > > quite possible, if not preferable to separate them.
> >
> > Heavens, yes. Well, I would say they can and should
> > be as separate as any two facets of human existence.
>
> Hi Carl
> I'm hunting for your other mail but I found this and couldn't
> resist.

Sorry, I had to run out. I just posted it.

> Buddhist ethics are all firmly based on non-harm. All the
> ethical codes are designed solely to minimise harm to any
> living being. It would be impossible to separate Buddhism
> from ethics. I mean, you can't have Buddhism without ethics.

I've always wondered if Buddhism is a "religion" in the same
sense that the 'god of Abraham' religions are religions.
What do you think?

> And, in a Buddhist culture, also it seems to me that it
> would be nonsensical lto separate ethics from Buddhism. You
> see, the rules are not prescibed by any God and to be held
> to in fear of some retribution from an all powerful being.
> They are simply grounded in the real world of here and now,
> and any negatie effect from breaking them is merely the
> natural outcome of the process of cause and effect (what we
> term "karma"). In this case I cannot imagine a reason to
> seperate the two.
> Best wishes
> Justin.

Sounds more like Buddhism *is* ethics.

I think most Christians would say you cannot seperate their
faith from ethics. But there are ways to get ethics with,
say, the laws of thermodynamics and a few observations about
life. Anyway, that's what I tried to do in high school.
Seems to work pretty well for me.

-Carl

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

a nice quote:

Theology is an attempt to explain a subject by men who do not understand
it. The intent is not to tell the truth but to satisfy the questioner.
-- Elbert Hubbard

On Tuesday 04 October 2005 4:58 pm, Carl Lumma wrote:
> > > > we tend to associate ethics and religion, but it is
> > > > quite possible, if not preferable to separate them.
> > >
> > > Heavens, yes. Well, I would say they can and should
> > > be as separate as any two facets of human existence.
> >
> > Hi Carl
> > I'm hunting for your other mail but I found this and couldn't
> > resist.
>
> Sorry, I had to run out. I just posted it.
>
> > Buddhist ethics are all firmly based on non-harm. All the
> > ethical codes are designed solely to minimise harm to any
> > living being. It would be impossible to separate Buddhism
> > from ethics. I mean, you can't have Buddhism without ethics.
>
> I've always wondered if Buddhism is a "religion" in the same
> sense that the 'god of Abraham' religions are religions.
> What do you think?
>
> > And, in a Buddhist culture, also it seems to me that it
> > would be nonsensical lto separate ethics from Buddhism. You
> > see, the rules are not prescibed by any God and to be held
> > to in fear of some retribution from an all powerful being.
> > They are simply grounded in the real world of here and now,
> > and any negatie effect from breaking them is merely the
> > natural outcome of the process of cause and effect (what we
> > term "karma"). In this case I cannot imagine a reason to
> > seperate the two.
> > Best wishes
> > Justin.
>
> Sounds more like Buddhism *is* ethics.
>
> I think most Christians would say you cannot seperate their
> faith from ethics. But there are ways to get ethics with,
> say, the laws of thermodynamics and a few observations about
> life. Anyway, that's what I tried to do in high school.
> Seems to work pretty well for me.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗justinasia <justinasia@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:.

> > Buddhist ethics are all firmly based on non-harm. All the
> > ethical codes are designed solely to minimise harm to any
> > living being. It would be impossible to separate Buddhism
> > from ethics. I mean, you can't have Buddhism without ethics.
>
> I've always wondered if Buddhism is a "religion" in the same
> sense that the 'god of Abraham' religions are religions.
> What do you think?

I often heard it said that "Buddhism is not a religion, it is a way
of life!" But I only hear that from westerners and it does to me
sound like someone trying to be modern and cool, and perhaps adopt
what they want from Buddhism without getting too involved or
challenged. But, it is different from the religions of the book
certainly. Let's look at a couple of dictionaries:
Merrium-Webster:
>(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

This would not apply. That is, not strictly, but actually that
depends on what "supernatural" means. And it depends also on the
level of one's practise. There is gererally in Buddhism some kind of
praying to the Buddha (this itself has different levels - on one
very real level the Buddha represents the innate purity
(Buddhanature) which is "within" us all, so , one is also praying to
one's own Buddhanature. By the way, "Buddha" means "awakened one".)
and in Mahayana Buddhism (Japan, China, Tibet etc)there is praying
to Bodhisattvas also (archetypal embodiments of various facets of
our innate perfection). But as for service - we are not serving the
Buddha or Bodhisattvas. They are our inspiration. As far as service
goes, in Mahayana we aim to serve all sentient beings, without
exception. That is, including insects, ghosts, aliens etc. To free
them all from suffering and establish them in happiness - that is
basically the prime goal.

>(2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

As I have mentioned, certinly there is devotion. Devotion to the
Buddha, and all the great masters through history who have also
become enlightened, to our teacher also who leads us on the Buddhist
path, and to the teachings. Commitment should be to the path. We are
all different, and so our paths will be different even within the
tradition. But we should commit to doing our best. And as for faith,
blind faith is not at all desirable. We are taught to test things,
and only when they stand up to reason and our good sense, only then
accept them. However, that is even still considered a sort of low-
level of faith. When we start to experence what is true, then the
faith from that is far more highly regarded. Ultimately, when you
totally experience something as true beyind any doubt, that is the
highest faith. So as you see, experience has more authority than
texts.

Oxford:
>1 the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power,
>especially a personal God or gods.

This would not fit. Well, not in the Christian sense. But actually
if I think about that - if you think of a human being a controlling
power (that is very normal, such as a bossy person or whatever),
them also the wind for example can be quite controlling. That is
superhuman I suppose. But you might say not personal. Then, we
generally believe in various local spirits for example (these are
often experienced by people first hand by the way), and they do have
a certain amount of control. They are generally not worshiped, but
might have offerings made to them. It is best to keep a good
relationship with them! But note that they are not all powerful, and
the religion is certainly not based on them. Such beings are just co-
inhabitants of this world.

> 2 a particular system of faith and worship.

Yes. But again bare in mind what I have said about faith and worship.

> 3 a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

Well, certainly this applies. But then so would many things! I
don't think we should define music as a religion!

> > And, in a Buddhist culture, also it seems to me that it
> > would be nonsensical lto separate ethics from Buddhism. You
> > see, the rules are not prescibed by any God and to be held
> > to in fear of some retribution from an all powerful being.
> > They are simply grounded in the real world of here and now,
> > and any negatie effect from breaking them is merely the
> > natural outcome of the process of cause and effect (what we
> > term "karma"). In this case I cannot imagine a reason to
> > seperate the two.
> > Best wishes
> > Justin.
>
> Sounds more like Buddhism *is* ethics.

In Buddhism we basically have a threefold training. That's one way
of looking at it anyway. They are, morality/discipline (that's where
ethics comes in. We are to abandon unskillful action, and carry out
skillful action), mind training (eg training in concentration), and
wisdom/insight (seeing things as they are). All these three work
together, and none can be persued properly without all the others.
So as you can see, there is more to it than just ethics. Put
plainly, Buddhism is a clear method for attaining enlightenment.
That's what it's for. The Buddha attained enlightenment, and then he
spent the rest of his life teaching others how to achieve the same.

> I think most Christians would say you cannot seperate their
> faith from ethics. But there are ways to get ethics with,
> say, the laws of thermodynamics and a few observations about
> life. Anyway, that's what I tried to do in high school.
> Seems to work pretty well for me.

The Dalai Lama also said he wants science to validate good ethics.
He realises that most people are not religious, so if ethics are
only in religions there is a huge amount of people not being catered
for! He has a good point!
Best wishes
Justin.

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

science is as much a method and a belief in that method , even if it does well

Paul Erlich wrote:

>Something's wrong with that statement, not least because it leaves out >the most important defining part of science: evidence.
>
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> >
>>with science being the religion under the myth of analysis
>>
>>Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>yes, and hence the worst breaches of ethics are from religious >>> >>>
>fanatics.
> >
>>>-aaron.
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> science believes that every thing can be analyzed and that will
> eventually gives us a a clear picture of why something is the way
it
> is. these are models
>
> We don't have to travel very far to find a place where such
nonsense is
> probably useless.
> music.
>
> you can analyze all you want why beethoven is a better composer
than
> korngold and while it maybe will come out "reasonable' there is
nothing
> to determine that it is based on anything beyond one's faith in the
> system. to explain it the former involving more structural
ingenuity
> might be correct but under such criterion, totally serialized music
> would be the best possible music.
>
>
>
> usually such analytical standard leaves composers like your
favorite
> Sibelus out in the cold.
> never once was he mentioned in the 5 colleges i went to
>
> yet they will have plenty to say about Milton Babbit.
> while you might have a theory for melody. tchaikowsky will break
every
> single one of these so called rules from the first note on.
> one the other hand he will repeat whole passages without the
slightest
> concern that he does so without any variation of any kind
>
> Still persist the myth that we will be able to analyze such things
and
> produce results from such analysis.

Sounds like you're confusing a lot of different things that you don't
like, Kraig, including science and colleges (surely those weren't
college *science* courses in which Milton Babbitt was mentioned?) The
endeavor of science was never, and never will be, about showing
Beethoven was a better composer than Korngold. Show me one serious
scientist who claims otherwise.

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

this was more in the nature of talking about analysis and it limitation. although analysis is applied to music without any regard for its limitation in this field.

but you use science i a way that others don't in the sense of referring to the tuning list as not science. others have use it as such and have spoken of the scientific study of music.
this is as absurd as the artistic study of microbiology.

yes it is the pseudo scientific way music is taught that pisses me off. it isn't taught as an art for sure.
Painters and poets are never subjected to the amount of theory that musicians are.
it is important to observe what has been done though and see what it tells us, but to think it will take us beyond a certain level is mere faith in the system
Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>
>Sounds like you're confusing a lot of different things that you don't >like, Kraig, including science and colleges (surely those weren't >college *science* courses in which Milton Babbitt was mentioned?) The >endeavor of science was never, and never will be, about showing >Beethoven was a better composer than Korngold. Show me one serious >scientist who claims otherwise.
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

There's no need for belief when evidence will do. Few scientists
believe that any current theories (even their own) are actually
correct; instead, they are aware that as more evidence is
accumulated, the current theories will have to be thrown out in favor
of better ones. What religion has anything similar?

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> science is as much a method and a belief in that method , even if
it
> does well
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >Something's wrong with that statement, not least because it leaves
out
> >the most important defining part of science: evidence.
> >
> >
> >--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>with science being the religion under the myth of analysis
> >>
> >>Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>yes, and hence the worst breaches of ethics are from religious
> >>>
> >>>
> >fanatics.
> >
> >
> >>>-aaron.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Kraig Grady
> >>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> >>The Wandering Medicine Show
> >>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los
Angeles
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

my religion. in a state of constantly becoming

Paul Erlich wrote:

>There's no need for belief when evidence will do. Few scientists >believe that any current theories (even their own) are actually >correct; instead, they are aware that as more evidence is >accumulated, the current theories will have to be thrown out in favor >of better ones. What religion has anything similar?
>
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >wrote:
> >
>>science is as much a method and a belief in that method , even if >> >>
>it > >
>>does well
>>
>>Paul Erlich wrote:
>>
>> >>
>>>Something's wrong with that statement, not least because it leaves >>> >>>
>out > >
>>>the most important defining part of science: evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> >>> >>>
>wrote:
> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>with science being the religion under the myth of analysis
>>>>
>>>>Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>>>yes, and hence the worst breaches of ethics are from religious >>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>fanatics.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>>>>-aaron.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>-- >>>>Kraig Grady
>>>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los >>>> >>>>
>Angeles
> >
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>>>
>>>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>>>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>>>
>>>To post to the list, send to
>>>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>>You don't have to be a member to post.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>-- >>Kraig Grady
>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>The Wandering Medicine Show
>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>>
>> >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thursday 06 October 2005 9:17 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> this was more in the nature of talking about analysis and it limitation.
> although analysis is applied to music without any regard for its
> limitation in this field.
>
> but you use science i a way that others don't in the sense of referring
> to the tuning list as not science. others have use it as such and have
> spoken of the scientific study of music.

well, there are certainly rational aspect to music, even as there are
irrational. why is that a problem?

> yes it is the pseudo scientific way music is taught that pisses me off.
> it isn't taught as an art for sure.

can you give an example?

> Painters and poets are never subjected to the amount of theory that
> musicians are.

I wonder if the renaissance artists like DaVinci would agree with you. Look at
how obsessed they were with geometry and proportion, a realm of the rational
and logical.

I think it depends on the artist.

But even you, Kraig, study Irv Wilson's mathematical constructs, right? I
don't see why there is such a battle between the left/right brained style of
thinking...I feel ath both are important to the whole artist.

-Aaron.

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:

> this was more in the nature of talking about analysis and it
limitation.
> although analysis is applied to music without any regard for its
> limitation in this field.

By some, perhaps. Also, academic musical "analyses" are extremely far
from scientific by any standard, being admittedly quite subjective.

> but you use science i a way that others don't in the sense of
referring
> to the tuning list as not science.

Oh please! When was the last time you saw an iota of science there?
Months ago? Years? Just because you invoke some scientific facts, or
use mathematical reasoning, doesn't mean you're doing science.

> others have use it as such and have
> spoken of the scientific study of music.

Anything with that title is mostly BS. Helmholtz's speculations about
music and tuning may have impressed many at the time as
being "scientific", but in truth they were far from it. He was a
great scientist and unfortunately this makes some people willing to
believe every word he wrote about music, aesthetics, etc. But on
those topics, he was expressing his speculative opinion, not any
scientific facts.

> this is as absurd as the artistic study of microbiology.
>
> yes it is the pseudo scientific way music is taught that pisses me
off.
> it isn't taught as an art for sure.
> Painters and poets are never subjected to the amount of theory
that
> musicians are.

I disagree, at least when it comes to painters. Many friends of mine
went or go to art school and have to take classes such as color
theory in which the material is hundreds of years out of date and has
been discredited both scientifically and artistically (that is, by
practical, working artists).

> it is important to observe what has been done though and see what
it
> tells us, but to think it will take us beyond a certain level is
mere
> faith in the system

Sure. Music takes me (and my audiences) beyond a lot of levels,
way "beyond" the material level, I can tell you that much. When it
comes to tuning systems, I try infer patterns from observations, use
mathematics to solve difficult problems that would take forever with
trial and error, and so on, but I don't consider this to be science
per se, it's just my own impractical way of being practical, and most
importantly, it's subservient to the ultimate, completely non-
analytical goal of music for me (believe it or not). Melody,
especially, for me is a totally intuitive thing, and quite
mysterious, and I'm loathe to leave the construction of melodies up
to any "system" when it comes to my music. Perhaps I enjoy debating
musical and tuning theories a little too much, but mostly I just want
to shake people out of their dogmatic tuning slumbers whenever I can.
If that seems like a strange way to further the cause of good
microtonal music, so be it -- I'm a strange guy.

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

I'm glad to hear it.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
wrote:
>
> my religion. in a state of constantly becoming
>
> Paul Erlich wrote:
>
> >There's no need for belief when evidence will do. Few scientists
> >believe that any current theories (even their own) are actually
> >correct; instead, they are aware that as more evidence is
> >accumulated, the current theories will have to be thrown out in
favor
> >of better ones. What religion has anything similar?
> >
> >
> >--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>science is as much a method and a belief in that method , even if
> >>
> >>
> >it
> >
> >
> >>does well
> >>
> >>Paul Erlich wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Something's wrong with that statement, not least because it
leaves
> >>>
> >>>
> >out
> >
> >
> >>>the most important defining part of science: evidence.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...>
> >>>
> >>>
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>with science being the religion under the myth of analysis
> >>>>
> >>>>Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>yes, and hence the worst breaches of ethics are from religious
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>fanatics.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>-aaron.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>--
> >>>>Kraig Grady
> >>>>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
<http://anaphoria.com/>
> >>>>The Wandering Medicine Show
> >>>>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >Angeles
> >
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >>>
> >>>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >>>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>>
> >>>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >>>
> >>>To post to the list, send to
> >>>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >>>
> >>>You don't have to be a member to post.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yahoo! Groups Links
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>--
> >>Kraig Grady
> >>North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> >>The Wandering Medicine Show
> >>KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los
Angeles
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

I think we are on the same page here.

Paul Erlich wrote:

>
>Sure. Music takes me (and my audiences) beyond a lot of levels, >way "beyond" the material level, I can tell you that much. When it >comes to tuning systems, I try infer patterns from observations, use >mathematics to solve difficult problems that would take forever with >trial and error, and so on, but I don't consider this to be science >per se, it's just my own impractical way of being practical, and most >importantly, it's subservient to the ultimate, completely non-
>analytical goal of music for me (believe it or not). Melody, >especially, for me is a totally intuitive thing, and quite >mysterious, and I'm loathe to leave the construction of melodies up >to any "system" when it comes to my music. Perhaps I enjoy debating >musical and tuning theories a little too much, but mostly I just want >to shake people out of their dogmatic tuning slumbers whenever I can. >If that seems like a strange way to further the cause of good >microtonal music, so be it -- I'm a strange guy.
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> I certainly agree that there's little or no science on the tuning list,
> following the most likely meaning of "science".

You have the same propensity as a number of other people, in taking
descriptions in their most literal sense. When people have used the
terms "scientific" and "artistic" (or similar paired terms) it is in
an attempt to identify two possible and general ways to approach the
topic of tuning. Whether or not it includes experiments with
verifiable results, or any exacting criteria to meet an exacting
definition of science, is completely beside the point.

> I have spoken of the
> scientific study of tuning, which avoids defining "music".

You might say that this is the more frequent mindset on the tuning
list, and the reason why many musicians get turned off. You (and I
mean the 'big' you, not you personally) might not care, but one can at
least be cognizant of the fact.

> And how is that absurd? Artists can take their inspiration from
> nature, surely.

That isn't what Kraig was implying.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Jon Szanto wrote:

> You have the same propensity as a number of other people, in taking
> descriptions in their most literal sense. When people have used the
> terms "scientific" and "artistic" (or similar paired terms) it is in
> an attempt to identify two possible and general ways to approach the
> topic of tuning. Whether or not it includes experiments with
> verifiable results, or any exacting criteria to meet an exacting
> definition of science, is completely beside the point.

I don't know how "scientific" and "artistic" can be used metaphorically. I do assume that people mean what they say. How else am I supposed to know what they're talking about?

>>I have spoken of the >>scientific study of tuning, which avoids defining "music".
> > You might say that this is the more frequent mindset on the tuning
> list, and the reason why many musicians get turned off. You (and I
> mean the 'big' you, not you personally) might not care, but one can at
> least be cognizant of the fact.

If you think there's a reason people are being turned off, why not say what it is, instead of using loaded terms and expecting us to guess what you mean by them?

>>And how is that absurd? Artists can take their inspiration from >>nature, surely.
> > > That isn't what Kraig was implying.

So how am I supposed to know what he wants to say if he doesn't say it? How about he doesn't say anything, and we assume he would have said something sensible?

Graham

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Hi Graham,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> I don't know how "scientific" and "artistic" can be used
metaphorically.

Are you saying that you aren't able to discern broad differences
between the sciences and the arts? That it would seen the study of a
science would be indistinguishable from the study of an art? I don't
believe that for a minute, I think you very well are able to see how
two different approaches in thinking, in sensibilities - that of the
sciences, that of the arts - can manifest themselves in attitudes and
initiatives.

> I do assume that people mean what they say. How else am I
supposed to
> know what they're talking about?

I do mean what I say.

> If you think there's a reason people are being turned off, why not say
> what it is, instead of using loaded terms and expecting us to guess
what
> you mean by them?

There is not *a* reason, and I believe I have made attempts to at
least examine some of the issues. The problem is that most of the
people doing deep analysis while completely ignoring artistic angles
seem to be in heavy denial that there is anything wrong. It may be
that this is the way it will be, and nothing can be done. I think that
is a net loss.

> How about he doesn't say anything, and we assume he would have said
> something sensible?

That isn't a particularly charitable tone, Graham. I doubt you are in
favor of active censorship...

Best,
Jon

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Jon Szanto wrote:

> Are you saying that you aren't able to discern broad differences
> between the sciences and the arts? That it would seen the study of a
> science would be indistinguishable from the study of an art? I don't
> believe that for a minute, I think you very well are able to see how
> two different approaches in thinking, in sensibilities - that of the
> sciences, that of the arts - can manifest themselves in attitudes and
> initiatives.

Whoa whoa whoa!

Firstly, "the sciences" and "science" are not the same thing. "The arts" are very different to "art" in that history and geography get included in "the arts" but not "art". As there's a lot of vaguely historical stuff on the tuning list, it would be "the arts" rather than "the sciences".

You've also slipped in "the study of an art". Maybe that's innocuous, and you mean the same as "the practice of an art". Study is more of a scientific than an artistic activity.

I can see very clear differences between art and science. I can also see huge areas of human activity -- like sport, engineering, religion, sex, astrology, business, stamp collecting -- that belong to neither. Most of the recent tuning list activity is in the "neither" category. Saying otherwise is as ludicrous as saying electronic instruments don't involve resonance.

If you say "Science tends to trump pretty much everything else." (which I assume is the original remark we're talking about) then I assume the "everything else" includes pseudoscience, stupid arguments about language, and all the other things on the tuning list. I don't think you're bringing in the tired dichotomy between art and science unless you say so. If I were to broaden the terms, I'd say that the opposite of "science" isn't "art" but "bullshit". And with that perspective, I hope you'll agree with my surprise that the tuning list should be associated with science.

Differnet "sensibilities" sounds like the kind of thing artists say to dehumanize scientists. I don't see it at all. Science and art both require imagination, creativity, intuition and hard work. Particle physics and human biology encourage different sensibilities, and so do serial composition and blues guitar.

Anyway, if we are going to construct this grand sliding scale with "art" at one end and "science" at the other, especially in the light of your comments on measurement, then I'd have to put musical tuning right over the "science" end. In which case it's hardly surprising that there should be a lot of science on the tuning list. Another argument would be that "talking about things" is akin to science, in which case once again the tuning list is at the "science" end by its very nature, because textual mailing lists are a lousy way of making music.

Now, it's entirely your right to be vague and ambiguous. What I object to is this attitude that we should understand exactly what you mean and are being either stupid or evasive if we don't. As far as I can tell by inferring the meanings in these arguments, most of the friction arises precisely because people don't understand each other.

> There is not *a* reason, and I believe I have made attempts to at
> least examine some of the issues. The problem is that most of the
> people doing deep analysis while completely ignoring artistic angles
> seem to be in heavy denial that there is anything wrong. It may be
> that this is the way it will be, and nothing can be done. I think that
> is a net loss.

What you say there is that people are doing bad analysis. In which case you should say "this is bad analysis" and the reasons why you think that. These vague meta-discussions just lump the good in with the bad, which I don't think is at all helpful. Especially if you say "there's too much analysis" (which isn't what you said, of course, I'm rambling here) when you mean "there's too much bad analysis". I'll suggest that it can even be counter-productive. The analysts who consider artistic angles most are also the most likely ones to shut up when you say there's too much analysis around. The result is that only bad analysis remains.

>>How about he doesn't say anything, and we assume he would have said >>something sensible?
> > That isn't a particularly charitable tone, Graham. I doubt you are in
> favor of active censorship...

What I meant is that you seem to be putting words into his mouth, or at least something akin to that. Now, you may be correct and you may not be, but I really don't see his meaning's at all clear in what he actually said. If you're guessing what he meant on on the basis of his character, you could just as well guess what he might have said on the same basis, with the same chance of being right.

Grham

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

Graham,

You bring up some interesting and salient points, and this discussion
could have value (at least to me). But I do have to ask: I sense a
general hostility and anger (or at least belittlement) in some aspects
of your answers. Examples [with obvious snipping]:

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> Saying otherwise is as ludicrous ...
> ... bullshit ...
> ... the kind of thing artists say to dehumanize scientists.
> Now, it's entirely your right to be vague and ambiguous.

If my attempts to explain genuine thoughts and feelings, if inept in
execution, are thought of as "ludicrous", then I don't have a lot of
desire to continue. And if I am vague or ambiguous at times, it isn't
on purpose, and you shouldn't imply that it is. I am not trying to
"dehumanize" anyone, and I'm not looking to be cast as some lesser
species myself.

If we're OK to continue in a positive manner (and I'm happy to hold my
shortcomings of a similar manner up to the light), then I'll work on a
proper response to your otherwise well-written message.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

my neutral 2 cents---insomuch as music has mathematical relationships at play,
and math is a science. it is reasonable to me to talk about studying the
'science of music' (via math). i do think that even great music has some
shapes and proportions that are also woth analysing and studying.

the 'art of music' is another story, and involves the mysteries of
inspiration. the best creation happens, in my experience, on a subconscious
level. in any event, i'm not going to say one shouldn't look into such
things.

but maybe this stuff is not what you guys are arguing about?

-aaron.

On Sunday 09 October 2005 8:17 am, Graham Breed wrote:
> Jon Szanto wrote:
> > Are you saying that you aren't able to discern broad differences
> > between the sciences and the arts? That it would seen the study of a
> > science would be indistinguishable from the study of an art? I don't
> > believe that for a minute, I think you very well are able to see how
> > two different approaches in thinking, in sensibilities - that of the
> > sciences, that of the arts - can manifest themselves in attitudes and
> > initiatives.
>
> Whoa whoa whoa!
>
> Firstly, "the sciences" and "science" are not the same thing. "The
> arts" are very different to "art" in that history and geography get
> included in "the arts" but not "art". As there's a lot of vaguely
> historical stuff on the tuning list, it would be "the arts" rather than
> "the sciences".
>
> You've also slipped in "the study of an art". Maybe that's innocuous,
> and you mean the same as "the practice of an art". Study is more of a
> scientific than an artistic activity.
>
> I can see very clear differences between art and science. I can also
> see huge areas of human activity -- like sport, engineering, religion,
> sex, astrology, business, stamp collecting -- that belong to neither.
> Most of the recent tuning list activity is in the "neither" category.
> Saying otherwise is as ludicrous as saying electronic instruments don't
> involve resonance.
>
> If you say "Science tends to trump pretty much everything else." (which
> I assume is the original remark we're talking about) then I assume the
> "everything else" includes pseudoscience, stupid arguments about
> language, and all the other things on the tuning list. I don't think
> you're bringing in the tired dichotomy between art and science unless
> you say so. If I were to broaden the terms, I'd say that the opposite
> of "science" isn't "art" but "bullshit". And with that perspective, I
> hope you'll agree with my surprise that the tuning list should be
> associated with science.
>
> Differnet "sensibilities" sounds like the kind of thing artists say to
> dehumanize scientists. I don't see it at all. Science and art both
> require imagination, creativity, intuition and hard work. Particle
> physics and human biology encourage different sensibilities, and so do
> serial composition and blues guitar.
>
> Anyway, if we are going to construct this grand sliding scale with "art"
> at one end and "science" at the other, especially in the light of your
> comments on measurement, then I'd have to put musical tuning right over
> the "science" end. In which case it's hardly surprising that there
> should be a lot of science on the tuning list. Another argument would
> be that "talking about things" is akin to science, in which case once
> again the tuning list is at the "science" end by its very nature,
> because textual mailing lists are a lousy way of making music.
>
> Now, it's entirely your right to be vague and ambiguous. What I object
> to is this attitude that we should understand exactly what you mean and
> are being either stupid or evasive if we don't. As far as I can tell by
> inferring the meanings in these arguments, most of the friction arises
> precisely because people don't understand each other.
>
> > There is not *a* reason, and I believe I have made attempts to at
> > least examine some of the issues. The problem is that most of the
> > people doing deep analysis while completely ignoring artistic angles
> > seem to be in heavy denial that there is anything wrong. It may be
> > that this is the way it will be, and nothing can be done. I think that
> > is a net loss.
>
> What you say there is that people are doing bad analysis. In which case
> you should say "this is bad analysis" and the reasons why you think
> that. These vague meta-discussions just lump the good in with the bad,
> which I don't think is at all helpful. Especially if you say "there's
> too much analysis" (which isn't what you said, of course, I'm rambling
> here) when you mean "there's too much bad analysis". I'll suggest that
> it can even be counter-productive. The analysts who consider artistic
> angles most are also the most likely ones to shut up when you say
> there's too much analysis around. The result is that only bad analysis
> remains.
>
> >>How about he doesn't say anything, and we assume he would have said
> >>something sensible?
> >
> > That isn't a particularly charitable tone, Graham. I doubt you are in
> > favor of active censorship...
>
> What I meant is that you seem to be putting words into his mouth, or at
> least something akin to that. Now, you may be correct and you may not
> be, but I really don't see his meaning's at all clear in what he
> actually said. If you're guessing what he meant on on the basis of his
> character, you could just as well guess what he might have said on the
> same basis, with the same chance of being right.
>
>
> Grham
>
>
>
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> You don't have to be a member to post.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> my neutral 2 cents---insomuch as music has mathematical relationships at play, > and math is a science. it is reasonable to me to talk about studying the > 'science of music' (via math). i do think that even great music has some > shapes and proportions that are also woth analysing and studying.

Math is a science in so far as it involves verifiable theorems. It doesn't get used that way much at all on the tuning list. More importantly, simply applying math to something doesn't make it scientific. Astrology is all about calculations, and astrologers don't bother to look at the sky any more. But astrology is most definitely not a science, and scientists can get very touchy if you claim it is ;)

If listing numbers is scientific, then the tuning list is bound to be scientific. There's no easier way to describe a tuning with plain text. I don't really think you can say much at all without mathematical relationships. You can announce and review concerts, I suppose. And I would like to see more of that, because it'd give us more idea what the wider community's up to.

One test of science is that it should make verifiable predictions of natural phenomena, and you hardly see any of that on the tuning list, or even tuning-math which obviously has a lot of (sometimes perfectly good) math. Quite right too, because we're usually working towards making new music, and so the math is valid only in so far as it's useful for making good music. As such, it's entirely subjective, and so gloriously unscientific.

You can study music in a scientific manner. Academic music theory is really a branch of history, and so as much of a science as history (which itself depends on the definition). But there isn't much real history on the tuning list. Even the perennial Bach temperament argument is as much about what will make the music sound good as what a contemporaneous performer would have used.

Come to think of it, we seem to be even worse at attracting academic music theorists than professional musicians :D

> the 'art of music' is another story, and involves the mysteries of > inspiration. the best creation happens, in my experience, on a subconscious > level. in any event, i'm not going to say one shouldn't look into such > things.

There's a quote I like, I think it's from Charlie Parker: "First you should learn everything about your instrument, then forget it and just play."

> but maybe this stuff is not what you guys are arguing about?

I expect we're all arguing about different things, which is why it's important to make ourselves clear.

Graham

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

Jon Szanto wrote:

> You bring up some interesting and salient points, and this discussion
> could have value (at least to me). But I do have to ask: I sense a
> general hostility and anger (or at least belittlement) in some aspects
> of your answers. Examples [with obvious snipping]:

I've been a bit grumpy. I was dreading going back to the thread in case people were taking offense. But that's always the danger with speaking your mind. I hope I wasn't belittling :-S

> If my attempts to explain genuine thoughts and feelings, if inept in
> execution, are thought of as "ludicrous", then I don't have a lot of
> desire to continue. And if I am vague or ambiguous at times, it isn't
> on purpose, and you shouldn't imply that it is. I am not trying to
> "dehumanize" anyone, and I'm not looking to be cast as some lesser
> species myself.

I said one remark seemed ludicrous, which was my honest response. I did assume I'd misunderstood it, and it did get explained in the ensuing discussion which I didn't take a part in. I only responded here because I think somebody said that everybody else did understand what you meant, when I certainly didn't.

And certainly there's no harm in being ambiguous if you don't take requests for clarity as a threat. Or even if you make it clear you aren't interested in being more precise (as many poets would).

> If we're OK to continue in a positive manner (and I'm happy to hold my
> shortcomings of a similar manner up to the light), then I'll work on a
> proper response to your otherwise well-written message.

Yes, if you find it interesting, or the future of the tuning list depends on it. :)

Graham

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

Hi Jon,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:

> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Differnet "sensibilities" sounds like the kind of thing
> > > artists say to dehumanize scientists.
> >
> > That last paragraph is one of the best things i've read
> > on the subject in a long time. Kudos.
>
> Well, Joe, I'm glad you liked it so much, but I have to
> jump in: this is a complete mis-reading on Graham's part,
> as I have gone to *great* lengths (ask Paul or Dave Keenan)
> to both understand the 'human' side of scientists/mathematicians.
> By sensibilities, which may or *may not* have been a
> poor phrase, I was simply saying that people from different
> backgrounds, be they cultural or otherwise, can be expected
> to approach situations differently.
>
> I'd wager that I've gone way farther trying to understand
> some of my good friends on the 'other side' than has been
> afforded yours truly. Makes me sad, but that is the way it
> is around these parts.

Hmm ... well, i included more in my original quote than
i had originally planned to, and the part that impressed
me so much is exactly what you snipped out here! The
part you clipped is what i meant by "that last paragraph".
This is what Graham wrote that i really liked:

> Science and art both require imagination, creativity,
> intuition and hard work. Particle physics and human biology
> encourage different sensibilities, and so do serial
> composition and blues guitar.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

come on!
It seem to me scientist put down artists far more than the other way around !
The general public has disdain for both and that is where your "dehumanizing" come from.
the mere fact that they meddle in art shows a lack or respect or their own limitation. Do artist meddle in Science? of course not, at least they are aware of what there talents can be applied to.
Does the scientific community complain when art funding is cut off.
do you see scientist marveling over artistic inventions.?
no basically it is disdain they feel for the arts as as soon as it is wiped out and replaced with logical application of processes the happier most of them will be.

Science relationship with the arts is imperialism. one has only to look at the new weekly study that comes out in scientific papers that define music or some aspect of it only to be replaced with another contrary one the next week.
do artist publish in scientific journals the poetic meaning of string theory, not in you life nor do they really want to hear what artist have to say

monz wrote:

>Hi Graham,
>
>
>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
>
> >
>><snip> ... If I were to broaden the terms, I'd say that
>>the opposite of "science" isn't "art" but "bullshit". >>And with that perspective, I hope you'll agree with my
>>surprise that the tuning list should be associated with
>>science.
>>
>>Differnet "sensibilities" sounds like the kind of thing
>>artists say to dehumanize scientists. I don't see it at
>>all. Science and art both require imagination, creativity,
>>intuition and hard work. Particle physics and human biology
>>encourage different sensibilities, and so do serial
>>composition and blues guitar.
>> >>
>
>
>
>That last paragraph is one of the best things i've read
>on the subject in a long time. Kudos.
>
>
>
>-monz
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Kraig,

Can you give some specific examples of what you mean? I'm not sure I'm
following your argument...

Thanks,
Aaron.

On Wednesday 12 October 2005 10:40 am, Kraig Grady wrote:
> come on!
> It seem to me scientist put down artists far more than the other way
> around !
> The general public has disdain for both and that is where your
> "dehumanizing" come from.
> the mere fact that they meddle in art shows a lack or respect or their
> own limitation. Do artist meddle in Science? of course not, at least
> they are aware of what there talents can be applied to.
>
> Does the scientific community complain when art funding is cut off.
> do you see scientist marveling over artistic inventions.?
> no basically it is disdain they feel for the arts as as soon as it is
> wiped out and replaced with logical application of processes the happier
> most of them will be.
>
> Science relationship with the arts is imperialism. one has only to look
> at the new weekly study that comes out in scientific papers that define
> music or some aspect of it only to be replaced with another contrary one
> the next week.
> do artist publish in scientific journals the poetic meaning of string
> theory, not in you life nor do they really want to hear what artist have
> to say
>
> monz wrote:
> >Hi Graham,
> >
> >--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@g...> wrote:
> >><snip> ... If I were to broaden the terms, I'd say that
> >>the opposite of "science" isn't "art" but "bullshit".
> >>And with that perspective, I hope you'll agree with my
> >>surprise that the tuning list should be associated with
> >>science.
> >>
> >>Differnet "sensibilities" sounds like the kind of thing
> >>artists say to dehumanize scientists. I don't see it at
> >>all. Science and art both require imagination, creativity,
> >>intuition and hard work. Particle physics and human biology
> >>encourage different sensibilities, and so do serial
> >>composition and blues guitar.
> >
> >That last paragraph is one of the best things i've read
> >on the subject in a long time. Kudos.
> >
> >
> >
> >-monz
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> >To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> >metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> >To post to the list, send to
> >metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >You don't have to be a member to post.
> >
> >
> >Yahoo! Groups Links

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

control is a big word.
the methods of the two are quite different where as the scientist will develop methods and systems and refine them when they don't work, and artist might start with such, but will not let such a thing dictate to him, if they don't like the sound of what the system produces they change it without any concern as to whether it violates the system or not. In fact , in the process, the artist might lose track of even what the system was.
Science contribution is technological and to a lesser degree theoretical and there it stops

i don't think they have to be opposed.
Einstein said he got the idea of an expanding universe from mozart jupiter symphony.
(which BTW illustrates what a great ear einstein had if one has analyzed the piece)
Seurat pointillism from atomic theory, an illustration the other way around.

But look in the dictionary, music is an art and being so invokes those methods
ambassadorbob wrote:

>--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson ><aaron@a...> wrote:
> >
>>Kraig,
>>
>>Can you give some specific examples of what you mean? I'm not sure >> >>
>I'm > >
>>following your argument...
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Aaron.
>>
>> >>
>I sure as heck can't speak for Kraig, but if I may...
>
>I did a little research on Alzheimer's and ADHD (that "invisible >hand"?), and art therapies for same.
>
>_Invariably_ it seemed, the art therapists would say we don't know, >but we really think it helped, even though we were really just all >having fun (!).
>
>The neuroscientists would say, we don't know, but we really believe >that all these dangerous drugs and callous invasive procedures will >cure it, eventually. Those arty farty types are just "sloppy" >and "un-control-led".
>
>"And the torture never stops..."
>
>Pete
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> come on!
> It seem to me scientist put down artists ...

Can you cite even a single example of this?

> The general public has disdain for both

They do?? The public seems enamored with artists. In
almost a sick (and non-participatory) way. While my
grandmother's generation revered medical doctors, the
public opinion of them seems now to be fully negative.
Other sorts of scientists seem to be mildly respected
or mildy considered arrogant by the masses.

> the mere fact that they meddle in art

What are you referring to here?

> do you see scientist marveling over artistic inventions.?

Um, many of the scientists I know are extremely talented
artists. My friend who's a neuroscientist (mentioned several
times in this thread) is principle bassoon in the UC Berkeley
symphony. My other MCB (cell biology) friend is an extremely
talented jazz pianist *and* classical flautist. A third MCB
friend is a strong amateur cellist, and his girlfriend, who
gives talks all over the world on primate pathogens, is very
good at classical piano and sings a heart-stopping alto (she
having been in Oxford and Princeton NJ choirs growing up). The
list goes on, but if you want to make a point of it, where are
all the artists that also do science?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

Carl Lumma wrote:

>>come on!
>> It seem to me scientist put down artists ...
>> >>
>
>Can you cite even a single example of this?
> >
if they like artist so much why aren't their attitudes and viewpoints included on the same level the opposite is included on the tuning list.
> >
>> The general public has disdain for both
>> >>
>
>They do?? The public seems enamored with artists. >
entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist. the general public would not for instance even know who say Marcel Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.

>In
>almost a sick (and non-participatory) way. While my
>grandmother's generation revered medical doctors, the
>public opinion of them seems now to be fully negative.
>Other sorts of scientists seem to be mildly respected
>or mildy considered arrogant by the masses.
> >
basically the masses don't like either. since the "dehumanized " scientist view comes from them and not the artistic community.
i am still awaiting a single example of artist 'dehumanizing' scientist.
> >
>> the mere fact that they meddle in art
>> >>
>
>What are you referring to here?
> >
how about the Mozart Effect type of articles.

> >
>> do you see scientist marveling over artistic inventions.?
>> >>
>
>Um, many of the scientists I know are extremely talented
>artists. My friend who's a neuroscientist (mentioned several
>times in this thread) is principle bassoon in the UC Berkeley
>symphony. My other MCB (cell biology) friend is an extremely
>talented jazz pianist *and* classical flautist. A third MCB
>friend is a strong amateur cellist, and his girlfriend, who
>gives talks all over the world on primate pathogens, is very
>good at classical piano and sings a heart-stopping alto (she
>having been in Oxford and Princeton NJ choirs growing up). The
>list goes on, but if you want to make a point of it, where are
>all the artists that also do science?
> >
Obviously there are people who can do both, and as individuals we should try to develop in both directions.
the problem is when one tries to take over the other.

Science at a certain point does more harm than good.
imagine a conductor like bernstein with all the roughness taken out.
wavering tempos, timpani's out of tune Etc.
yet there is that intangible quality of his performances that still will make me prefer his versions of some pieces to the more "objectively" correct performances of others. this is where art is , in this domain that is outside of anything that can be said about it.
We are all aware of the shortcomings of Harry Partch, yet how many of us can reach the 'artistic' level he does.
look at how bad some of the performances done while he was alive.
and look how well they hold up to the much better performances these works get now.
yet somehow just about everything that is wrong with these early performance somehow magically adds to it.
it is pure magic and magic is the very thing that science when it doesn't pretend doesn't exist , makes its feel uncomfortable
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> >> It seem to me scientist put down artists ...
> >
> >Can you cite even a single example of this?
>
> if they like artist so much why aren't their attitudes and
> viewpoints included on the same level the opposite is included
> on the tuning list.

Not sure... I always chime in when I like music or work
posted to the tuning list...

> >> The general public has disdain for both
> >
> >They do?? The public seems enamored with artists.
> >
> entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist. the
> general public would not for instance even know who say Marcel
> Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.

This strikes me as incredibly elitist.

> >> the mere fact that they meddle in art
> >
> >What are you referring to here?
> >
> how about the Mozart Effect type of articles.

Erv gave me one once. What's wrong with them?

> Science at a certain point does more harm than good.
> imagine a conductor like bernstein with all the roughness
> taken out.
> wavering tempos, timpani's out of tune Etc.

Why would that be more "scientific" than the way Bernstein
did it?

-Carl

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

On Thursday 13 October 2005 6:41 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >> Kraig:
> >>entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist. the
> >>general public would not for instance even know who say Marcel
> >>Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.
> >Carl:
> >This strikes me as incredibly elitist.
> Kraig:
> the option is to accept every commercial hack as great art.
> Love those super bowl commercial jingles, don't you!

Kraig,

I have the utmost respect for your music and artistry, etc.

But I have to say:

1) this is a 'straw man' argument. Carl said nothing about commerciality. or
jingles.

2) It strikes me that you have an irrational axe to grind about science and
scientists. I'm trying to understand why, but at this point, it seems like a
sort of fundamentalism to me. Or at least a kind of knee-jerk anti-science
cultural artifact.

3) There is an irony here: you revere Erv Wilson's work, have an analytical
mind at times, think about music systematically at times, and have used the
word analysis in reference to the Mozart Jupiter symphony--in a positive
light. Other times you rail against a scientific, analytical, objective mode
of thought like it was the absolute worst evil in the world.

4) You interesting comment about the rhythmic scheme in Sibelius' 4th symphony
was not 'magical', but an acute analytical observation. It seems that what
you seem to hate, you do very, very, well yourself.

It occurs to me that there exist certain facts about the world which are true
regardless of what moral or cultural values one has, and that science has
proven itself to be the best self-evolving paradigm for arriving at those
facts. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace, for instance; not a glowing flame
carried by Apollo in his chariot. And, I believe it must have been a nuclear
furnace when the Greeks thought it must have been Apollo.

If you would insist on a constant, politically-correct, cultural-relativism ,
total-subjectivity at all times, I for one would have to simply agree to
disagree with you.

Anyway, science at least asks the question, "in what ways might I disprove my
own precious hypotheses?", a question many other philosophies, religions,
political slants (conspiricy theories of many stripes) and systems of thought
of all sorts seem to lack in no small measure.

Anyway, no hard feelings. I still like you, and your music. ;) ...and we still
want you for midwestmicrofest! (and I like forward to having a spirited
discussion about all this at a post-concert party in Chicago one day)

-Aaron.

On Thursday 13 October 2005 6:41 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> the option is to accept every commercial hack as great art.
> Love those super bowl commercial jingles, don't you!
>
> Carl Lumma wrote:
> >>entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist. the
> >>general public would not for instance even know who say Marcel
> >>Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.
> >
> >This strikes me as incredibly elitist.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

first i don't take any of your criticism personally.
i will admit that it doesn't seem I am consistent.
and not all of this have figured out and resolved so it is good that you find fault with my thinking.
for the most part i think it is important to remember that we are fighting 'with' each other not 'against'.
first i have nothing against science.
I just think it application and it commentary on music is limited.
and because i find it important to keep a focus on that territory where art hold it own unique reality and accomplishments

Sure i analyze, but when i create , the part of my brain that does so is (unfortunately) a different side. i say this in a way cause no matter what i put into my mind, what comes out of me musically is unavoidable and to a large degree uncontrollable. i have yet to find much 'benefit" in taking apart the Jupiter Symphony, although right now i can see the two parts of the opening as particle and wave alternating.

the notation in sibelius is fascinating because it is so poetic as an attempt to make the music float as if to deliver it from gravity.
A truly analytical mind might say one could shift the whole movement a 1/8 note and remain the the durations would be exactly the same.

feldman is another example who will notate something much more difficult, just to make the the player , interpret stresses and accents that effect the piece more emotionally than , empirically. although i imagine there is some subliminal stuff going on as a result.
example - for Bunita Marcus.

I can say i have never had a conversation with Erv like the ones i have had on the tuning list.
at the moment these problems seem more how various people use language.

maybe i should just say in order to do art, one must leave science behind and what it can tell us and jump into a void in which one can only rely on ones instinct. to order to reach the ideal, one must leave behind the actual.
.
in the cabala, Crossing over Daath from 4 to 3 ,the crossing of the abyss, the camel leading one over the desert.
i will acknowledge many scientific insights and discoveries as extremely poetic, but whether they are poetry is something else..
Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

>On Thursday 13 October 2005 6:41 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>>>Kraig:
>>>>entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist. the
>>>>general public would not for instance even know who say Marcel
>>>>Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.
>>>> >>>>
>>>Carl:
>>>This strikes me as incredibly elitist.
>>> >>>
>>Kraig:
>>the option is to accept every commercial hack as great art.
>> Love those super bowl commercial jingles, don't you!
>> >>
>
>Kraig, >
>I have the utmost respect for your music and artistry, etc.
>
>But I have to say:
>
>1) this is a 'straw man' argument. Carl said nothing about commerciality. or >jingles.
>
>2) It strikes me that you have an irrational axe to grind about science and >scientists. I'm trying to understand why, but at this point, it seems like a >sort of fundamentalism to me. Or at least a kind of knee-jerk anti-science >cultural artifact.
>
>3) There is an irony here: you revere Erv Wilson's work, have an analytical >mind at times, think about music systematically at times, and have used the >word analysis in reference to the Mozart Jupiter symphony--in a positive >light. Other times you rail against a scientific, analytical, objective mode >of thought like it was the absolute worst evil in the world.
>
>4) You interesting comment about the rhythmic scheme in Sibelius' 4th symphony >was not 'magical', but an acute analytical observation. It seems that what >you seem to hate, you do very, very, well yourself.
>
>It occurs to me that there exist certain facts about the world which are true >regardless of what moral or cultural values one has, and that science has >proven itself to be the best self-evolving paradigm for arriving at those >facts. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace, for instance; not a glowing flame >carried by Apollo in his chariot. And, I believe it must have been a nuclear >furnace when the Greeks thought it must have been Apollo.
>
>If you would insist on a constant, politically-correct, cultural-relativism , >total-subjectivity at all times, I for one would have to simply agree to >disagree with you.
>
>Anyway, science at least asks the question, "in what ways might I disprove my >own precious hypotheses?", a question many other philosophies, religions, >political slants (conspiricy theories of many stripes) and systems of thought >of all sorts seem to lack in no small measure.
>
>Anyway, no hard feelings. I still like you, and your music. ;) ...and we still >want you for midwestmicrofest! (and I like forward to having a spirited >discussion about all this at a post-concert party in Chicago one day)
>
>-Aaron.
>
>
>
>On Thursday 13 October 2005 6:41 pm, Kraig Grady wrote:
> >
>>the option is to accept every commercial hack as great art.
>> Love those super bowl commercial jingles, don't you!
>>
>>Carl Lumma wrote:
>> >>
>>>>entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist. the
>>>>general public would not for instance even know who say Marcel
>>>>Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.
>>>> >>>>
>>>This strikes me as incredibly elitist.
>>> >>>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

someday we will have some giant virtual conference room complete with some reverb form a dome enclosure
and we will be able to also go over to the side , whisper something and only some one on the far end will be able to hear us.
Carl Lumma wrote:

>> I can say i have never had a conversation with Erv like the
>>ones i have had on the tuning list.
>> at the moment these problems seem more how various people
>>use language.
>> >>
>
>Erv's use of language has struck me as really special, and
>maybe one of his greatest gifts. As for the language on these
>lists, it can certainly be weird. But that may have more to
>do with the nature of the internet than anything else.
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

Kraig wrote:

> first i don't take any of your criticism personally.

Good! :)

> i will admit that it doesn't seem I am consistent.
> and not all of this have figured out and resolved so it is good that you
> find fault with my thinking.
> for the most part i think it is important to remember that we are
> fighting 'with' each other not 'against'.

Agreed.

> first i have nothing against science.

then perhaps the 'negative fruits of science'?
but then, who doesn't?

> I just think it application and it commentary on music is limited.
> and because i find it important to keep a focus on that territory where
> art hold it own unique reality and accomplishments

I'm not sure I can say the application of science to art is 'limited', at
least in the sense that technologically, music has benefited, and probably
will continue to benefit, immensely from scientific methods.

I even think this could have a bearing on composition, even though to date,
most algorithmic composition is very disappointing.

> Sure i analyze, but when i create , the part of my brain that does so
> is (unfortunately) a different side.

not to be a pest, but how do you know where it's coming from until you do an
objective CAT scan? ;).....I think most people are ignorant about what is
actually happening in their brains, just like most drivers are ignorant of
how a car works. You don't need to know how a car works to drive, nor how a
brain works to think...

> i say this in a way cause no matter
> what i put into my mind, what comes out of me musically is unavoidable
> and to a large degree uncontrollable. i have yet to find much 'benefit"
> in taking apart the Jupiter Symphony, although right now i can see the
> two parts of the opening as particle and wave alternating.

Maybe you unconsciously benefit from analysis? Do you admit that it's
possible? Schoenberg in his writings points to that.

I have noticed that I start mysteriously humming certain tunes, and I say "why
in the world am I singing *that*?", only to realize later that someone said
something which reminded me of a lyric, and off my brain went.

Brains are remarkably adept association networks!

>
> the notation in sibelius is fascinating because it is so poetic as an
> attempt to make the music float as if to deliver it from gravity.
> A truly analytical mind might say one could shift the whole movement a
> 1/8 note and remain the the durations would be exactly the same.

hmmm...I would say that this would only be trueif the analyst was a very very
shallow thinker.

> feldman is another example who will notate something much more
> difficult, just to make the the player , interpret stresses and accents
> that effect the piece more emotionally than , empirically. although i
> imagine there is some subliminal stuff going on as a result.
> example - for Bunita Marcus.

I've heard that this is true of Ferneyhough, too.

For the opposite, look at Mompou, whose music looks 'easy', and is often
technically easy, but difficult for an insensitive artist to nail the spirit
of.

> I can say i have never had a conversation with Erv like the ones i have
> had on the tuning list.
> at the moment these problems seem more how various people use language.

Yes....

> maybe i should just say in order to do art, one must leave science
> behind and what it can tell us and jump into a void in which one can
> only rely on ones instinct. to order to reach the ideal, one must leave
> behind the actual.

Like the Charlie Parker quote?
.
> in the cabala, Crossing over Daath from 4 to 3 ,the crossing of the
> abyss, the camel leading one over the desert.

The metaphors for "you think too much!" are many in our culture.

I have mixed feelings about this....I have yet to figure out why, but
something tells me that we need the balance of thought and feeling.

> i will acknowledge many scientific insights and discoveries as
> extremely poetic, but whether they are poetry is something else..

Well, I think poetry is something specific involving artistic placement of
words, but there is another definition, like when people look at aparticle
trace and say: "it's so poetic". I think their aestetic sense of beauty is
being stimulated for them to say that.

Best,
Aaron.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

> >>entertainers. they are not necessarily the same as artist.
> >>the general public would not for instance even know who
> >>say Marcel Duchamp, or aaron copland for that matter.
> >
> >This strikes me as incredibly elitist.
>
> the option is to accept every commercial hack as great art.
> Love those super bowl commercial jingles, don't you!

I do prefer some of them to much of the art music I've heard
in heady concert halls (which are usually in fact much
smaller that what I'd call a "hall").

When I worked at Keyboard magazine, part of my job was to
review the dozen or so recordings that came into our offices
on a daily basis. And one thing I learned doing it is how
incredibly high quality much of it is. It seems like many
of the folks on these lists work in a classical or art music
vacuum, unaware of the experimentalism going on in indie and
"jam band" music, the unlikely wedding of academic computer
music and techo music that is currently happenning (fueled by
the lust of the former for the tech of the latter... witness
this year's AES show, indistinguishable from NAMM).
There's plenty of great music that lots and lots of people
actually love to listen to!

-Carl

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> It seems like many
> of the folks on these lists work in a classical or art music
> vacuum, unaware of the experimentalism going on in indie and
> "jam band" music, the unlikely wedding of academic computer
> music and techo music that is currently happenning (fueled by
> the lust of the former for the tech of the latter... witness
> this year's AES show, indistinguishable from NAMM).

Bingo bingo bingo!!! Carl, this is dead-on, and exactly what I've been
saying for quite a while! And in no small part why I simply cannot
listen to another piece of microtone music made with the crappy
default midi GM sounds from some sound card. It simply *pales* in
comparison to a lot of music that many people would turn their noses
up at (oooh, bad grammar).

> There's plenty of great music that lots and lots of people
> actually love to listen to!

I'm sure you heard your share of dogs too. Professional desktop
publishing and graphics can make any document look completely
professional. Computer tools, however, don't have a lot of control
over the depth of the content. :)

Cheers,
Jon

morality, religion/science as a crazy nonlinear feedbacksystem

🔗Christopher Bailey <chris@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗justinasia <justinasia@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗justinasia <justinasia@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Paul Erlich <PERLICH@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Graham Breed <gbreed@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>

🔗monz <monz@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗ambassadorbob <peteysan@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@...>

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@...>