Clavette's future development

For several months I was hoping to interest the University of Minnesota's
Dept. of Electrical Engineering in helping me build a velocity-sensitive,
expanded Clavette microtonal MIDI keyboard controller.

Unfortunately, my plans to apply for grant funding died of neglect
on their end.

I'm currently exploring some ways of making a simplified version of the
existing
keyboard available. I'm also looking into selling the pedals in a separate
package.

I'll keep the listed posted on significant future developments.



Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:04 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA03340; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 15:04:10 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA03351
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id GAA19876; Mon, 17 Mar 1997 06:02:21 -0800
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 1997 06:02:21 -0800
Message-Id: <33edff3f.1439035836@kcbbs.gen.nz>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

> Math and science, religion and mysticism...what's the difference?

Music could well be the one topic that all four address most nearly
equally. So to understand music, you'd have to see it from all of those
disciplines' viewpoints. But the MUST remain separate viewpoints, and can
never be merged.

Here's the key point:
Science raises PLENTY of questions we DO NOT know the answer to,
but it NEVER raises questions that we CANNOT know the answer to.

The goal of science is to make what was once unknown, become absolutely
obvious, unambiguous, and just plain as day.

But the situation is the opposite for mysticism and religion. The
obvious and unambiguous are what are of marginal interest at best to
mysticism. What's interesting are the haunting little questions like, "why
when I hear Brahms' Requiem late at night in a dark room does it sometimes
make me smile like a baby and sometimes make me cry like a baby?"

You know as well as I do that a neurophysiologist could prattle off an
answer, probably involving neurotransmission enzyme action across synaptic
.. trimethyl-dibenzyl ... neuron firing rates ... ... autonomic hormonal
.. ... capillarian blood flow to the hippcampal ...

And you also know as well as I do that that wouldn't answer the question
at all!

So you'd certainly be absolutely correct to recognize that music
manifests itself both as the purely objective physical reality of sound
waves, and in the joyous, curious, haunting, devastating, or inspiring
waves of emotion it splashes through our minds.

But you'd equally certainly be sadly mistaken if you think that you can
apply scientific law to mystic sensation, or apply mystical inspiration to
solving differential equations!

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 13:24 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA05693; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 13:24:13 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA05686
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id EAA11738; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:22:01 -0800
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 04:22:01 -0800
Message-Id:
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Gary Morrison wrote:

> > Math and science, religion and mysticism...what's the difference?
>
>
> Here's the key point:
> Science raises PLENTY of questions we DO NOT know the answer to,
> but it NEVER raises questions that we CANNOT know the answer to.
>
> The goal of science is to make what was once unknown, become absolutely
> obvious, unambiguous, and just plain as day.
>
>
I would disagree with the above statement--science can make "obvious"
conclusions based only upon a given set of predefined "givens". It is
these "givens" that the mystic defines!

Bruce Kanzelmeyer


Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 03:41 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA06592; Thu, 20 Mar 1997 03:41:19 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA06599
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id SAA06097; Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:39:40 -0800
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 18:39:40 -0800
Message-Id: <199703192120_MC2-12DB-F2CE@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu

-------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------

"science can make "obvious"
conclusions based only upon a given set of predefined "givens". It is
these "givens" that the mystic defines!"


-------------------- End Original Message --------------------

I would agree with that up to a point at least. What we accept as
axiomatic truths science is based upon are, almost always, readily apparent
and consistently agreed upon by all humans, so there's not much mystery in
them.

But it's certainly true that, since the axia, by definition of "axiom",
cannot be proven, you could perhaps attribute a mystic dimension to them.
And it's also certainly true that science itself has often required us to
reexamine these axia, a recent example being the relative nature of time
and space.

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:27 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA07627; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 09:27:08 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA07628
Received: from by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
id AAA03425; Fri, 21 Mar 1997 00:25:34 -0800
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 1997 00:25:34 -0800
Message-Id: <199703210321_MC2-12E6-AB9B@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu