more on rational

Actually, what kicks rationality in the ass is Death...if you think
things are logical, then explain why we must die; why don't we have a
choice in the matter, and just WHAT is dying, anyway? And, where is that
what after it "dies?" I haven't found a lot of "scientific" explanations
for this yet, and doubt if I will. Same for music...cannot be thought of
as "logical," because it comes from a place much older than that sort of
thought. I've see/experienced way too much in this life that is not
remotely explainable by any sort of logic, but is only understood by the
experience of living it. And, that's where Art resides, and it's partly
why many great artists have been a bit whacked; it's like riding a wave,
and "you" are definitely NOT in control of "it." It can be a wild
ride...Hstick

--- In tuning@y..., "Neil Haverstick" <STICK@U...> wrote:
> Actually, what kicks rationality in the ass is Death...if you
think
> things are logical, then explain why we must die; why don't we have
a
> choice in the matter, and just WHAT is dying, anyway? And, where is
that
> what after it "dies?" I haven't found a lot of "scientific"
explanations
> for this yet, and doubt if I will.

Neil,

You must be looking in the wrong places. I feel I have a pretty good
grasp of the current scientific answers to these questions.

But I also understand that there is a level to these questions that
science could never answer, and never claims to be able to answer.

But pre-logical or "magical" answers aren't satisfying either. One
doesn't need to reject logic, only to recognise its limitations. There
is marvelously unlogical book called "The Tao is Silent" by an
emminent logician, Raymond Smullyan. But he hasn't rejected logic, he
has pushed it to its absolute limits and then fallen off the end! The
answers (or the un-asking of the questions) lies not in the
pre-logical, but the trans-logical or mystical.

> Same for music...cannot be
thought of
> as "logical," because it comes from a place much older than that
sort of
> thought.

Indeed. But some aspects are clearly amenable to logical analysis (or
Dave Cope's SARA wouldn't be as successful as it is, for example).

> I've see/experienced way too much in this life that is not
> remotely explainable by any sort of logic, but is only understood by
the
> experience of living it.

Sure. I expect we all have.

> And, that's where Art resides,

Maybe a lot less of it than you think.

> and it's partly
> why many great artists have been a bit whacked; it's like riding a
wave,
> and "you" are definitely NOT in control of "it." It can be a wild
> ride...Hstick

Yeah.

Do you think mystics make music? Or is it only magicians?

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

The above is only theory and may well be wrong.

Dave,

In responding to Neil H. there is/are the following --
--- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:

> But pre-logical or "magical" answers aren't satisfying either.

Can you entertain the thought that "satisfying" would vary from
person to person, culture to culture?

> Indeed. But some aspects are clearly amenable to logical
> analysis (or Dave Cope's SARA wouldn't be as successful as
> it is, for example).

It is successful only insofar (one word?) at mimicing works created
by human experience. Last I read, Cope himself hadn't found any SARA
works as 'satisfying' as the input files.

Not to say that interesting results couldn't come from other types of
inbred analysis, but I didn't think that was your point.

> > And, that's where Art resides,
>
> Maybe a lot less of it than you think.

Or maybe some that you've passed over or forgotten.

> Do you think mystics make music? Or is it only magicians?

My favorite used book store is holding a Wilber tome for me. I'll get
back to the word play in a number of days or so.

> The above is only theory and may well be wrong.

Yow! Opening the door, Dave?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., JSZANTO@A... wrote:
> Dave,
>
> In responding to Neil H. there is/are the following --
> --- In tuning@y..., "Dave Keenan" <D.KEENAN@U...> wrote:
>
> > But pre-logical or "magical" answers aren't satisfying either.
>
> Can you entertain the thought that "satisfying" would vary from
> person to person, culture to culture?

Oh absolutely! I'm sorry. I only meant that such answers aren't
usually very satisfying to anyone who has achieved any level of
critical or logical thinking. You can't really go back, except by
splitting your psyche into two parts that hardly talk to each other.

> > Indeed. But some aspects are clearly amenable to logical
> > analysis (or Dave Cope's SARA wouldn't be as successful as
> > it is, for example).
>
> It is successful only insofar (one word?) at mimicing works created
> by human experience.

How could this disqualify it. Don't many human composers start out
this way?

> Last I read, Cope himself hadn't found any SARA
> works as 'satisfying' as the input files.

My point is that SARA, despite being entirely logical, has managed to
extract something of artistic value (not merely scientific value) from
other composers work.

> > > And, that's where Art resides,
> >
> > Maybe a lot less of it than you think.
>
> Or maybe some that you've passed over or forgotten.

For sure.

> > Do you think mystics make music? Or is it only magicians?
>
> My favorite used book store is holding a Wilber tome for me.

Which one?

> > The above is only theory and may well be wrong.
>
> Yow! Opening the door, Dave?

Oh dear! It's sad that so many people misunderstand the scientific
belief system. It's precisely because I recognised that Kraig Grady
was making this same mistake that I thought I should add that to my
signature.

In fact, "The above is only theory and may well be wrong" is the
_CORE_ of science. A true scientist lives with this thought every day.
We might feel we are aiming _towards_ some kind of absolute truth, but
we only ever expect to attain _relative_ truths. Absolute truth cannot
be put into words. The main problem is that most scientists are
unwilling to apply the scientific method to the _introspective_ sense,
as the buddhists and others (including Wilber) have done/ are doing.

Regards,
-- Dave Keenan

The above is only theory and may well be wrong.

Dave,

I really fear that we are going far OT for the tuning list, but I
would like to pursue it privately in the days ahead. About the more
pertinant items:

> > Can you entertain the thought that "satisfying" would vary from
> > person to person, culture to culture?
>
> Oh absolutely! I'm sorry. I only meant that such answers aren't
> usually very satisfying to anyone who has achieved any level of
> critical or logical thinking. You can't really go back

This is what I supposed, that you can't 'go back', and at this point
it is my belief that there could very well be negative aspects to
said person's 'evolution'.

About SARA, I replied:
> > It is successful only insofar (one word?) at mimicing works
> > created by human experience.
>
> How could this disqualify it. Don't many human composers start out
> this way?

I'm not disqualifying it; I simply don't have any reverence for a
difference engine allowed to chew up Mozart and spew (hyperbole
mine!). And I hasten to add that I have long been fascinated with,
and have used (and even programmed a bit) algorithmic composition
tools. But only as fodder, a petri dish with agar-agar for things to
sprout in...

> My point is that SARA, despite being entirely logical, has
> managed to extract something of artistic value (not merely
> scientific value) from other composers work.

Well, I just don't agree. I think it is notes and relationships, and
not much more. If you think that music is nothing more than that, one
could easily be amused (or more) by SARA.

> > My favorite used book store is holding a Wilber tome for me.
>
> Which one?

Adams Avenue Books. Oh... well, they initially put aside "No
Boundaries" but on browsing I decided to get, and read, "A Brief
History of Everything".

Don't you dare tell me I'm wrong to have gotten that one! :)

> Oh dear! It's sad that so many people misunderstand the scientific
> belief system.

No worse than the sorrow I feel when I see gifted scientists
stumbling about, pretending to understand music. Look, I was just
having a bit of fun, but not only do you jump to the conclusion that
I am totally braindead on the "scientific belief system" (is there
only one?), but that you find it _sad_. <sigh> Try not to lose any
sleep over it. Besides, I'm not braindead, it is just a slight
swelling that should go down in time...

> It's precisely because I recognised that Kraig Grady
> was making this same mistake that I thought I should add that
> to my signature.

If I had noticed it was a sig I probably wouldn't have mentioned
anything, really! I must have missed one of your first inclusions.
That said, I wonder: is it the scientist in you that continually
frames most actions or beliefs as right or wrong, in spite of the
folly of absolute truth? You seem to view so many things
as 'mistakes' that need to be corrected (by you). This is an
observation, not a sarcastic remark.

> The main problem is that most scientists are unwilling to apply
> the scientific method to the _introspective_ sense, as the
> buddhists and others (including Wilber) have done/ are doing.

Well, Mr. Wilber will have the final say on this. From here on out,
let's discuss off-list, OK?

Namaste,
Jon

Jon Szanto wrote,

<<I'm not disqualifying it; I simply don't have any reverence for a
difference engine allowed to chew up Mozart and spew (hyperbole
mine!). And I hasten to add that I have long been fascinated with, and
have used (and even programmed a bit) algorithmic composition tools.
But only as fodder, a petri dish with agar-agar for things to sprout
in...>>

Hi Jon,

Your comments in this thread were already very much in line with my
own way of thinking and looking at things, but now you've gone and got
me really curious about your own music as well!

I don't remember you mentioning much other than the fact that you're a
professional (orchestral) percussionist before, but I have often
wondered what your own musical doings were... so now that you've gone
and really piqued my curiosity, are there any CDs or anything of this
(etc.) sort available?

thanks,

--Dan Stearns

BTW, this and a couple previous attempts at off-list emails to the
address that comes with your posts have bounced... I'm not sure if
this is a problem on my end or yours though... ?

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> BTW, this and a couple previous attempts at off-list emails to the
> address that comes with your posts have bounced... I'm not sure if
> this is a problem on my end or yours though... ?

Sorry list, I need to abuse you.

Dan, I think there is some very bad stuff happening with my ISP, but
it is transparent at my end. Would you send me just a brief test msg,
and I'm going to send you one, and I'll check back in a few hours. I
actually had sent a couple of emails to you but never heard back.
*Very* frustrating.

Thanks list...

WARNING -- this is an off-topic post to Jon Szanto regarding an email
problem... so please disregard, thanks.

Jon,

I received both your "test" emails, but as it has been two days and
I've yet to receive any word from you that you received any of my
replies, I'm assuming that you haven't, and that there is still
something wrong... ?

--Dan

Last time, we promise:

--- In tuning@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> I received both your "test" emails, but as it has been two days and
> I've yet to receive any word from you that you received any of my
> replies, I'm assuming that you haven't, and that there is still
> something wrong... ?

Yes. I will write you from my Yahoo mail acct and let you know what
is going on.

Jon