Fwd: Re: [tuning] Digest Number 2342

>
>
>
>2) Would you believe also that English was created in one moment?
>
>you're tough!
>i'll think about it and get back to you -
>
>3) I would believe that we are yet in the crisis subsequent to the >tonal language breaking. It seems that
>many here wish they would escape 12-ET but would keep diatonism and >temperament way of thinking.
>Would you interpret that as a consequence of a such internalization?
>
>yes, i would say this is the consequence of fearing other 'places' >and what they might bring. but, >since they are perhaps unknown at that point, it is more the fear of >leaving, or the inability to see
>beyond these internalized spaces -
>more and better explanation below -- >
>
>
>4) I can hardly accept the term sensation in my vocabulary. On one >hand, as far as I seek to track
>something that would be an elementary sensation, say the red >sensation, I find relations, for instance
>the importance of the background / foreground, the cultural >diversity of limits about the red category, etc.
>On the other hand, qualities appears always finest far from >quantities and far from elementary level, as
>fused globality, like the face of things. So I see an elementary >sensation as a regressive perception in
>artificial conditions of forced attention.
>
>what about the Red sensation, as seen in a particular room, a >particular place, in the company of particular people,
>in a particular moment? to say all red has the same sensation would >be proposterous, but perhaps there is an
>argument to be made that in a given moment, the red sensation is >playing a specific role in the larger sensation of the
>moment, that, if one trains oneself, can become a near certainlty >as to what role it is playing, thus slowly revealing
>the nature of the "red sensation" through an understanding and >dissection of it's synergies (the places where multiple
>forces meet). >
>i think you nail the question down by going here with it because it >is indeed dependant upon a particular theory/experience
>of consciousness. it seems in essence it is the question of whether >there are relatively ordered layers to human/world consciousness
>that can be slowly ascended within in order to reach an >understanding of 'red' or not. in this, there is room for the >creation of
>culture, and the creation of rituals to invoke certain states, etc. >that would not be in opposition - for most cultures have a
>priest character, shaman, healer character, who is supposed to see >these things clearly. Often that person's perception would simply
>be taken as truth with a capital T. maybe we have lost this in the >West. though maybe we treat alan greenspan this way :) (maybe >you're not
>american, i don't know).
>
>in any case, i don't claim to know beyond what i know for myself >seems true, and for me, i would say that in a certain moment, a >force is
>acting in a specific way. to me, imagination is a process by which >we construct images of spaces, sounds, etc, using the same sort of >perception -
>making imagination a way of knowing, not a way of making. to me, >those with brilliant imaginations are generally people who perceive
>a great deal of clarity in things like sound, color, interactions >between people. it is not that they wouldn't be affected by the >touch of a beautiful
>woman's knee (g-d knows we all would be!), but they might know the >role that this particular force is interacting with the others >around them, making
>the touch an element within a composition - and if isolated, an >entire composition! to me this is very very exciting, and >attempting to improve these
>skills are what excites me about getting up in the morning, and what >excites me about growing as a composer. i see the two things as >integral to
>each other. i would never claim perfection, or near perfection in >either department, but would strongly lay claim to the idea that you >can get closer
>to this clarity - that i know just because if the ebbs and flows of >my connection with it - a hangover for instance, generally makes >that sort of thing impossible :)
>
>thanks for such a strong and thoughtful reply!, this is turning >into something very interesting - - >
>
>5) A mental space is something relational. It's constructed with >quality differences (and some concrete
>law of transformation of these differences) rather than qualities as such.
>
>i think i answer this above, but to me, i think of it is a state of >experience of synergy between multitudes of forces . all i am >really saying is that through concentration
>and practice, and commitment to working on it, these synergies can >be broken apart, and one can start taking note of "red" every time >one notices they are
>under the influence of it, and suddenly one begins to understand the >force of red just a little bit, and with time it seems to become >clearer. the best painter i
>know would often speak of this sort of thing in terms of color and >she had an incredible catalogue of interactions/synergies that she >could draw upon for her
>work. also, i think it is not unfair to make the argument that if >one gains clarity on the forces that are internal to oneself and >begins to understand how they interact
>with the exterior world, the role exterior environments, sounds, >colors, have in this mental space become much more tangible. i see >the viewpoint that these things
>are completely relational as a sort of modern disease that is mostly >indicative of a lack of sensitivity, that perhaps the degree of >stressful sensory input we have to
>swallow has brought upon us (among other more historical issues >which are less clear to me). >
>thanks for such a thoughtful response
>-micah
>
>--
>

Micah Silver
--
860.559.3456