Sheesh, terminology arguments again

I don't want to repeat myself, but everyone's arguing about terminolgy with the whole zero
thing. Who cares?

The point is if someone is describing one perception that can be shown to differ from a
different perception then we should all work together to come up with a name or way to
describe the two so we can communicate well.

On the other hand, if we are debating whether a term can apply or not to a single
perception, but it isn't helping us describe the difference of the perception from other
perceptions, then GIVE IT UP. What's the point?

Put simply: if two parts are one two notes and then come to a unison, how is it perceived?
I can think of a lot of possibilities: one where we still hear them as distinct, one in which
they fuse, and a whole range of a mix in between. We can describe what factors will affect
where on this line the perception results, but we can't deny that the same sounds may be
perceived differently on this same line from person to person or even from moment to
moment or between each time listening. So it is useful to describe this line between
fusing and distinction between two notes of a unison. And it is useful to discuss the
factors that push it one way or another. I doubt anybody would deny the existence of this
range of perception. So how about discussing what factors lead to what perception, and
then when we have an idea what we're talking about, we can apply names to things for the
sake of communication. Instead, it appears people are wrapped up in arguing about the
names before they've clarified the ideas. We could be working together to find what we're
descibing in common, and then helping each other to find the best way to communicate
about it.

-Aaron

Hi Aaron,

Good to see you back here again.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:
>
> I don't want to repeat myself, but everyone's arguing
> about terminolgy with the whole zero thing. Who cares?

Not exactly everyone. Ozan presented one point of view,
and everyone who has responded has disagreed with him that
there is another point of view in which zero is useful
*as* a number or interval.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron,
>
>
>
> Good to see you back here again.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to repeat myself, but everyone's arguing
> > about terminolgy with the whole zero thing. Who cares?
>
>
>
> Not exactly everyone. Ozan presented one point of view,
> and everyone who has responded has disagreed with him that
> there is another point of view in which zero is useful
> *as* a number or interval.
>
>

Useful? Meaning it's a way that people like to use to talk about something.
So instead of arguing with him, maybe they could explain what they use the
word to help them think about. Then if he has another word for that, then we
can say, "ok, he uses this word, while we use that" and then tell him to understand
that people use the word differently. Whoever is to blame, the point is, that
either he's describing a new idea, or he's ignorant of an existing idea, or whatever,
so we should be discussing the idea. If we can make the ideas clear, then we can
select terminology so we can all talk about it. And if anyone cares to be dogmatic
that we need to use THEIR understanding of terminology, then they barely belong
in a public forum trying to discuss anything, because their goal is self-righteousness
as opposed to functional communication.

-Aaron

Hi Aaron (and Oz),

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> >
> > Not exactly everyone. Ozan presented one point of view,
> > and everyone who has responded has disagreed with him that
> > there is another point of view in which zero is useful
> > *as* a number or interval.
> >
> >
>
> Useful? Meaning it's a way that people like to use to
> talk about something. So instead of arguing with him,
> maybe they could explain what they use the word to help
> them think about. Then if he has another word for that,
> then we can say, "ok, he uses this word, while we use that"
> and then tell him to understand that people use the word
> differently. Whoever is to blame, the point is, that
> either he's describing a new idea, or he's ignorant of
> an existing idea, or whatever, so we should be discussing
> the idea. If we can make the ideas clear, then we can
> select terminology so we can all talk about it. And if
> anyone cares to be dogmatic that we need to use THEIR
> understanding of terminology, then they barely belong
> in a public forum trying to discuss anything, because
> their goal is self-righteousness as opposed to functional
> communication.

As i hope i've made clear, the whole issue seems to me
to boil down to the fact that there are two different
ways of using and conceptualizing zero, whereas Ozan
seems to hold to only one of the definitions as the
correct one, and the others who seem to be disagreeing
are either holding only to the other definition, or
recognizing the two and arguing with Ozan to try to get
him to accept that there is the other definition.

Really, i think Gene probably could offer more insight
into this than anyone else here ... but again, at this
point i think the discussion belongs more on
metatuning/hypertuning or maybe even tuning-math.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Aaron (and Oz),
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Not exactly everyone. Ozan presented one point of view,
> > > and everyone who has responded has disagreed with him that
> > > there is another point of view in which zero is useful
> > > *as* a number or interval.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Useful? Meaning it's a way that people like to use to
> > talk about something. So instead of arguing with him,
> > maybe they could explain what they use the word to help
> > them think about. Then if he has another word for that,
> > then we can say, "ok, he uses this word, while we use that"
> > and then tell him to understand that people use the word
> > differently. Whoever is to blame, the point is, that
> > either he's describing a new idea, or he's ignorant of
> > an existing idea, or whatever, so we should be discussing
> > the idea. If we can make the ideas clear, then we can
> > select terminology so we can all talk about it. And if
> > anyone cares to be dogmatic that we need to use THEIR
> > understanding of terminology, then they barely belong
> > in a public forum trying to discuss anything, because
> > their goal is self-righteousness as opposed to functional
> > communication.
>
>
>
> As i hope i've made clear, the whole issue seems to me
> to boil down to the fact that there are two different
> ways of using and conceptualizing zero, whereas Ozan
> seems to hold to only one of the definitions as the
> correct one, and the others who seem to be disagreeing
> are either holding only to the other definition, or
> recognizing the two and arguing with Ozan to try to get
> him to accept that there is the other definition.
>
>
> Really, i think Gene probably could offer more insight
> into this than anyone else here ... but again, at this
> point i think the discussion belongs more on
> metatuning/hypertuning or maybe even tuning-math.
>
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>

Just want to be clear: I'm NOT defending anybody. I'm trying to point out
generally helpful ideas about how to communicate and hope that
whoever most needs to listen does so.

If Ozan doesn't accept what everyone else is saying, did you
try first to see if he accepts the idea without the terminology
that he doesn't like? If everyone on both sides can discover
that they agree on the existence of the multiple ideas,
then they can recognize the need to have names for the ideas
and see how dumb it is to fight about the terminology.
It appears nobody made a strong effort to separate the ideas
from the terminology to get to that point. But, you know
I didn't read every post, so if that really was tried, oh well,
it's too bad that it didn't work to get better communication
going. Just trying to help.

-Aaron

FYI, I'm not ignorant of the centuries long practice of considering unison
an interval. Thank heavens I was rid of that silly idea with the help of
proper logic and understanding of numbers the way they are meant to be
understood.

Dogma? I have heard nothing but scholastic arguments thrown in my face thus
far.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 03 Mart 2006 Cuma 7:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Sheesh, terminology arguments again

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Aaron,
> >
> >
> >
> > Good to see you back here again.
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Wolf" <backfromthesilo@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't want to repeat myself, but everyone's arguing
> > > about terminolgy with the whole zero thing. Who cares?
> >
> >
> >
> > Not exactly everyone. Ozan presented one point of view,
> > and everyone who has responded has disagreed with him that
> > there is another point of view in which zero is useful
> > *as* a number or interval.
> >
> >
>
> Useful? Meaning it's a way that people like to use to talk about
something.
> So instead of arguing with him, maybe they could explain what they use the
> word to help them think about. Then if he has another word for that, then
we
> can say, "ok, he uses this word, while we use that" and then tell him to
understand
> that people use the word differently. Whoever is to blame, the point is,
that
> either he's describing a new idea, or he's ignorant of an existing idea,
or whatever,
> so we should be discussing the idea. If we can make the ideas clear, then
we can
> select terminology so we can all talk about it. And if anyone cares to be
dogmatic
> that we need to use THEIR understanding of terminology, then they barely
belong
> in a public forum trying to discuss anything, because their goal is
self-righteousness
> as opposed to functional communication.
>
> -Aaron
>
>
>

I will live with the fact that people may still persist in considering
unison as an interval. I won't. I shall argue against it in every other
circle that makes room for such a debate.

>
>
>
> As i hope i've made clear, the whole issue seems to me
> to boil down to the fact that there are two different
> ways of using and conceptualizing zero, whereas Ozan
> seems to hold to only one of the definitions as the
> correct one, and the others who seem to be disagreeing
> are either holding only to the other definition, or
> recognizing the two and arguing with Ozan to try to get
> him to accept that there is the other definition.
>
>
> Really, i think Gene probably could offer more insight
> into this than anyone else here ... but again, at this
> point i think the discussion belongs more on
> metatuning/hypertuning or maybe even tuning-math.
>
>
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com
> Tonescape microtonal music software
>
>
>