Animals/galaxy's etc

Just a brief comment, only because others opened the door to this...of course animals have feelings, many kinds and sometimes very deep and profound, really not much different from people. And, of course the galaxies were created by a Creator; I do not need a "scientific" validation for any of this knowledge. Science is not my religion, and scientists do not necessarily have the final say on any given subject...an awful lot of "science" is opinions about observations that have been made, and, for instance, in the case of the "Big Bang," it's a theory that most likely can never be proved conclusively one way or the other. And, no need for debate...if you don't agree with me, that's fine, and I have absolutely no interest in getting anyone else to see things the way I do, either...evangelism makes me ill, it's one of the main reasons the world is so messed up today...best...HHH
microstick.net

On 3/30/06, microstick@msn.com <microstick@msn.com> wrote:
> Just a brief comment, only because others opened the door to this...of course animals have feelings, many kinds and sometimes very deep and profound, really not much different from people. And, of course the galaxies were created by a Creator; I do not need a "scientific" validation for any of this knowledge. Science is not my religion, and scientists do not necessarily have the final say on any given subject...an awful lot of "science" is opinions about observations that have been made, and, for instance, in the case of the "Big Bang," it's a theory that most likely can never be proved conclusively one way or the other. And, no need for debate...if you don't agree with me, that's fine, and I have absolutely no interest in getting anyone else to see things the way I do, either...evangelism makes me ill, it's one of the main reasons the world is so messed up today...best...HHH

This is the tuning list, man! TUNING!

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
>
> On 3/30/06, microstick@... <microstick@...> wrote:
> > Just a brief comment, only because others opened the door to this...of course
animals have feelings, many kinds and sometimes very deep and profound, really not
much different from people. And, of course the galaxies were created by a Creator; I do
not need a "scientific" validation for any of this knowledge. Science is not my religion, and
scientists do not necessarily have the final say on any given subject...an awful lot of
"science" is opinions about observations that have been made, and, for instance, in the
case of the "Big Bang," it's a theory that most likely can never be proved conclusively one
way or the other. And, no need for debate...if you don't agree with me, that's fine, and I
have absolutely no interest in getting anyone else to see things the way I do,
either...evangelism makes me ill, it's one of the main reasons the world is so messed up
today...best...HHH
>
> This is the tuning list, man! TUNING!
>
> Keenan
>

I agree completely. This path only opened in a (unfortunately) long discussion
trying to reconcile the meaning of modulation. I'm trying to keep my words
specific to music and tuning in a pragmatic sense, but there's a push to include
very far reaching ideas within "modulation" and I have the obsessively optimistic
view thata distiction can be made, and then some sort of useful music-tuning
discussion can happen in relation to the idea of "modulation" whereas there
previously was a lot of defensiveness and arguments getting nowhere.

I hope everyone realizes that music cannot be completely isolated from life
and philosophy. But we absolutely need to draw the line when there is no more
music/tuning in the discussion. I'd ask everyone to work with me to make
these distinctions. As soon as we can distinguish something as outside of
music/tuning, then our discussion of that here is very much uncalled for.

My point as it relates to music is that we ARE, as people, stuck in a box.
And it should be accepted. The box is our senses. We can only understand
and learn what our numerous senses can input and then process. There
is a lot of indirect learning too, but everything comes through that path.
So must it be in perceiving music, sound, tuning, and modulation. Therefore,
I try to keep my discussion of music within that boundary, since we can't
possibly have useful discussion otherwise. I don't think there is any value
of time spent here discussing music we cannot sense. I do think a valuable
part of our discussion here can be about how and whether we sense and
process various musical elements. Especially, how do my senses, and
mental processes compare and contrast with others, so we can relate
our musical/tuning work to how people can perceive it?

I wish nobody would deny that all we have are our senses and processing
of that input. Once we go beyond that, it is a neverending philisophical
blah blah blah. Sure, it's easy to just compare math and temperaments,
but once we start talking about the musical output of it all, this stuff
comes up. Should I just reject all discussion with people who will only
take a limitless enough view that they refuse to discuss music separately
from other ideas about conciousness and existence?

Anyway, sorry to rant. Neil, your post really didn't help reach any sort
of musical goal in any discussion. It wasn't appropriate for the forum,
but I'll take the blame for not killing the philisophical discussion before
it got nearly so far. Sorry everybody. If anyone has some suggestions
how to avoid this without giving up discussing the music/tuning related
things that I'm trying to discuss, I really would like the feedback.

-Aaron