From: Michael Gogins ()
Date: May 16, 2008
Subject:
Re: Objectivity (Was maybe we can discuss the definition of)
Well, I was hoping for someting like a discussion, a debate if you will.
I've valued and enjoyed your remarks on this and other topics.
Regards,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Austin"
To:
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Objectivity (Was maybe we can discuss the definition of)
>
> Thanks for your opinions Michael. I won't argue with you about them, or
> debate them, as they are based upon an emotional sense of (your)
> survival, and emotional issues do not open themselves to rational (sic)
> debate. Emotional issues including such areas as beliefs, religion,
> abortion, homosexuality etc.
>
> As you note, a major difference between our positions is that you seem to
> believe that music exists independently of perception and cognition, and
> I do not. The advantage of your position over mine (to distort from
> Sandeep), is that you know the Matrix is not there, and you see the film
> "Men in Black" as s/f comedy, while I see it as documentary.
>
>
> Best
>
> Kevin
>
>
>
> On 2008, May 16, at 2:28 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> I think is remarkable how this discussion tends to veer into jokes,
>> irony, and the like instead of actual argument. By any ordinary rules of
>> debate, this kind of move is -- a joke.
>>
>> There is definitely an agreement on what "objectivity" is in esthetics.
>> In spite of my use of the word "objective," I recognize that esthetic
>> judgment is subjective. I am not entering concert halls armed with a
>> music thermometer.
>>
>> However, it is generally agreed that esthetic judgments are "normative."
>> There is some sense in which this or that work of art is "better" or
>> "worse" (or some other word such as "enjoyable" that turns out to have
>> the exact same extension).
>>
>> The disagreement comes in whether esthetic norms are relative or
>> absolute. In this context that means, true for everyone, or only true
>> for me and my tribe. What I mean by "objective" in esthetic judgment is
>> that I am sure that esthetic judgments tend towards universality, that
>> "good" is not just good for me, or for you, but for all adequately
>> prepared judges.
>>
>> Again, I don't for a minute deny that much in musical judgment is
>> culturally conditioned. I don't for a minute doubt that some education,
>> training, and exposure is required to adequately judge musical quality.
>>
>> I don't think "adequately prepared judges" is such a mystery either. It
>> just means exposure to the norms of the art, like being able to play an
>> instrument, lots of listening to standards of the genre, or a
>> conservatory education in the style being judged. Anyone can gain this
>> preparation whether not they like the style or pieces in question. The
>> preparation itself can definitely be objectively defined.
>>
>> Ok, now I am prepared to put forward what I believe is a good argument
>> for the existence of objective norms in music. We are living in a time
>> of extreme ferment, musically. Thanks to the vast store of written and
>> sound records, thanks to the dissemination of higher education, thanks
>> to mechanical means of transportation and foreign education and
>> emigration of peoples and globalization and what all, musical practice
>> and style are under enormous pressure. Genres multiply and divide,
>> combine, influence each other, die and are reborn.
>>
>> If musical norms are purely relative, this is a meaningless play of
>> events, in which my personal taste or your personal taste will assert
>> itself, or be ground down, for purely extrinsic reasons that have
>> nothing to do with music.
>>
>> If musical reasons have any part to play in this dialectic of music
>> history that we are living through -- as I am sure they do -- these
>> reasons transcend any personal or tribal taste by necessity, because it
>> is this very taste that is evolving. If any norm is guiding or judging
>> this evolution, it is a super-personal norm. An objective, universal
>> norm.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is fact that, in ordery
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Eldad Tsabary
>>> Sent: May 16, 2008 12:37 PM [EMAIL REMOVED] >>> Subject: Objectivity (Was maybe we can discuss the definition of)
>>>
>>> I know this is a little late and this discussion already died, but it
>>> always recurs anyways. I wanted to add a few words to support Kevin's.
>>>
>>> Before asking whether "objectively good music" is possible, or even
>>> whether objectivity is possible, we cannot even find an agreement of
>>> what "objectivity" is.
>>> Put simply, the positivist concept of objectivity is that it's a
>>> feature
>>> of the individual who is able to put aside his own biases in order to
>>> discover the objective (external) "truth."
>>> Post-positivist thought regards objectivity as a feature of society.
>>> It
>>> is never attainable but it is approachable by means of triangulation of
>>> many fallible individual perspectives. Some post-positivists (critical
>>> realists) believe that an external truth (reality) exists, while some
>>> (the subjectivists) don't.
>>> Post-modernists rejects all of it (the "real" reality, objectivity, the
>>> methods of obtaining it, etc.) In fact, extreme post-modernists reject
>>> any method except their own deconstructivism)
>>>
>>> So now... let's ask the question again.. .is it possible to have an
>>> objectively good music?
>>> No doubt!
>>> In your mind!
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> Eldad
>>>
>>>
>>> Kevin Austin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ah ... an objective historian. Ask the American what year World War II
>>>> began in. Ask a Chinese historian the same thing. Ask a Taiwanese and
>>>> a Beijing historian if the 1949 revolution was won or lost.
>>>>
>>>> Objective science ... you may recall that the United States, during WW
>>>> II, kept two blood supplies with the Red Cross, one for white soldiers
>>>> and one for blacks. The question is, if Barack were in desperate need
>>>> of a transfusion, which would he receive. The answer is ... if he has
>>>> a Democrat doctor, black, if he had a Republican doctor, none.
>>>>
>>>> These are not isolated examples, the so-called "weasels". The history
>>>> of science is filled with resistance ... consider the discovery of
>>>> germs, or the impossibility of radiation.
>>>>
>>>> But, I'm not asking you to change your point of view. I think the
>>>> questions about objectivity keep hitting the wall of belief. I don't
>>>> need to explain it as it is a belief system and no one tries to
>>>> explain belief systems "objectively".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>>
>>>> Kevin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2008, May 11, at 11:04 AM, Michael Gogins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Some humans make an attempt to be objective... scientists,
>>>>> historians, critics, judges, teachers, and such. You want them to
>>>>> stop? You don't care what they do?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Mike
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>