From: Kevin Austin ()
Date: May 16, 2008
Subject:
Re: Objectivity (Was maybe we can discuss the definition of)
Hmmm ... a discussion, possibly, a debate -- sorry. For me a debate
would be a question as to whether or not I have stronger skills at
verbal manipulation than you do. This was a phase I left when I
realized I was doing it. It's now possibly as one of my university
classmates said about the situation, "In the long run, everything
comes down to semantics; it's just that with Kevin you get there much
faster." Since I wasn't sure what semantics was, I had to add yet
another item onto my "must learn before I die" list of things to be
done.
Well, to short-circuit some of the preliminaries, the 'semantic' issue
here is (from a number of points of view -- a circumstance that fits
well into the personality domain of the wood rat http://www.usbridalguide.com/special/chinesehoroscopes/Rat.htm)
:
- does the 'word' delimit the experience, or is the word a label
applied to the experience
Let's take two of my favorite words: electroacoustics, and shakuhachi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakuhachi
My proposition, it seems somewhat supported by recent MRI work, is
that (simplified), the brain works in two (or more) ways: a logical /
planning fashion (Rick N will give us the correct labels), and, in an
emotional responsive fashion.
If this perceptual model is not acceptable, then another will have to
be provided as a basis to work from.
This morning, the Jehovah's Witnesses came to visit. These are always
of interest to me for they employ certain linguistic methods to
attempt to engage people in conversation; as I put it, they try to fly
under the radar. Their approach is seen in politics: make a statement
that appears to be a simple reflection upon a condition of reality,
but have it so charged with emotional content that it gets past the
listener's defenses.
It's a well-known trick in classroom discussions, used to greater or
lesser effect by good teachers or obnoxious students.
One aspect of this is to use a 'simple' word that appears innocuous or
ordinary in an attempt to inflame the (emotional) sensibilities of
those around. This list has seen this approach half a dozen times in
the past 12 years. The failure on this list is that the readers don't
rise to the bait, as I am right now. (Yes, I'm rising to the bait.
That's one of the problems with the wood rat -- this ability to
bifurcate - and trifurcate the mind, to bullet time stop (cf Matrix op
cit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_time) the question and
examine it from multiple perspectives and multiple modes or perception
at the same time.
The bullet time stop was well known in animation and film, but
required new tools to do this in electroacoustics. One of the first
composers to seriously do this (for better / for worse), was
Stockhausen, in Kontakte.
It is not 'simply' the matter of using the time-stretching machine
(worn out by KS in Hymnen), but layered modalities of thought and
perception that allow the simultaneous perception of multiple levels
of a sound, or a piece. In studying conducting I worked on the
technique (well known to organists) of tapping one toe at the speed of
the eighth note, tapping my other foot at the quarter note, with my
left hand conducting the meter (eg 3/4), and with my right hand
conducting the phrase length. Some drummers do this, and they may even
layer two or three values into each arm and foot, playing (and
therefore hearing) four, five, six or more metric and rhythmic levels
at the same time.
There are sounds in Kontakte that are nice sounds. Detailed
examination revealed that they were constructed with four, five,
eight, ten or more layers, (segregated streams), which at first I had
heard as an integrated sound.
The naive sophomoric philosophy course question about the tree in the
forest is here as well. Is this "one sound", or multiple layers of
sound?
It is sophomoric because it is not a question of philosophy, it is a
question of semantics. (I warned you above.) The Jehovah's Witnesses
said "The world has never been so chaotic!" I guess they haven't read
much history, or even the Judaic/Christian Bible -- but the words
sound "about right". AMG! The world was once so chaotic that lots of
animals had to be herded together in line and marched onto a boat. We
know for example that Mr Unicorn would have none of it, and Mrs
Unicorn got on alone and was unable to have baby unicorns, so, no
unicorns after the flood.
Korzybski proposed time-binding. One view, in a nutshell, is that a
statement is only true at the moment it is uttered. An example: "Are
you hungry?". "No." Two hours later: "Are you hungry?". "Yes."
"What's the matter, can't you make up your mind???"
This is a semantic issue, not one of the chemistry of
the body. The semantic has equated the concept of "hungry" as being
independent of time. What is true now, is true, independent of time.
"This is a good piece of music."
"Is it as good as the piece of apple pie in the fridge?"
One word representing multiple conditions.
And KS does this in Kontakte.
He proposes for this (wonderful) piece, a modality of reception. (As
distinct from Kurzwellen, http://home.swipnet.se/sonoloco2/Rec/Stockhausen/13.html)
. It is a modality hinted at by the proposition that this piece is not
called "Embrace", or "Collision", or "Swoosh-bang", or " ... (sounds
like a contest for "Rejected Titles for Kontakte").
It is eminently possible to consider Kontakte without the title, but
in my experience, an examination of the concept of "Contact" with
every hearing reveals (for me), new sources of wonder. For me, this is
what makes Kontakte, to borrow your word, a "good piece of electronic
music". I somehow tap into areas of my experience that are grown new
on each listening.
I also consider Omaggio (Thema) of Luciano Berio. I would imagine that
someone will point to an mp3 copy for those who don't know it.
When I first heard this piece, I was stupefied. I was amazed that I
already "knew" this piece. It was what I call, unmediated perception.
I listened and listened and listened. It was clear I had to find out
about the source. Sadly, this meant reading James Joyce -- something
for the foolish to indulge when their brains have gone soft.
Chapter Eleven. Not to be confused with bankruptcy Chapter Eleven
protection.
What is Joyce attempting to do? He is writing a fugue in none voice. A
one-voice fugue would be written with compound melody, and this is how
he expresses temporal simultaneity while having only sample-level
stream segmentation.
Is this inherent in the signal? Quantum physics has a bit of a problem
here, but so does religion.
The model of an external reality, in my view, can only be perceived by
one individual, Zaphod Beeblebrox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphod_Beeblebrox
I agree with you Michael that there is a singular external reality, I
just don't think it is possible to perceive it in its entirety, and
its simply hubris to consider that one is able to filter this
complexity and make meaningful statements. This is the world of the
Demon of the Second Kind (DSK) described by Stanislaw Lem in The Sixth
Sally chapter of The Cyberiad. This demon watches the random molecular
movement of an atom and from it is able to extract all knowledge. Now,
that's a good atom, and he gets to hear all the good electroacoustic
music, and also unfortunately, all the bad electroacoustic music as
well.
In Ulysses, Joyce pays homage to a fellow teacher, Almidano Artifoni,
a real person, an accountant who helped Joyce get a teaching position. http://www.retecivica.trieste.it/joyce/vis_articolo.asp?pagina=-&link=1&tipo=articoli_dx_6&ids=3
In Ulysses, he is a singing teacher. A nice touch. (Artifoni = Art
of Sound). He is (of course), the last person cited in Chapter Ten.
All of this information is present in the universe at the same time
(cf DSK op cit). It's as Broomhilde's buddy stole from John Cage,
music is all around (us), you just have to know how to bring it out.
Perhaps it is too much to expect that I can ever do this, but I will
be satisfied with picking up bits and pieces. To do this, I must
create in myself at once an empty chamber and an infinitely resonant
vessel. This vessel will pick up all of the vibrations of the universe
and hold them forever in bullet time stop mode.
As my models of continuous reality expand and I became a more empty
vessel, so I will be able to decode more of the strings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
) I will see that the good and the bad are one; they are like love and
marriage, you can't have one, you can't none, you can't have one
without the o-o-o-other. http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+sinatra/love+marriage_20056073.html
And times change, or maybe time changes.
So ... after this preamble of the introduction, "Allow me to introduce
myself", http://www.lyricsfreak.com/r/rolling+stones/sympathy+for+the+devil_20117881.html
I'm a man of means by no means.
Earth-rat. Is it good being an earth rat? As good as it gets. For me.
This time around.
Do I believe that it is possible to know things about people by
looking at the lines on their hands? This is, sadly, in my experience,
not a matter of belief. This alone has informed me of an abjective
external reality. Not a place I would have chosen to live, but, hey,
what the heck.
Just keep in mind, Don't judge a book by its cover. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iunx2MnvN6o
If you get lost, just take a step to the left.
Over to you Mike.
Best
Kevin
On 2008, May 16, at 6:27 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:
> 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
>>
>>