Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: hmmmm.......

Expand Messages
  • Kevin Marshall
    ... sexual ... yes as an ultimate cause. in this discussion we can make the distinction between whether we are discussing an ultimate or a proximate cause. in
    Message 1 of 2 , 28 Feb, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ptrad@..., Debashis Sinha <deb@d...> wrote:
      >i suppose you are correct that at some level desiring
      > status is an "evolutionary adaptation" because of status' perks:
      sexual
      > attractiveness, money, etc.

      yes as an ultimate cause. in this discussion we can make the
      distinction between whether we are discussing an ultimate
      or a proximate cause. in many ways, once the ultimate casue
      is acknowledged, a more interesting discussion is about the
      proximate ends to be gained.

      >...i find many things about consonance and chaos "neurologically
      > pleasing" and i submit that many others do too, and that this is
      not a
      > status seeking response.

      which is why i named consanance as neurologically based. chaos
      does not have nearly as sound a scientific basis, although
      novelty
      is a possible choice of deep structure. one of my points is
      that more and more of the ideas i am presenting are not
      opinions
      but findings based on sound scientific method.

      since you were not hooked up to an mri machine your assertion
      about chaos being neurologically sound as a deep structure,
      has less strength.

      large populations of listeners do not support your contention.

      >of course these traditions are
      > viscerally linked to large parts of the population, and i
      personally do not
      > think that pt music involves a desire to look down on them or think
      them
      > obsolete.

      fine point - viscerally == neurologically

      > that being said, just because there is a tradition, does not mean
      that we
      > must be bound by it. as has been pointed out in this forum before,
      > tradition is the result of innovation. someone had to think of
      hitting a
      > rock and grunting, if no one was doing it before. if we were stuck
      with
      > what is "neurologically sound" then we would all still be hitting
      rocks and
      > grunting. which, i confess, i do from time to time....

      no my point is broader that that. neurologically sound is
      evidenced by
      the ALL the deep structures i discussed previously. it
      encompasses
      all the deep structure components i wrote about previously.

      one might say that all the additions to music after hitting a
      rock
      and grunting (also a favorite pastime of mine) are
      explorations
      of the deep structure that most likely existed before the
      rock. the
      deep structures are currently thought to be partly genetic
      and the
      part that is not strictly genetic is triggered by
      environment. but
      the trigger has very stict limitations as to how much the net
      built by genes alone can be modified. one cannot teach babies
      to like 12 tone music. that is impossible.

      how much is genetic (as in neuron links formed by genes) and
      environmental (neuron links formed as a combination of genes
      and environment) is a current research topic.

      >
      > the "deep structures" of favouring consonant intervals, resolving
      to the
      > tonic, etc were actually thought up by someone,

      no that statement is broader than that. the thought was a
      discovery of what pleased the neural net that was already
      operational.

      this is the true innovation that current neuroscience is
      giving
      us as philosopher/musicians. these things were only thought up
      in the sense that the thought bcame an action that became a
      sound
      that triggered a neurological response already built into most
      human brains.

      i find this most wonderful. there is solid research into what
      music
      does. not an opinion, but a measurement that will bacome more
      accurate
      as interest grows and measuring techniques improve.

      >and they became deeply
      > embedded.

      no not embedded. the deep structure existed before the
      sensations
      that please it were made. for vision the research is much
      stronger
      than for hearing, but my expectation is that as researchers
      become more interested in the area, the deep structure will be
      made more clear.

      vision was an early interest because visual stimuli were
      easier to
      handle, before every pc could play and analyze WAV files. now
      that
      audio is as easy to manipulate as black and white diagrams
      used to
      be, i expect more deep structure audio components to be
      identified.

      > > traditions give a bound.'
      >
      > i disagree. traditions can also give a starting point.

      here is another analogy. the different traditions that
      emphasize
      different aspects of music are sweet spots (in chaos theory
      what are called attractors) on the mulitdimensional
      matrix of what pleases the deep structural neural nets.

      western art music - strongest attractor is around harmony;
      slightly less so for melody ; massively less so for rhythm ;
      consonant intervals over emphasized

      african drumming and chanting - no harmony; melody short and
      repetitive ; a feast of rhythm polyrhythm; consonant
      predominant -
      gliding tones and dissonance more prominent than western art
      music

      y'all are well versed in the other major traditions and can
      fill in the
      aspects emphasized and neglected by them

      i assert that no tradition has an equal mix of all the deep
      structures
      because one must neglect one aspect of music in order that
      the others
      may be perceived.

      as discussed before one can pick an arbitrary
      point on the multidimensioanal matrix defined by
      harmony/rhythm/melody/consonance etc. i contend that is what
      12
      tone serial, noise music (pick your own example) have done.

      my point is that moving far from the sweet spots already
      identified is not likely to be neurologically sound. and if it
      is not, what is the motivation?

      i do agree that innovations in music making discovered the
      sweet
      spots. i contend very strongly that listener and population
      response validated the sweet spot reality.

      are there more sweet spots to be discovered? i contend not,
      but am willing to be convinced otherwise. an assertion by
      a lone individual that by his/her effort and in their
      appraisal,
      they have discovered a new one is of low credibility to me.

      if you think you have discovered another one, show me the
      audience
      that validates it.

      >...(incidentally, if i may rant, western harmony is NOT a dominant...

      good rant. i suggest that informed, non-adhominem polemic is
      an important part of intellectual discourse.

      when you assert that the music industry has sold something that is of
      lesser
      value you are in effect affirming the tabula rasa/blank slate
      principle.

      in this case if i follow you correctly, you are saying
      it is a basic scientifically proved principle that
      there is a human potential in populations such that
      an outside force (the music industry) can override their better
      aesthetic judgement.

      pinker's book (which summarizes current scientific findings)
      very effectively destroys this argument.

      western harmony is popular not because the music industry is selling
      something that people don't want to buy, but the complete opposite:
      they are selling exactly what satisfies the buyers.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.