Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap


Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Wed Jul 07 2004 - 21:40:25 EDT


I did not intend to say art is only biological. In my view the urge to make
art is biologically rooted, but as I recently noted to Richard Wentk, art
and fine art are not the same and fine art is pretty much found only in
civilised societies. I would say that language is biology, poetry is
biology, but verse plays are society. I would say that singing is biology,
the symphony orchestra (or tape music) is society.

I was perhaps being a bit rhetorical. My view on humanity is that human
biology provides language, social hierarchy, perhaps marriage, art,
religion, war, and tool-making. This creates a secondary evolutionary
stratum where artificial selection, a.k.a culture, drives human evolution at
a much faster pace than natural selection. On top of this I am a
philosophical theist, so I certainly think that humanity cannot be reduced
to mechanism or biology.

I perceive (perhaps wrongly) that a common view among ea musicians is that
the artistic content and worth of music has no existence aside from
interpretation and culture. This seems to me to lead to a form of cultural
relativism that I find untenable and even obnoxious. I feel strongly that
some music is objectively better than other music and that with good will
and effort, the music of other places and times can be appreciated for what
it is.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paulo Mouat" <cec@dmethods.com>
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:34 PM
Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap

> Of course I am not saying that human beings are the only creatures with
> tradition or language.
>
> You separated the social from the biological so vehemently that suddenly
> certain abilities that evolve because of social interaction seemed to be
> caused by purely biological (e.g. as to overcome environment challenges)
> reasons.
>
> It is still a long stretch to say that art, language and tradition are
> biological and not at all social. The biological may enable (or block)
the
> faculties that lead to art, language and tradition, but the social is
where,
> through application, those faculties are ultimately made to evolve -- even
> influencing the biological.
>
> A number of characteristics typically associated with human nature have
> nothing to do with biology. Social conventions determine and condition
> certain aspects of human nature. In that sense, there is no direct
> one-to-one correspondence between human nature and biology, which means
> human biology does not encompass the whole of human nature and thus you
> cannot equate the two.
>
> //P
> http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Gogins [mailto:gogins@pipeline.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:31 AM
> > To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
> > Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> >
> > Language is biological, tradition is biological. Nature is
> > the object of science. Biology is the science of life
> > considered as living objects. Human nature is the nature of
> > those living objects who are human beings, so obviously human
> > biology is the study of human nature.
> >
> > It is clear that language is biological since it evolved, and
> > depends critically upon a few recent mutations. Some of the
> > genes responsible for language use have been identified
> > recently thanks to a family with some language problems in
> > London who lack those genes.
> >
> > Surely you don't suppose human beings are the only creatures
> > with tradition?
> > Birds learn certain songs, dolphins, monkeys, dogs, all kinds
> > of creatures learn important parts of their adaptations from
> > their parents.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paulo Mouat" <cec@dmethods.com>
> > To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 9:17 PM
> > Subject: RE: electroacoustics - rap to tap
> >
> >
> > > Michael Gogins wrote:
> > > > Since every society has art, it's clear that art is not
> > > > social but biological or, in other words, part of "human
> > > > nature." If you could show me a society without art, I'd have
> > > > to say that art was socially caused, but that's obviously not
> > > > the case.
> > >
> > > Is language biological? Is tradition biological? It's not
> > clear at all
> > > that art is biological and since when "part of human
> > nature" equates to
> > > "being biological"?
> > >
> > > //P
> > > http://www.interdisciplina.org/00.0/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:02 EST