Subject: Re: electroacoustics - rap to tap
From: Michael Gogins (email@example.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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paulo Mouat" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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)
> 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)
> faculties that lead to art, language and tradition, but the social is
> 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.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Gogins [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 7:31 AM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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" <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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