Re: Solo ea


Subject: Re: Solo ea
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Thu Feb 10 2005 - 22:35:39 EST


I see your point about the imagination of music. However, I believe that
what is imagined depends upon sound waves in a basic way. No sense of
hearing and experience of hearing, no music. At least, in the biological,
genetic sense (I think one could be deaf, even deaf from birth, and compose,
at least in one's mind, but that would still depend on the biological and
neural adaptation to hearing). So I argue that the objective basis of music
is still necessary.

About post-humanity, I don't agree with your categories exactly, but I
certainly think that human existence has changed radically thanks to science
and technology, and will change yet more. What I think constitutes humanity
is subjectivity in the Kierkegaardian sense. But, except for God, there is
no subjectivity without an objective basis. What I think we are seeing is
that techne constitutes a new subjectivity. I don't think this is
"representations of subjectivity" unless I don't understand what you mean
(which is entirely possible). I think it is a (partly) new objective "basis"
for subjectivity. What is interesting is that it is more or less
intentional. Perhaps this is what you mean by "representation" -- that
technical bases of subjectivity (cities, vehicles, media and their ikons,
markets, computing) are more or less designed?

Since I take contemporary subjectivity to be alienated just as human
subjectivity always has been alienated, the intentionality of the new bases
for subjectivity causes the new subjectivity to be thus doubly alienated.
This is related to what Mircea Eliade termed the "second fall."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eliot Handelman" <eliot@generation.net>
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Solo ea

> Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>> All right, I would call that kind of music inspired. But it seems to me
>> that inspiration is the acme of humanity, not post-humanity.
>
>
> I agree.
>
>> There are many ways of conceiving or naming inspiration. Also I think
>> that in the future, non-human beings or even artificial beings may prove
>> capable of making this kind of music -- of being inspired.
>
>
> That;s ok. Post humanity is about representations of subjectivity, as I
> see it, just as art until now placed
> transcedence of subjectivity at the fromt line of creative enterprise. So
> represetations are just a new fgorm of transcendence.
> One kind of rep. is the thing that "has inspirations." In this situation
> the medium is totally the message. The music and
> stoprioes and such won';t necessarily matter (I was once on the oracle
> saying this).
>
> Posthumanity means addressing ourselves as the totality of our expanded
> situations in biology, genomics, neurscience, AI,
> massiively scaled communications, changed world, etc. It's posthuman
> because the constituents of our
> identity aren't themselves human -- cells, evolution, oxygen, tectonic
> plates, neurochemistry, etc.
>
>
>>
>> What I mean by that is music, like any art, has an objective substrate or
>> medium. A book is in marks on pages of paper. A painting is paint on
>> canvas. Music is pressure waves in the air. My esthetic holds that if the
>> medium does not convey the inspiration without external information about
>> the author, the medium does not actually contain art.
>
>
> I find that problematic. Since I can imagine music, I assume it can'y be
> waves in the air as if it were
> being beamed in by some alien force (Mahler).
>
>
> The paint and such seems to me relevanmt only insofar as some postmodern
> commentyary i simplied by
> the way an artist treats his paint. It seems to me mopre likely that
> painting is some sort of brain facilitated
> social constructt, also music.
>
>
>
>>
>> I agree that forgery matters -- but I would say the question of forgery
>> is independent of the quality of the music. It matters because lying and
>> telling the truth matter. But a work of art is not a proposition.
>
>
>
> Yet art is always proposing things, no? It proposes to be taken seriously,
> eg.
>
> -- eliot
>
>
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST