Re: Solo ea

Subject: Re: Solo ea
From: Eliot Handelman (
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 03:19:01 EST

Michael Gogins wrote:

> I don't an objective basis and difficulty of apprehension are in
> tension, quite the contrary.
> Most scientists think there is a real world out there and they they
> get closer and closer to the truth about it, but nobody doubts the
> difficulty of scientific investigation, and the more basic it is the
> harder it is.


> Similarly I think there is _something_ objective and absolute about
> music that can be perceived from objective records, but I've no doubt
> how difficult it is to evaluate this.

There must be something, because music is innate. But people aren't
turning up very much -- eg Lerdahl "uiniversality of
the octave" -- rather thin, no? The generative grammars are not yet
rolling in, and you can't evaluate them except
subjectively anyway. We won;t really know about this until we can rig up
conductors brains and understand what kind
of music oproicessing is taking place. (theortical model of music
required here).

Hit song science is obviously proving something, though I'm not sure what.

> Even in yet more subjective matters I think there is a kind of
> "objectivity of subjectivity" and that we know more philosophy now,
> post Goedel, than we did in the time of Aristotle - but that's one and
> a half steps in 2300 years.

socrates is still the wisest man.

I don;t thinkj Heidegger agrees that we know, or can know, more
philosophy than Artistotle. This is
because we have the habity of forgetting certain basic things and
periodically start all over. On the
otehr hand we know a hell of a lot more than he did about the universe
or the mind -- yet aristotle
was a tremndous psychologist and C. Koch, the neuro guy who worked with
crick, once said "you can
probably find it in aristotle." He was referring to hip new neuro

> I'm a critical realist -- I don't think that the object is "given", I
> just think it is really out there and can be questioned and
> occasionally answers.

I remember reading somewhere someone saying that the narrator's anguish,
in sartre's nausea, is based on
an expectation that objects would answer him.

Since yoiu mentioned god earlier, this may be some artricle of faith?

-- eliot

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