Re: Solo ea


Subject: Re: Solo ea
gogins@pipeline.com
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 09:45:23 EST


Starting at the top... God is for some an experience, for others an article
of faith, for me both. Again the experience is not "given" but demands
interpretation, and certainly there are atheistic interpretations of the
experience of God. (Note: I am not a member of any religion.)

Goedel without question knew more philosophy than Aristotle, because his
logic was better, and logic is at the heart of philosophy because it
informs possibility (if it ain't consistent it ain't possible), which
founds ontology (if it ain't possible it cain't exist). What we know
philosophically more than Aristotle did, is merely that although proofs are
countably infinite, there are infinitely more truths than proofs. So, proof
is not the same thing as truth. This is a fact (ask any logician), but this
fact could not have been decided on the basis of pre-Goedelian logic and so
is indeed beyond Aristotle's ken. But this mere fact is in process of
forcing a right-hand turn in the general direction of philosophy even
though quite counter to the spirit of the age, which is formalistic
(formalism assumes proof is truth), thus idealistic, finally solipsistic.
So Heidegger is simply wrong. Interesting.

About the answers of the objects, I meant objective answers, like exposures
on negatives or meter needles twitching, but Sartre's characters are
hopelessly waiting for personal ones which, if you ask me, they are just
not going to get, at least not as long as Sartre is writing their play.

Obviously, if I think that there is something objective in a work of music,
then it has to have a formal basis, an objective correlative. However, a
little math will show that it might be rather hard to identify it -- the
combinations of musical forms, especially across levels of structure,
though finite are vaster than the physical cosmos.

Indeed, even more importantly, although works of music are of finite
complexity, the art of music is not complete, and thus must be considered
as though it might last an infinitely long time. As such, the art has two
aspects, a completed part and an uncompleted part. It so happens that even
though if completed the art of music would be of countably infinite
complexity, a diagonal argument proves that the uncompleted possibilities
of the art are of uncountably infinite complexity. This is because the
number of integers is countably infinite, but the possible combinations of
the integers are uncountably infinite. (I am thinking of music in the form
of digital recordings, i.e. sequences of integers.)

In other words, if we consider a history of music to consist of an
infinitely long CD, no such CD and no such history contains all possible
music.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Eliot Handelman eliot@generation.net
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:19:01 -0800
To: cec-conference@concordia.ca
Subject: Re: Solo ea

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.

true.

>
> 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
discoveries.

>
> 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

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



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