Re: A one-dimensional universe of sound


Subject: Re: A one-dimensional universe of sound
From: Michael Gogins (gogins@pipeline.com)
Date: Sat Feb 12 2005 - 22:46:33 EST


You would not say that if you had no choices. You are confusing "possible
choices" with "actual choices." I am talking about possible choices,
options. Perhaps my wording was unfortunate.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Nowak" <john@johnnowak.com>
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2005 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: A one-dimensional universe of sound

>
> On Feb 12, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Michael Gogins wrote:
>
>>> Given some suitable small number of potentials, the sheer number of
>>> choices is almost nothing as the opposed to the personal "quality" of
>>> those choices. And quality is itself an active, selective structuring.
>>> History and experience show that more does not equal better. And
>>> certainly, "most" doesn't equal "best".
>
>> There is no quality without quantity. Quantity makes quality possible. In
>> this case, "most" does equal "best". Of course a personal choice is
>> executed when one selects, whether from a finite or infinite set, a
>> particular possibility. I am not denying that. I am saying that before
>> the selection is made, more choices means more freedom.
>
> Michael, as much of a diehard computer artist as I am (for some of the
> reasons you mention), and as much as I detest the guitar (generally
> speaking), I must say that you're wrong here. Most does not equal best.
> The number of choices isn't what matters. It's what you can do with the
> choices you have. I do the my best work when I have the most number of
> choices possible. Some people do their best work with a guitar. Neither
> method is better than the other. I know you weren't necessarily saying one
> was, but that was the implication you were giving.
>
> - John Nowak
>
>



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