Re: A one-dimensional universe of sound


Subject: Re: A one-dimensional universe of sound
From: Steve Layton (dalgas@speakeasy.net)
Date: Mon Feb 14 2005 - 11:09:12 EST


----- Original Message -----
From: <n_kondon@alcor.concordia.ca>
To: <cec-conference@concordia.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: A one-dimensional universe of sound

>A high sheer number of choices is likely to offer more "quality" choices
>than a
> small number of choices.

I don't think that's true. Sheer number says nothing about the quality of
those choices.

> More good is better. More bad is worse.
> Choice is good.
> More choice is better, Most choice is best.

But more bad and more good together just makes more same. Nothing has
changed where it really matters.

> SO, in the case where you have a choice between thousands of
> possibilities, you
> may only be "free" to choose 10. But in a case where you have thousands of
> choices to make, your freedom is temporarily limited to making choices.
>
> I would choose less choices and have a large number of options than more
> choices involving few options. With less work to do, I will then increase
> my
> freedom.

Of course there are more than the two directions you give, Nick:
Less choices+more options
More choices+less options

But also
More choices+more options
Less choices+less options

And don't forget
Same choices+more or less options
Same options+more or less choices.

Ouch! Does it all matter? Frankly, yes. And no... But the others each have
something to say about how we live in the world. Pure Options have
increased, some new, some still impractical. Some become useful, some
actually become less useful, for various technical or cultural reasons. I'm
just saying that we might be better off thinking about the "how" more than
the "how many".

> And remember: most is best at being more.

But maybe more being is the most best. ;-)

Steve Layton
http://www.ampcast.com/stevelayton



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