Subject: Lack of clarity regarding the term EA
From: Kevin Austin (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Feb 28 2005 - 21:58:24 EST
Again, I think the point is being missed. The term 'ea' is not being
given limits, it has become some kind of meta-symbol for sound. It
appears that you (Nick) wish to continually define / redefine the
term ea, making for a "glory" of a dialog.
Later here you redefine ea as:
>I understand EA as sound-based understanding.
Huh? Sorry, but I see this as an operational definition where the
term assumes (for the moment) whatever seems not to be clear. "EA"
has ceased to have a meaning associated with events / activities /
forms / structures / sounds, but becomes a convenient "hip" term to
throw in when something is not clear.
From my readings, you (Nick) are proposing that electroacoustics
existed before electricity could be transduced into sound. If this is
so, then we stand very very far apart on what is under discussion.
At 18:59 -0500 2005/02/28, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>Quoting Eliot Handelman <email@example.com>:
>> Music isn't about sound so much as recog.
>Exactly. It is about the recognition of sounds; much like speach,
>much less like dreams. What do we call the understanding of an
>unrecogniseable sound? Could we call that EA? And could we, based on
>previous posts, call music and speach forms of EA too?
>Should we find a better word than EA to represent all this?
IMV, you may want to find a better term as from my point of view you
have not been discussing ea.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:07 EST