Subject: Re: Narrative and Semantic (I)
From: Eliot Handelman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 04:18:32 EDT
Kevin Austin wrote:
>> Richard Wentk (or Eliot) wrote:
>>> The final destination here is to wonder if because music has no
>>> explicit semantic content, what it's really made of is the bag of
>>> timbral, tonal and rhythmic tricks that aid memorability in speech
>>> commnication *if you remove the semantic content of what's being said*
That was Richard with whom I differ in our location of primitive or
Urmind, which I locate in dreaming,
hallucination, or in a state of objectless affect that could be like the
baby mind in utero.
I think you can get the life-useful adaptations from that.
Music is, I think, more about dreaming and hallucination than about
things that help us learn to speak but
whose intrinisc merit seems questionable, a mere bag of tricks.
Music is an adaptation that enables a community to be based on
affective projections. It reveals inner disposition and
it can induce particular dispositions. At least that's one idea.
Since music is about what it does, not what it is, the utility of music
is precisely that it
engages a faculty for common feeling.
This leaves open the problem how music does create feeling, whereas I'm
not sure what sort of
problems Richard's analysis raises which may be favorable to the
development of a
theortical understanding of music.
Music is one of the mind's codes. In that capacity it comes first. I
don't need to reduce it to other things, like speech.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST