Subject: Re: Narrative and Semantic (I)
From: Richard Wentk (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Oct 11 2005 - 11:31:35 EDT
At 09:18 11/10/2005, you wrote:
>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.
How? I have no problems with dreaming or hallucination, but surely there
has to be some relationship to reality otherwise they're the definition of
>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.
There isn't necessarily a contradiction here. It seems there's a fairly
straightforward path from the vocal noises other animals make to the ones
humans make. But as far as anyone knows, bird song, dog barks and chimp
hoots aren't primarily about dreaming and hallucination.
>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.
I don't think I'd argue with that. I might disagree how we get there though.
>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.
Does a dog bark create feeling in other dogs?
>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.
Have you read Mithen yet? ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:13 EST