Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (01/29/87)
Really-From: "ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA> Did you ever not read something required in a college literature class a long time ago because you thought it was irrelevant? Well, (and I realize that this is starting way off the mark of the vane of this forum) I finally saw Zen sitting on my bookshelf last week and decided to finally read it. If you have not read this book, nothing of the following is going to make any sense (except possibly to Doug Trainor). Also, if you have not read it you should because it provides all the necessary information which is necessary to clear up all the confusion that you developed in Metaphysics Class (eg PH-202). Now to relate this to musical appreciation, esthetics, and Kate et al. It is clear that QUALITY exists, and does indeed remain apart from the standard metaphysical dualism pushed by many people. Also, it remains apart from religion and all the subunits which are founded on dualistic principles. Phaedrus has much to say concerning the importance of QUALITY as an entity in and of itself. Unfortunately, he was forced to the conclusion that QUALITY can not be defined (this being arrived at through REASON, a subordinate level of understanding to quality). So, I believe that many of the comments made here, of late, can be attributed to the QUALITY of any given artist's music. Because the attribute of QUALITY remains outside the bounds of unerstanding or definition based on the rules learned in The Church of Reason, we, being students of that church, are incapable of defining QUALITY as it applies to any given artist's music. We are forced, as IED has repeatedly demonstrated, into forcing definitions on QUALITY which are, at most, purely arbitrary. Therefore, (and I'm not sure this follows logically, but logic also resides within the bounds of the Church of Reason), the essence which everone has been arguing here, is something which can be appreciated but not expressed in rational argument. We cannot judge QUALITY based on reason alone. John ------
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (01/30/87)
Really-From: rosen%ji.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Rob Rosen) In article <8701291726.AA06471@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> you write: >Really-From: "ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA> > > >Phaedrus has much to say concerning the importance of QUALITY as an entity >in and of itself. Unfortunately, he was forced to the conclusion that QUALITY >can not be defined (this being arrived at through REASON, a subordinate >level of understanding to quality). So, I believe that many of the comments >made here, of late, can be attributed to the QUALITY of any given artist's >music. Because the attribute of QUALITY remains outside the bounds of >unerstanding or definition based on the rules learned in The Church of Reason, >we, being students of that church, are incapable of defining QUALITY as >it applies to any given artist's music. We are forced, as IED has repeatedly >demonstrated, into forcing definitions on QUALITY which are, at most, purely >arbitrary. Therefore, (and I'm not sure this follows logically, but logic >also resides within the bounds of the Church of Reason), the essence which >everone has been arguing here, is something which can be appreciated but >not expressed in rational argument. We cannot judge QUALITY based on >reason alone. > >John >------ You know, this argument is starting to sound like Wittgenstein, who spent the greater part of his life trying to articulate the concept of a "language game" but kept getting frustrated because you can't really define a concept fundamental to a framework from within the framework. However, since you can't get outside the framework because the framework is fundamental to your existence, you are forever doomed to misarticulate the concept. So, as I have said before, "let's just forget about this shit and play golf." %%Rob (BTW: I too read "Zen." I thought it quickly became irrelevant except for the underlying terror that outlined the entire book, which was the protagonist's fear of losing control over his sanity; the question arose as to what the dividing line is between SANITY and INSANITY...who exactly draws this line, and on what criteria? An scary thing to ponder, if you take the time.) -- Rob Rosen Computer Systems Support Group University of California rosen@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (the syntactically correct address) ucbvax!rosen (for people who actually LIKE source routing)
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (01/31/87)
Really-From: Vulture of Light <trainor@CS.UCLA.EDU> >Really-From: "ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA> > >Did you ever not read something required in a college literature class >a long time ago because you thought it was irrelevant? Well, (and I >realize that this is starting way off the mark of the vane of this >forum) I finally saw Zen sitting on my bookshelf last week and decided >to finally read it. If you have not read this book, nothing of the >following is going to make any sense (except possibly to Doug Trainor). Rossi is correct in one sense in that everything indeed makes sense to me, but that is just a random thing. I in no way want to be associated with this piece of, err, literature! Douglas ``Zen fascists will control you'' Trainor