eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (06/17/91)
In article <9106150215.AA13482@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes:
;
;Eliot approaches with a sinister look in his eye.
Yes.
Let's back up a bit to Stephen Pope's posting a while ago, requesting
responses to a planned CMJ editorial (which I don't think appeared this
month -- but then I don't read CMJ very carefully).
Pope briefly, in his own way, expressed some concern over his perception
that computer music, as "an art form," is in trouble.
Of course art form qua art form has been in trouble -- in
fact has been dead, completely devitalized, completely without
interest -- for arguably 20 years; arguably 70 years; arguably longer,
but not arguably inarguable. In particular, what happens in "computer
music" is of no interest --- insofar as music is NOT considered,
in the first place, NOT as an impetus for research, NOR as an expression of
technology, BUT as a vehicle which merely ASSISTS in the legitimization
of technology and NOTHING more.
What I mean is that music is fundamentally of no interest right now.
It is not an ascendant art: what music's had to do and say, its
various modes of existence, its acheivements and non-acheivements
all belong elsewhere, not within the framework of accelerated
consciousness. Music is time-consuming, repetitious, formalistic,
non-visual, non-informative, linear, unimmediate, and uncomfortably
entrenched in a lutheran work-ethic that belies its own marginality.
Music is now nothing more than a metaphor of its own inadequacies. Music
is finished and how has to become something else altogether that is non-
formalistic, not time-consuming, not repetitious, an instrument of
information, non-linear, immediate, technological, and insurmountably
distanced from every claim to non-functionality, to every last
glimmer of legitimizing aesthetic.
It makes no sense to think about "computer music," or "technology and
music," or "artificial intelligence and music," (or "music and
cognition") or "composers and theorists." There are only "computers,"
"cognition," "theorists." Music is either grounds for the happy
amateur exchange of synthesizer patches and on a larger scale the
exploitation of certain increasingly dull media interactions. There
is no pure subject attached to "music," no divestment of its own
history.
This article may not be reproduced other than on USENET or for
private use without the author's direct consent.
-Handelman
-CSL
-PU
-NJISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) (06/17/91)
In article <10816@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: > Music is time-consuming, repetitious, formalistic, >non-visual, non-informative, linear, unimmediate, and uncomfortably >entrenched in a lutheran work-ethic that belies its own marginality. >Music is now nothing more than a metaphor of its own inadequacies. Music >is finished and how has to become something else altogether that is non- >formalistic, not time-consuming, not repetitious, an instrument of >information, non-linear, immediate, technological, and insurmountably >distanced from every claim to non-functionality, to every last >glimmer of legitimizing aesthetic. > What you are saying, Eliot, is that music has to undergo a transformation; and when it emerges from that transformation, it will no longer be music! I am not about to dismiss such a metamorphosis out of hand; but before you start weaving a cocoon for music, I would like to take a look at some of those attributes you pinned on it. I get the impression that you meant them to be pejorative, but I suspect that at least some of them deserve a bit of defending. Let us start with "time-consuming." I'm not quite sure what you have in mind here. Almost EVERYTHING is time-consuming. After all, life is nothing but a continuous interval on some universal time scale during which we attribute some form of existence to that matter which is the body. To a great extent the "business of living" is nothing more than the decisions we make to pass through that interval of time; and I see no reason to hang any value judgment on any decisions to pass the time by engaging in music behavior. Now I do not want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps it was not the CONSUMPTION of time which concerned you as much as some measure of the EFFICIENCY with which that time is consumed. In other words whatever it is that allocating x units of time to a music experience achieves could be just as well achieved by some other activity which occupies y units of time, where y is significantly (in some sense of that word) less than x. I have sort of a mixed response to this approach. I certainly do not enjoy doing things which I feel are wasting my time. My reaction to such activities is to try not to do them but not to interfere with others doing them unless they entail some kind of threat to my personal well-being. On the other hand while I may object to wasting my time, I am not particularly concerned with making sure that my span of time on earth is as closely packed with experiences as I can manage. Back in my high school days, I once heard Archibald MacLiesh go on about the blessings of a day on which you do absolutely nothing; and the older I get, the more I appreciate that statement. What I am trying to say is that efficiency is not a metric which we use to evaluate the passing of time. Indeed, such attempts at evaluation may, themselves, be a waste of time (at least as far as my own life is concerned). I guess what I am saying is that life, for me, is more a matter of making decisions to pass the time than one of making meta-decisions to evaluate those decisions. Let us now move on to "repetitious;" and, in doing so, I think we have to bring in "non-informative" (as least if we are to deal with the technical sense of the word "information"). This brings us to one of my own favorite subjects of expectations. To a great extent the decisions we make as we go through life depend heavily on such expectations. That is, it is often the case that the decisions we make are guided by our ability to predict their consequences. Such expectations have their cognitive foundations in repetitions--the recognitions that the sameness of the situation begets the sameness of the consequences. Nevertheless, perfect predictability is rarely viewed as a virtue in life. Indeed, if everything could be predicted, life would not be worth living. There would be no "information," in the technical sense of the word, in our experiences. On the other hand the opposite extreme is no better. When information is maximized, we lose all our powers to predict: a decision made by chance is as as good as any other decision. In some circumstances such a situation can be a door to a great adventure, but I suspect most of us are quite thankful that all of life is not such a radical adventure! For this reason I believe that we, as behaving agents, tend to seek about a middle ground between the extremes of absolute predictability and total noise. I am not sure it is possible to chart that middle ground, nor is it necessarily desirable to do so. Perhaps all that really matters is our ability to recognize when we are drifting into one of the extremes and what we do to oppose that drift (if we do anything at all). In any event as far as music is concerned, I think it is a mistake to accuse it of being "non-informative." Music has long been an arena in which we have been able to exercise this balance between information and predictability. Music can be BOTH informative and non-informative (perhaps at the same time); and I would count that as an asset rather than a liability. Furthermore, since repetition is one of the keys to the predictable side of the music experience, it should now be apparent that I would also regard IT as an asset. I am not quite sure what you mean by "formalistic." If you are using the word to refer to repetition on some high level of construction, then I would say that it is as much an asset as is repetition at the lower level. Another reading would imply some sort of reduction to a formal axiomatic system. I cannot imagine that this is what you have in mind, simply because all attempts to come up with such a system of axioms thus far have yielded virtually no promising results. (After all, was this not one of the reasons for holding Balaban's paper up to criticism?) Is music "non-visual?" It certainly is if you close your eyes! On the other hand most of us do not keep our eyes closed when we listen to music; and I, for one, tend to believe that our different sensory systems tend to interact whether or not we wish (or will) them to do so. Part of my own enjoyment of "live" experiences is visual. For me music is a behavior, and my visual observation of motor aspects of that behavior can be as important as my auditory impressions of the consequences of that same behavior. Visual stimulation may not be the DIRECT medium of music; but I would still be reluctant to write music off as being "non-visual." Is music "linear?" If all you are concerned with is the interval of time it occupies, then I suppose you can say it is. After all, unless you want to start playing games with time travel, the passage of time is, itself, linear. However, the way in which music FILLS an interval of time is hardly linear. For better or worse, my initial research into computers and music was predicated on the assumption that music could tell us things about concurrency and parallelism which we could not arrive at through intuitions based on constructs like time-sharing or semaphores. I think I still believe this to be the case, by which I mean that there is more to both the definition and the management of events in a music experience than there is in any of our current architectures for either parallel or distributed processing. This does not mean that the study of music will make us better system architects, but it can at least remind us of stones we have left unturned. As far as immediacy is concerned, I would argue that a music experience is as immediate as you make it. Certainly, the study of theory tends to abstract away the immediacy of the music experience. If theory is your only interest, then your accusation is quite valid. However, for better or worse, I am one of those who believes that there are grounds where theory and practice can meet; and I continue to believe that the PRACTICE of music, even when it involves nothing more than sitting in a room listening to a recording, can be about as immediate as you can get. After all, if the music passes at the same rate that time passes, how can it NOT be immediate? This leaves us with one last accusation: "uncomfortably entrenched in a lutheran work-ethic that belies its own marginality." This is not an accusation of music but of a society which engages in music behavior. As a criticism of society, I agree with it. I am no less comfortable with prevailing attitudes than you are and probably even more uncomfortable with those who would suggest that these are the attitudes of "all the good people." The question then becomes one of what we are to do about such a corruption of social attitudes. I suspect the principle difference between us is that I spend a lot of time walking around the tree trying to find the best way to shake it while you are more concerned with whether an axe or a chain saw is more appropriate for cutting the tree down. I must confess that I do not think I have been doing very well. The tree is far to big for any one man to have much physical impact on it, and I still do not understand its physics well enough to properly deploy any volunteer assistants. Besides, I suspect I could manage well enough if you were to succeed and bring me into a Brave New World of experiences. However, I do not think you could erase all my memories of past music experiences. Here in Singapore the radio is quite unsatisfying, and my own recordings have not yet arrived. Memory is one of the few things that sustains me, and I am delighted to see how well it can work. I guess what I am saying is that you can (and maybe even should) hack away at prevailing social attitudes; but I shall remain in command of my PERSONAL attitudes towards music. In concluding, I hope you realize, Eliot, that I am not offering these remarks as an attack but rather a challenge. Perhaps what I am saying is that you may be confusing the baby and the bath water, going after music itself when your real target is what prevailing trends have done to music. Now it may be that you cannot sort out these two aspects, but I felt obliged to at least raise the question. =============================================================================== Stephen W. Smoliar Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge SINGAPORE 0511 BITNET: ISSSSM@NUSVM "He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson
eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) (06/18/91)
In article <9106170116.AA23209@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes: ;In article <10816@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot ;Handelman) writes: ;> Music is time-consuming, repetitious, formalistic, ;>non-visual, non-informative, linear, unimmediate, and uncomfortably ;>entrenched in a lutheran work-ethic that belies its own marginality. ;>Music is now nothing more than a metaphor of its own inadequacies. Music ;>is finished and how has to become something else altogether that is non- ;>formalistic, not time-consuming, not repetitious, an instrument of ;>information, non-linear, immediate, technological, and insurmountably ;>distanced from every claim to non-functionality, to every last ;>glimmer of legitimizing aesthetic. ;> ;What you are saying, Eliot, is that music has to undergo a transformation; and ;when it emerges from that transformation, it will no longer be music! I am not ;about to dismiss such a metamorphosis out of hand; but before you start ;weaving a cocoon for music, I would like to take a look at some of those ;attributes you pinned on it. I get the impression that you meant them to ;be pejorative, but I suspect that at least some of them deserve a bit of ;defending. ;Let us start with "time-consuming." I'm not quite sure what you have in mind ;here. Almost EVERYTHING is time-consuming. After all, life is nothing but a ;continuous interval on some universal time scale during which we attribute some ;form of existence to that matter which is the body. To a great extent the ;"business of living" is nothing more than the decisions we make to pass through ;that interval of time; and I see no reason to hang any value judgment on any ;decisions to pass the time by engaging in music behavior. Why the quotes around "business of living," except to acknowledge that living is not a business? And that this thing life, so poorly characterized as a business, is made up of so few active decisions? But this is already too reproachfully philosophical, whereas I'm merely criticizing the agenda of music-research coordinated activity. I'm trying to say why "music research" and "computer music" and "music and this and that" don't count. AS AN ART FORM, I restricted myself to that. I mean not your music "behavior" (what kind of skinnerism is this?) but the importance that "art" must assume in order to be art. I believe that music has done what it has had to do, that the consciousness of our age -- if one can speak of "our age" -- is no longer musical, can no longer be musical, and can no longer develop along musical lines. Why I think this is irrelevant for now. Notice that I oppose A. Bloom, for whatever that's worth. Musical thinking tends therefore not to be thinking, but rather a sort of nostalgizing. You see: I'm trying to come up with an answer to what seems to me the most basic of all music-theoretical questions: "Why are all music theorists so dumb?" I mean Laske, Balaban, the rest of them --- can this be a coincidence? I assert that it cannot. ;Now I do not want to put words in your mouth, but perhaps it was not the ;CONSUMPTION of time which concerned you as much as some measure of the ;EFFICIENCY with which that time is consumed. No Steve, you're on the wrong track as far as I go. There is no music which is efficient music, though of course we all know that story (which I won't repeat here). The notion of form and structure -- expressed as crudely as possible, in other words, in Minsky's terms, runs something like this: "Play A, and then PLAY A AGAIN SO THAT IT CAN SINK IN." It is the notion of repetition AS pedagogy, as ear-training in vivo, the grounding of a ground, of a tendency to respond, of a piece of time to memorize. I tell you this because I recently was at a concert of "Bad Brains" and was appalled by the notion of "structure" the warmup bands brought to bear on their playing. Someone told them that in music everything is repeated 4 times AT LEAST. Webern wrote something like this: "whenever I write the 12th note I can't overcome the feeling that, somehow, the piece has come to an end." To some this will sound trivial and stupid, but to me this bears the mark of true genius. Webern wanted to collapse time, to refract it and beam it back. A colleague of mine, who wrote his dissertation on a piece of Webern's, made a loop of the piece so that he could hear it over and over until it sunk in. Webern didn't offer the structure of Bolero, with the consequence that at the end of the piece, you still don't know what the tune was. The structure of Bolero, thanks to modern science, is easily imposed on Webern, but we must ask: what BETTER, more interesting structures, has music devised? If I play Webern 2000 times, will I like it? Will I like Madonna? Epistemically: "I like Webern." "try this music, you'll like it." "what you are saying suggests that you will like this music." "Do you like my music." "Do you like any music." "Do you like your own music." "I like that music." But what better, more interesting, ways of knowing has music devised? Music: "knowledge as liking." "Liking as habit, that is, as repetition." Enough for today. --- This article has been written for the exclusive enjoyment of USENET readers. It may not be redistributed in whole or part except on USENET.
ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) (06/19/91)
In article <10856@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman) writes: > >Musical thinking tends therefore not to be thinking, but rather >a sort of nostalgizing. > >You see: I'm trying to come up with an answer to what seems to me the >most basic of all music-theoretical questions: "Why are all music >theorists so dumb?" I mean Laske, Balaban, the rest of them --- >can this be a coincidence? I assert that it cannot. > I am glad to see you get to the heart of the matter so quickly (and, at the same time, challenging Page as to whether or not such subject matter is the sort of thing he really wanted to see)! Of course, I tend to be skeptical about sweeping generalizations, even when they are formulated as questions. I do not think that ALL music theorists are so dumb. Rather, I would argue that music theory is as susceptible to Sturgeon's Law as is any other domain, meaning that I tend to dismiss about 90% of what I read in music theory to have been a waste of my time. FINDING that other 10% is often a neat trick, but a little bit of persistence helps. This is not to say that I am about to defend either Laske or Balaban. However, there may be another problem with your question, which is the assumption that there is some kind of common answer to it. To play a bit free with Tolstoy, I would argue that all good music theorists are basically alike, while each dumb one is dumb in his (or her) own way. You seem to be arguing that nostalgia is serving as some sort of underlying explanation for all manifestations of dumb music theory. Well, given that nostalgia is basically a matter of bringing the past into the present, I would argue that I can find it in the good stuff I read, too. (Just to lay my own cards on the table, I would offer up Lewin's phenomenology paper as an example of "good stuff." There is plenty of nostalgia there, even in its best parts; and I find that no cause for shame.) Therefore, I would urge you to be more specific. Take Balaban for example. My personal sense of accusation for this paper boils down to the fact that it is devoid of any intuition for its subject matter. As a matter of fact, given that it lays claim to TWO subjects--music theory and computer science--I think it lacks an adequate infrastructure of intuition for BOTH of them. Ultimately, it is little more than an exercise in putting together words and formulas "in the right way"--it has no story to tell. I call it a waste of time; you call it dumb. Nevertheless, we are looking at the same blackbird. Laske, on the other hand, is a different case for me. I think that Laske has a genuine intuition in the arena of philosophy, and he has been struggling for much of his career to harness that intuition to music. I think he has made a great mistake in trying to invoke the computer as an intellectual tool when his intuition for computers continues to fall short of his skills in philosophy. I also fear that he, too, lacks the necessary intuition in music; but I would prefer to hold off on making such a call until I have had more exposure to his work as a composer. As someone who continues to seek out that 10% of music theory which I do NOT regard as a waste of time, I think it is important to recognize this distinction. The Balaban paper we discussed discouraged me to the point that I would be very unlikely to seek out any of her subsequent publications unless I had some strong evidence that she had crossed some major intellectual barrier. On the other hand I view Laske as a man who just keeps trying to find the right way to express himself. (Look at the degree of variation among his papers in contrast with other writers who basically tell the same story with each new paper they write. Laske has not yet found his story, but he is putting so much effort into his attempts that I shall probably continue to return to his publications in the hope that he may some day get it right.) Clearly, I do not expect you to agree with my answer to the question you raised. Since I took the trouble to write this much, however, I hope it is clear that I agree that the question was worth posing. Nevertheless, I would prefer to refine it a bit before pursuing it further. =============================================================================== Stephen W. Smoliar Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge SINGAPORE 0511 BITNET: ISSSSM@NUSVM "He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (06/21/91)
In article <9106190528.AA17412@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >In article <10856@idunno.Princeton.EDU> eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot >Handelman) writes: >> >>Musical thinking tends therefore not to be thinking, but rather >>a sort of nostalgizing. >> >>You see: I'm trying to come up with an answer to what seems to me the >>most basic of all music-theoretical questions: "Why are all music >>theorists so dumb?" I mean Laske, Balaban, the rest of them --- >>can this be a coincidence? I assert that it cannot. >> >I am glad to see you get to the heart of the matter so quickly (and, at the >same time, challenging Page as to whether or not such subject matter is the >sort of thing he really wanted to see)! Of course, I tend to be skeptical >about sweeping generalizations, even when they are formulated as questions. >I do not think that ALL music theorists are so dumb. Rather, I would argue >that music theory is as susceptible to Sturgeon's Law as is any other domain, >meaning that I tend to dismiss about 90% of what I read in music theory to have >been a waste of my time. FINDING that other 10% is often a neat trick, but a >little bit of persistence helps. Hmmm... One might as well ask where that 10% of un-dumb palm-readers are, or the 10% of un-dumb tea-leaf readers. Sometimes the paradigm (to use a well-warn word) is the problem, not just the practicioner. It seems that music theory itself might be suspect. I'm sure the thoretician is just as likely to be kind to children and small animals as the rest of us. But the practice of music theory often seems to me much like nuclear physics limited to particles whose names contain the letter "e". -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) (06/23/91)
In article <1991Jun20.194837.19912@rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes: >In article <9106190528.AA17412@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET >(Stephen Smoliar) writes: >> Rather, I would argue >>that music theory is as susceptible to Sturgeon's Law as is any other domain, >>meaning that I tend to dismiss about 90% of what I read in music theory to >>have >>been a waste of my time. FINDING that other 10% is often a neat trick, but a >>little bit of persistence helps. > >Hmmm... One might as well ask where that 10% of un-dumb palm-readers >are, or the 10% of un-dumb tea-leaf readers. Most of them are probably practicing psychiatry! (Remember, these are people who are seriously consulted for advice. Some of them happen to have enough insight into human nature that they know how to give GOOD advice. If they happen to use palm lines or tea leaves to make up a story which will lend credibility to the advice, that does not lessen the value of the advice.) > Sometimes the paradigm >(to use a well-warn word) is the problem, not just the practicioner. >It seems that music theory itself might be suspect. I'm sure the >thoretician is just as likely to be kind to children and small animals >as the rest of us. But the practice of music theory often seems to me >much like nuclear physics limited to particles whose names contain the >letter "e". > Unfortunately, Ed, you have said nothing to support your case as far as the paradigm is concerned. Yes, there are those who practice music theory who may devote their lives to cataloging interval relationships in WOZZECK; but there are also thesis-hungry physics students who may very well end up looking at nothing other than "particles whose names contain the letter 'e'." We are still in the arena of practice! If you want to haul out paradigm, then you are obliged to say WHICH paradigms of music theory (if any) are making it "suspect" (to use your word). =============================================================================== Stephen W. Smoliar Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge SINGAPORE 0511 BITNET: ISSSSM@NUSVM "He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (06/25/91)
In article <9106230259.AA12032@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >In article <1991Jun20.194837.19912@rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes: >> Sometimes the paradigm >>(to use a well-warn word) is the problem, not just the practicioner. >>It seems that music theory itself might be suspect. I'm sure the >>thoretician is just as likely to be kind to children and small animals >>as the rest of us. But the practice of music theory often seems to me >>much like nuclear physics limited to particles whose names contain the >>letter "e". >> >Unfortunately, Ed, you have said nothing to support your case as far as the >paradigm is concerned. Yes, there are those who practice music theory who >may devote their lives to cataloging interval relationships in WOZZECK; but >there are also thesis-hungry physics students who may very well end up looking >at nothing other than "particles whose names contain the letter 'e'." We are >still in the arena of practice! If you want to haul out paradigm, then you are >obliged to say WHICH paradigms of music theory (if any) are making it "suspect" >(to use your word). Any theory of music which focuses on pitch and duration, to the exclusion of other factors, is nothing but a form of numerology. In fact, even more inclusive theories of music fall far short if they ignore the effect of music upon the mental state of the listener or practitioner. The goal of music is, after all, to produce things to be played and listened to, and not the production of grist for the analytic mill. My apologies any open-minded theorists out there who recognize the centrality of human experience to this thing we call "music." My hat is off to those distinguished few, and I am left with just one question for them: Why have you not succeeded in awakening your souless brethren? -Ed Hall, who is being a bit of a curmudgeon this week edhall@rand.org
ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.044117.8155@rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes: > >Any theory of music which focuses on pitch and duration, to the exclusion >of other factors, is nothing but a form of numerology. In fact, even >more inclusive theories of music fall far short if they ignore the >effect of music upon the mental state of the listener or practitioner. >The goal of music is, after all, to produce things to be played and >listened to, and not the production of grist for the analytic mill. > >My apologies any open-minded theorists out there who recognize the >centrality of human experience to this thing we call "music." My >hat is off to those distinguished few, and I am left with just one >question for them: Why have you not succeeded in awakening your >souless brethren? > If you had attended the Oakland meeting of the Society for Music Theory, you might have discovered that there are more of those "open-minded theorists" out there than you assumed. This is why I began my argument along this thread by invoking Sturgeon's Law. The "Good Guys" are out there, Ed; but they are always going to be a minority! As far as your final question is concerned, we probably both know the answer equally well: It is always going to be easier to complete a thesis, publish a paper, or receive a grant for being good a manipulating the symbols of your trade than for asking hard questions about behavioral practice and then revealing that you can only come up with bare splinters of answers. > -Ed Hall, who is being a bit of a curmudgeon this week I'm not feeling any better, myself, Ed; and I hope it has been clear that I have not been trying to "pick on you." Personally, I do not think any society ever offers much encouragement towards asking truly hard questions. The good news is that the people who ask them are rarely put off by the attitude of that society. =============================================================================== Stephen W. Smoliar Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge SINGAPORE 0511 BITNET: ISSSSM@NUSVM "He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson