----- Original Message ----- From: "Reggie Bautista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 29, 2003 1:54 PM Subject: Re: memorization vs. idea space position
> I wrote: > > > I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, but I disagree about > >this > > > point. > > > Yes, sometimes have ideas with potential but that are not fleshed out, > >but > > > there > > > are other circumstances where someone can actually have a great idea but > > > honestly have trouble translating it into written or spoken words (or > >other > > > equivalent symbols). > > Dan replied: > >One of the interesting parts of this is that this question is not well > >suited to empirical verification. We are discussing ideas that are > >worthwhile, but never get communicated to the outside world. I think it is > >safe to say that there exists at least some BS artists who insist that they > >had great ideas for a number of different things but they just can't put > >them into words. They also cannot put them into code, they cannot sketch > >them out, they cannot build them, etc. > > Agreed. > > Me: > > > For example, as a composer, I sometimes think in sound. Most of the > >time if > > > I hear a certain melody or harmony or tone color in my head, I can > > >translate that to written music or synthesizer settings or code in > >c-sound, but > > >sometimes I hear one of the above (especially tone colors) that I can't > >translate immediately > > >into any written, verbal, or "setting" form. > > Dan: > >Why not? If it is fully formed, what keeps you from it? I'm not trying to > >criticize you, I just don't understand how you cannot know exactly what you > >want but not be able to map it onto any nominal means of recording musical > >thought. > > I originally wrote that when I was pretty tired, and have two replies to > that. > 1) I sometimes will hear a complex orchestral timbre made of several > instruments playing together, and sometimes it takes a bit of trial and >error to exactly recreate the combination of sounds I'm hearing. For >example, I may first thing a flute is playing the highest note and a clarinet >the next highest, and that doesn't sound quite right, so I try switching those, >or replace the clarinet with another flute, or have the second note be a >clarinet and a flute together, etc. I can eventually > get to the sound I'm looking for, but it may take a while. The same is true > only more so with electronic music. Complex electronic timbres can be hard to pin > down right away, but I can usually create the sound I'm hearing in my head > with some time and trial and error. I appreciate the additional response, but it only leads to more questions. :-) When I do something like that, having a flash of an idea and then work to get it down, I find that my origional idea isn't fully there. The work getting it into a presentable form is also creative, not just a matter of writing things down. This is given as one of the reasons Phd candidates are encouraged to begin writing their dissertations as soon as possible. > > I more or less agree, but do you think there are ideas that could be > expressed > in a language that has not been developed yet? For example, 100 years > before > Newton, could someone have thought of a concept that required calculus to > express? How about to solve? Zeno's paradox can be adressed with calculus. It was not an inability to think about infinesmals that stopped the Greeks from developing calculus, it was their opinion that the whole thing was rather ridiculous that stopped them. Also, remember that Libnitz (sp) developed calculus in parallel with Newton. Or can ideas in calculus be expressed (albiet not as succintly) in > other > forms of math that existed at the time? (I've never taken calculus, so I > really > am curious.) They can even be described in words. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
