On 03 Aug 2012, at 15:10, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 02 Aug 2012, at 21:34, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

I do not want to suggest a definition, but have a question concerning comp frame. When I improvise, often in Jazz or Rock context the free will question becomes fuzzy in this way:

Sometimes you hit a point where all the patterns/formulas you've learned; i.e. the kind of stuff you can play in your sleep, all the pre-calculated, time-proven stuff, runs out... at which point you risk repeating yourself in redundancy. At this point, I am forced to take a risk and plunge into the icy waters of all things I haven't played yet.

When it works, it feels like magic as instant composition; but even when it doesn't, which makes up the great majority of these situations, and a technical error results from forced decision, as Brent says, out of time constraint, you can "ride the mistake". And on some occasions it can change the whole musical situation and take the band in a different direction: like we wanted to close after so many choruses, but we extend "because somebody found that weird thing" and riding it was pretty nice and it echoes into coda and ending, everybody quoting it.

So from 1p perspective the technical error is not intended. Not a free decision and rather embarrassing, taken out of context.

But this can reverse from point of view of the band/audience after the mistake has proven a fruitful input for some new groove. Then everybody agrees it was cool, and that we fully intended and meant that to happen in a "that's what music is about" kind of way. But then it can also be a random bullshit mistake; not fruitful at all. Strangely, even though I decide to "take the plunge", I don't really feel like I'm in control of this. But if venue, band, audience is cool; I definitely control it more, than when a bunch of professors are evaluating me.

So my question for weak comp frame: who/what else is in control when 1p makes a forced, time-constrained decision?

It seems to me that you answered the question in the question. If it is the 1p which makes the decision, the one in control is the 1p itself (that is, with other name, the inner god, the unnameable self, the subject, the (first) person). It is a mixture of truth and beliefs.


Thanks for the answer.

It makes sense that 1p tends to play more bullshit, forcing time constrained decision, when it believes itself to be evaluated (by some professor for example), than when 1p believes itself to be in a "truer" or less contrived musical playing situation, like the audience is sufficiently drunk, people are supportive and laughing etc. By truth you mean 1p truth, right?

That might depend on how we define truth and first person. Usually I use truth in the sense of the "outer God", which I think is plausibly not a person. In some context I prefer to talk like if it was a person, because it prevents the confusion between truth (a semantic notion) and the syntax describing those true propositions (frequent confusion). In AUDA, the first person is defined by a conjunction between belief (Bp) and truth (p). As truth cannot be defined by the machine, p just means the assertion of p by the machine. This works well in the ideal case of the self-referentially correct machine (as such a machine will never assert a false proposition). Such simplification makes the math accessible, and that is what is needed to recover physics/theology from numbers, but it makes is hard to be applied on human real life situations, like when playing guitar in front of a professor or a public .... :)



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to