On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:49:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian >> Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a >> new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that >> in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to >> the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing >> anything) and then gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the >> little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged >> reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. >> It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is >> different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely >> the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to >> the odd hallucinogenic experience. >> > > Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full > of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs > > While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they > hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent > representations of music. > > >> Can we encode the music of silence in binary? >> > > We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for > an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or > silent. > > > > OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math. >
I don't deny the richness of math beyond the associated symbols, nor do I deny the pervasiveness of its reach. I only say that is a motive of sense, not a generative source of sense or motive. As rich as math is though, it is one layer deep. Its power derives especially from the constraint on quality and interiority. I think the problem with comp is that it mistakes this lowest denominator uniformity for an essence, when in fact it is the very inversion of essence: it is the essence of the existential void - the default, the test pattern. The actual essence is in the fertility of direct participation, of significance and motive. By betting on comp, we bet on insignificance and entropy. Craig > Bruno > > > > > Craig > > >> >> Kim >> >> >> >> >> >> On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy >> watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do >> listening to them. >> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
