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 <whats...@gmail.com> 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 everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to