On Sunday, March 16, 2014 11:38:41 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sunday, March 16, 2014 11:05:45 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 6:57 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Friday, March 14, 2014 5:11:56 AM UTC-4, Kim Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 14 Mar 2014, at 1:12 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Information must be made evident through sensory participation, or it >>>>> is nothing at all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Craig, you have just explained to me the basis of my discalculia. No >>>>> one else has ever managed to do that in all my 57 years. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Cool! Thanks Kim. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Music was always instantaneously understandable to me because of the >>>>> way it gained my deep sensory participation whereas mathematics was >>>>> always >>>>> just a bunch of squiggles on paper that to me were as dry as dust and as >>>>> terrifyingly remote as Egyptian hieroglyphs. Math evoked no sensuous >>>>> universe of qualia - for me. I have often felt that for those with a high >>>>> degree of numeracy, that the hieroglyphs of mathematics evoke the same >>>>> sensory participation as music does for me. Bruno, for example composes >>>>> and >>>>> reads mathematical sentences with the same ease as I have in listening to >>>>> even quite complex music and writing it down from ear in standard music >>>>> notation. I sometimes refer to myself as a "mathemusician". >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, my wife is a musician and I have picked up a little from her about >>>> the different kinds of personalities in an orchestra. >>>> >>> >>> And Craig still appeals to the authority of what his wife has studied, >>> >> >> What are you talking about? I'm appealing to my wife's anecdotes of how >> the personalities of some classical musicians are neurotically tied to >> their sheet music. >> >> not indicating what/who is doing the sensing in his theory, >>> >> >> I have indicated over and over that when sense is primordial, there >> doesn't need to be any additional who or what 'doing' the sensing. There is >> nothing but sensing. >> >> >>> just pointing to the irreducible relations of "patterns that are not >>> even patterns", "computers host meaningless patterns that we find >>> significant" (like hosts of a dinner party? But then they would sense >>> things, a host understands his own function etc.) I'll never understand you >>> on those terms. But on your website, I do find a lot of Bruno's terminology >>> and formulations of problems. >>> >> >> I don't find much of Bruno's terminology in my website. Sometimes I >> discuss threads from here on there, but otherwise I'm not sure what you >> mean, other than to insinuate some kind of plagiarism or lack of >> originality. >> >> >> >>> Maybe one day you will have the class to acknowledge that Bruno and comp >>> have helped you articulate or conceive of certain things in fresh ways, at >>> least. But I wouldn't count on it. PGC >>> >> >> I do acknowledge that I have used my time talking with Bruno and others >> here to help articulate and conceive of things. Maybe not as much as I have >> learned from Chalmers, Deleuze, Wilber, etc. but so what? Why am I being >> held to some weird standard where I am expected to give thanks to my >> influences publicly? Why is this something that you have a right to an >> opinion on? >> >> >>> >>> >> Being able to improvise is a different kind of talent than being able >>>> to read and interpret music written on a page. >>>> >>> >>> By measure of your own theory of sense experience: do YOU have >>> experience in either? >>> >> >> No, nothing to do with my own sense experience. My wife is a flutist and >> a flute instructor. She has students. She talks about their progress. Some >> have a natural ability to improvise and others do not. Those who can >> improvise often have more difficulty with reading music. Is that >> controversial for you? Do you deny it? What is your accusation about other >> than the compulsion to attack me personally? >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Music theory is different from music performance. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that's why we use different words, obviously. But from your theory: >>> explain why both appear necessary and provide some definition of music >>> (what and who is sensing) >>> >> >> Music theory is not necessary. Music performance is necessary. Music >> theory is an optional layer of analytical insights that relate to the >> broader, but flatter scientific context that musical structures fit into. >> Music theory provides no definition of who is sensing, and neither does >> performance. In my view 'who' is a nested event within sense. >> Fundamentally, sense is not a matter of who, but of 'which' experience >> occurs when. >> >> >>> >>> We all have different ranges of sensitivity and some people are able to >>>> 'hear the music' inside an equation, while others perform incredible >>>> mathematical feats just by swinging a tennis racket. >>>> >>> >>> Some people like to fish in muddy waters and sometimes they find gold >>> there... They also sometimes tell other people of their "great catch", >>> without convincing evidence/explanations. PGC >>> >> >> I have no problem with hanging on to the gold myself. If other people are >> interested in finding it, I am happy to oblige, but I am certainly not >> obligated to give them a piggy back ride. >> > > If there is nothing other than sensing, then why use all the pronouns and > nouns you do? There are no objects... so why would we need nouns and how > would the notion of a theory even work, given that a theory is a > noun/object. >
There are no objects without sense, but certainly there is the sense of objects. Given sufficient distance between one sensory episode and another, one may encounter the other as if it were an object rather than a feeling. Episodes which are much slower and faster than our episode are presented as objectified mechanical tropes...structures, bodies. > > You can't strike gold if sense contradicts its existence. PGC > Contradiction requires sense to 'exist'. Craig > > >> >> Craig >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Craig >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'll now watch the clip you posted! >>>>> >>>>> Kim >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kim Jones B. Mus. GDTL >>>>> >>>>> Email: [email protected] >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> Mobile: 0450 963 719 >>>>> Phone: 02 93894239 >>>>> Web: http://www.eportfolio.kmjcommp.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *"Never let your schooling get in the way of your education" - Mark >>>>> Twain* >>>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>> >>> >>> -- >> 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. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
