Nice work Brad. What you don't like about music is what makes your body survive in both pulmonary and circulatory systems. They probably are the physiological root to our connection to rhythm and muscular bonding. As for semiotics, the only way I use it is in the ability to define the structure of systems artistically. But the terms denotatitve and connotative are much older that Semiotics and have been torn form their roots by philosophers and scientists who believe that they can replace the pleasure principle of Poetic Art with the science of communication. They are the ones who end up using math and have orgasms over the beauty of Math as opposed to Beethoven. I think they just have tin ears.
Both terms are the two sides of poetic diction and have been used much longer than any of the sciences existed. They are the two sides of performance diction. In a sentence they are analogous to "key words" i.e. nouns and their modifiers and active verbs and their modifiers, which are the primary carriers of base meaning in sentence structure. In the old telegraph system, they were the base words used in the telegram. Any other words are connotative or supply interpretation to those words by putting a frame around them. In speech and singing we do the same through the use of stress accent. You can take any difficult poem and remove all but the key words and achieve a sense of the meaning that you must communicate to an audience. Putting back the additional and supplying stress accent to the ones you choose gives you your unique interpretation towards those key words, i.e. the context in which those words are to be understood. Per-form-ance means to make the form or structure clear to an audience in the act of dialogue. Reflection in Action, as defined by the late Donald Schoen is what Artists do in the act of expanding the communication of base forms into a dialogue between audience and performer. Why we do it, is hard wired into our brains through the mechanism of pleasure. The same reason we practice sex. Biology had some purpose in providing such things to us as desirable activities. Now, do any of you know anything about Information Theory and if so, could you explain it simply because I'm not sure I can. I could however add intelligently to a good explanation, from my own work which relates to what I couldn't get Harry to explain about the meaning of his assumption's key words. What he gave me was not precise enough to analyze denotatively. Regards, Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Ray Evans Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 7:29 AM Subject: Re: RANT & Three basic realms > > Ray Evans Harrell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Ray Evans Harrell wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I may be dumb about this but to me all of your descriptions > > are > > > > connotative. > > > > > > How about a good denotative definition or two? > > > > > [snip] > > > > Brad answered: > > > > > I would argue that there is no such thing as a denotative > > definition > > > > > simpliciter. > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > So much for that attempt at some kind of clarity. Also 400 > > years of > > > > poetry > > > > just went down the drain. Here is something that came to me > > today. > > > > > > How curious. I would have thought my hypothesis would > > > be very *pro*-poetry, since it seems to me that poetry > > > really "pushes" words to their limits, so that the "spectrum" > > between > > > denotation and connotation becomes instead a 2-dimensional space, > > > and it is not just the case that some words get used in > > > more emotional and others in more factual ways, but also > > > that some words get used [in poetry] in ways that are > > > both more factual and more emotional. > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Everyone has to be a Romantic or a Classicist but in the real world > > there are structural rules that make understanding possible and > > education not a futile gesture. Like the Medical systems of the > > body that do not really exist but are helpful if a Doctor is going to > > operate on you. > > I do not think I disagree. > > > Denotative and Connotative are Poetic Diction terms > > that are used in performance to make poetry clear to an audience. > > I thought these were grammarian, semiotician, et al. terms. > I thought they were deployed by "empiricists" to > argue that facts are true and values are just personal > opinion. > > > The creative types, like yourself, often have to rely on the likes of > > us poor performance types to make you understood. But that is OK > > since we do know there is a difference between the meaning and > > interpretive stress of a simple poetic sentence. We also know, that > > the meaning is many layers deep and practice those layers as our games > > instead of being involved in fruitless math exercises that are > > compared to Beethoven symphonies. > [snip] > > I like: "fruitless math exercises that are [that] > compared to Beethoven symphonies". I also believe that > mathematical "depth" may be "thinner" than artistic > *depth*. > > However, there are a few things in computerland > that have humanistic value even if not the same kind of > depth as a Beethoven string quartet [you know I am ethically > opposed to the Fuhrer-and-followers-and-mass- > public structure of symphonies which is not appropriate for > free persons to participate in]. > > I can think of one example of a kind of computer program > which in itself has no depth or beauty, but which > greatly facilitates persons producing depth and beauty: > word processing software (which completes the liberation from > scribal copying which the printing press began). > > But I have come across two humanistic computer ideas > which I think have intrinsic beauty and elegance: SGML and APL. > > http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/sgmlnote.htm > http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/APL.html > > These may not be comparable to Bach's or Beethoven's music, > but maybe they are somewhat comparable to great > architecture. > > "Yours in discourse...." > > \brad mccormick > > -- > Let your light so shine before men, > that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16) > > Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21) > > <![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
