Well, back to the "business" at hand. On Sat, 7 Oct 1995, Jeffrey M.
Peacock wrote to me:
> Hi Bil,
>
> Just read your message...don't apologize for the philosophical
> banter...i don't get enough of it since graduating...grin...
>
> I don't know if I totally agree with you on the Witt. front...I pose
> a question for you...is your reference to the positivists one which relies
> on Wittgenstein's disciples more than Wittgenstein himself??
Sorry, but I'm not that familiar with Wittgenstein's views; however, I
was concerned that you may have been quoting him without understanding
the position of logical positivism. I'm convinced by the following that
you are familiar the phiolosophical underpinnings.
>
> The reason I ask goes back to the simplicity inherent in Ludwig's
> quite simple assertion that I cannot express that which does not exist in
> language...I don't think one HAS to read any further into that...of course
> there are further implications BUT, my only point was to say that music is
> its own language which exists in a place not ruled by the atomic elements of,
> say, first predicate calculus...wouldn't u agree?
I agree that there are many feelings and emotions that just cannot be
expressed well in prose. Poety, and poetry combined with melody (songs),
serve to communicate those emotions and feelings. Obviously, some people
are better at this than others, as some people are better at expressing
themselves using prose. Language has its limitations, but those who are
more skilled can overcome some of those limitiations. However, there
probably will always be a gulf between what can be expressed in "mere
words," and the vast range of feelings that can be expressed and felt in
music. One of the problems here is that we have been using the word,
music, whithout adequately defining this complex term. I, for one, would
be able to make only a feeble attempt at doing so, but, as with
education, because we have all experienced it, we think we understand it
when we most likely hold many naive conceptions about the subject. Yet,
we all, including recent list posters, use the term as if we agree on its
meaning. Then we proceed to elaborate upon recent experiences (...get off
your feet and jam!).
> If you recall, my original post brought up Witt. because I was saying
> that I could not understand how it is that someone cannot love the music
> I love...similarly, how I cannot love the music someone else loves...because
> this is subjective and we share no common "language" in which we can express
> our differences, I am suggesting I should simply shut up and not analyze
> further...make sense?
>
Yes, of course. We can agree that, for example, Groove Collective's "Nerd
(Deep in the Mix)" is really "phat," but we mostly realize that our
feelings about what this statement means really depends upon our unique,
individual interpretation. Yet, we feel a shared appreciation, enjoyment
(choose an adjective) of that "music." Yeah, now I should shut up and not
analyze further, but it is in my character (to be anal).
> If you wish to delve deeper, I have no problem with that...hey, I'll
> be the first to say I love mental calasthenics... ;)
>
> --Jeff
>
Thanks, Jeff, for an excuse to run off, and apologies to those who felt
compelled to read, but were put off by the bull.
Bil
bdwyer@grove.ufl.edu