Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 70

Thread: Striated and Smooth Space.

  1. #31
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Only the sensible may escape the vortex .

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    Nothing so refreshing amid all the hackneyed comments on Mozart as a thread in which no one knows what the topic is.
    Yes, but we know that we don't know; we continue, because we believe, and read some McLuhan in 1972.

    Love ya! MMmmwahh!
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-18-2020 at 20:31.

  3. Likes Woodduck liked this post
  4. #33
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I read some Mary Baker Eddy in 1999. I learned that God is perfectly smooth and that our striations are all in our heads.

  5. Likes millionrainbows liked this post
  6. #34
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    The vortex sucks . Oboe-livian is yours to indulge .

  7. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    I read some Mary Baker Eddy in 1999. I learned that God is perfectly smooth and that our striations are all in our heads.
    That's Western thinking. In the East, they strive for smooth brains. Just ask John Cage. His brain was very smooth because he constantly polished it. It reflected light on those around him, sometimes blinding them.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-19-2020 at 21:53.

  8. #36
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    That's Western thinking. You're stuck in objectivity. In the East, they strive for smooth brains. Just ask John Cage. His brain was very smooth because he constantly polished it. It reflected light on those around him, sometimes blinding them.
    Typical of you to assume that I agree with Mary merely because I mention her. Any excuse to label people, right? Your brain could use a few more striations. Try some "Western thinking," commonly known as rationality.

  9. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    So serious!

    I'm not concerned with what anyone believes or doesn't believe. The bulk of replies were not taking this thread seriously, anyway. This has become a humorous thread, but it sounds like I have to start walking on eggshells.

    Just another "gotcha" exchange.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-19-2020 at 23:09.

  10. #38
    Senior Member Rogerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    On the border.
    Posts
    29,410
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tikoo Tuba View Post
    The vortex sucks . Oboe-livian is yours to indulge .
    Fabulous answer . ......
    “Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

  11. #39
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    So serious!

    I'm not concerned with what anyone believes or doesn't believe. The bulk of replies were not taking this thread seriously, anyway. This has become a humorous thread, but it sounds like I have to start walking on eggshells.

    Just another "gotcha" exchange.
    "You're stuck in objectivity" is just another another version of "you're a rationalist" or "you're an academic" or "you're a conservative" or any of the other vacuous labels you like to stick on people. That you haven't yet figured out why this habit is obnoxious (and very, very tiresome) after being told umpteen times is a bafflement. Maybe you have figured it out, but just enjoy being obnoxious. Or maybe such terms are just something you toss off in a semiconscious or unconscious state. Any of these seems plausible. (But I note that you've now removed the statement from your post...)

    I tend to assume that when people begin a statement with "You are...", they actually mean to say something about you. Well, to be clear: I have read Mary Baker Eddy, but I am not a Christian Scientist - and not, let me assure you, because I'm "stuck in objectivity." That phrase, like its semi-synonyms from your quasi-philosophical lexicon, is about as meaningful as a puff of Mary Jane. For all I know it originated at one of her soirees.

  12. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    "You're stuck in objectivity" is just another another version of "you're a rationalist" or "you're an academic" or "you're a conservative" or any of the other vacuous labels you like to stick on people.
    You are a rationalist, aren't you? I've heard you say so. And if you haven't said it, it is self-evident to me, and perhaps others as well.

    That you haven't yet figured out why this habit is obnoxious (and very, very tiresome) after being told umpteen times is a bafflement. Maybe you have figured it out, but just enjoy being obnoxious. Or maybe such terms are just something you toss off in a semiconscious or unconscious state. Any of these seems plausible. (But I note that you've now removed the statement from your post...)
    I removed it because I don't want to get an infraction. Yes, I "label" people based on how I perceive their thinking style, tastes, worldview...their "being" as I see it.

    I tend to assume that when people begin a statement with "You are...", they actually mean to say something about you. Well, to be clear: I have read Mary Baker Eddy, but I am not a Christian Scientist...
    It was a figure of speech mainly. I thought the discussion was lighter in nature. I know already that you not a Christian Scientist from what you've said in the forum. In that sense, I feel I "know you" to that extent.

    - and not, let me assure you, because I'm "stuck in objectivity." That phrase, like its semi-synonyms from your quasi-philosophical lexicon, is about as meaningful as a puff of Mary Jane. For all I know it originated at one of her soirees.
    From what you've said about John Cage and modern art in general on this forum, from my perspective, that is how I know you to be. It's a different mode of thought. It also applies to jazz and pop music; almost any music that is non-classical. It seems that a classical academic bias is evident. Composers like Cage go against the grain, apparently. But also, I would expect a little more respect for different thought styles, and acknowledgement of their validity, instead of constant invalidations.

    From my experience as a student in educational music departments, I think the more classical, academic music teachers need to be more flexible in their thinking, perhaps get involved in any available jazz studies, and thus become better teachers.
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-20-2020 at 17:13.

  13. #41
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Vivace !! : a smooth space directive given to a random orchestra of stoned bongo players . They won't resist it .

  14. Likes TalkingHead liked this post
  15. #42
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    You are a rationalist, aren't you? I've heard you say so. And if you haven't said it, it is self-evident to me, and perhaps others as well.
    No, I've never called myself a "rationalist." A person who thinks rationally, believes it's important to do so, and opposes sloppy thinking, is not a "rationalist." Rationalism is a philosophical position opposed to empiricism. I don't view the rational and the empirical as opposed.

    Yes, I "label" people based on how I perceive their thinking style, tastes, worldview...their "being" as I see it.
    I don't do that. I consider it presumptuous, which it generally is. My "being" as YOU see it isn't worth a flying fig, and if you create labels for that and talk as if they actually represent me I will tell you to fig off.

    I know already that you not a Christian Scientist from what you've said in the forum. In that sense, I feel I "know you" to that extent.
    Well, I suppose I'm glad you had that much right.

    From what you've said about John Cage and modern art in general on this forum, from my perspective, that is how I know you to be. It's a different mode of thought. It also applies to jazz and pop music; almost any music that is non-classical. It seems that a classical academic bias is evident. Composers like Cage go against the grain, apparently. But also, I would expect a little more respect for different thought styles, and acknowledgement of their validity, instead of constant invalidations.
    Characterizing people's "thought styles" and "modes of thought" and pinning labels on them is itself an invalidation. You don't know me as well as you think you do. I don't know you very well either, but I don't pretend to. If I think you've made an invalid statement, I won't hesitate to say so and to say why. That isn't personal invalidation. Your pinning labels on me, and publishing them on this forum, IS a form of personal invalidation, because it ignorantly and unjustly substitutes an image of me for the real me. How can I explain this more clearly?

    From my experience as a student in educational music departments, I think the more classical, academic music teachers need to be more flexible in their thinking, perhaps get involved in any available jazz studies, and thus become better teachers.
    Not having set foot in a music department for nearly fifty years (I am most definitely not an "academic," so ditch that label;you're much more of one than I am), I can't argue with you there. I'm very much an autodidact in virtually everything, musical and otherwise, and I comprehend music mainly through experience, creativity, feeling and intuition (so much for "rationalism"). I'm quite capable of understanding, and responding to, music outside the Western classical tradition, even though that's where my primary interest lies. As far as my evaluations of modern music are concerned - and please note that I don't say very much about it - I'd suggest caution in drawing conclusions about my "mode of thought" based on our differing evaluations of John Cage. My "thought style" doesn't keep me from "getting" Cage; I just don't find his work interesting or rewarding, or his thinking in any way revelatory or essential. He's a culture hero to a tiny minority of music lovers, but to me he's rather a quaint period piece. As with a lot of the avant garde art of the mid-to late 20th century, I don't find much "there" there. Warhol may be great wallpaper if you're into giant soup cans, chrome and black leather furniture, white polar bear rugs and miniskirts. I prefer Song Dynasty Chinese paintings, Northwest Coast Indian carvings, Indonesian rattan furniture, Persian rugs, and loose-fitting jeans. If it occurs to you that none of that seems to go very well with Wagner, it might then occur to you that trying to pin labels on me might be a futile exercise.

  16. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,963
    Post Thanks / Like
    Blog Entries
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woodduck View Post
    No, I've never called myself a "rationalist." A person who thinks rationally, believes it's important to do so, and opposes sloppy thinking, is not a "rationalist." Rationalism is a philosophical position opposed to empiricism. I don't view the rational and the empirical as opposed.
    I meant it generally, as a convenient label. I didn't want a philosophy course. You seemed very opposed to the French thinkers who are not straight rationalists.

    I don't do that. I consider it presumptuous, which it generally is. My "being" as YOU see it isn't worth a flying fig, and if you create labels for that and talk as if they actually represent me I will tell you to fig off.
    You must be one of those people who say they don't label people, and don't cast a shadow.

    Well, I suppose I'm glad you had that much right.
    I thought it didn't matter to you what I think.

    Characterizing people's "thought styles" and "modes of thought" and pinning labels on them is itself an invalidation.
    Yes, and I try to stay away from them when they start becoming toxic, or if the blend is unproductive.

    You don't know me as well as you think you do. I don't know you very well either, but I don't pretend to. If I think you've made an invalid statement, I won't hesitate to say so and to say why. That isn't personal invalidation.
    That's misleading. A person's ideas represent them in lots of ways, everyone included. If we disagree, the problem might not be a question of validity, but in the way we think, which can be vastly different. So the net effect of an invalidation of statements or ideas is by proxy an invalidation of the person, to that extent.

    Your pinning labels on me, and publishing them on this forum, IS a form of personal invalidation, because it ignorantly and unjustly substitutes an image of me for the real me. How can I explain this more clearly?
    But I see people pushing ideas which represent their worldview, education, etc. all the time. If they invalidate my ideas, then this is also a way of labelling, branding, or categorizing the ideas, and implicitly, the person who espouses the ideas. We're just not supposed to say it out loud.

    Not having set foot in a music department for nearly fifty years (I am most definitely not an "academic," so ditch that label;you're much more of one than I am), I can't argue with you there. I'm very much an autodidact in virtually everything, musical and otherwise, and I comprehend music mainly through experience, creativity, feeling and intuition (so much for "rationalism"). I'm quite capable of understanding, and responding to, music outside the Western classical tradition, even though that's where my primary interest lies.
    Well, many posts about music have struck me as academic, and would fit right in.

    As far as my evaluations of modern music are concerned - and please note that I don't say very much about it - I'd suggest caution in drawing conclusions about my "mode of thought" based on our differing evaluations of John Cage. My "thought style" doesn't keep me from "getting" Cage; I just don't find his work interesting or rewarding, or his thinking in any way revelatory or essential. He's a culture hero to a tiny minority of music lovers, but to me he's rather a quaint period piece.
    Really? The vitriol is evident in many other instances.


    As with a lot of the avant garde art of the mid-to late 20th century, I don't find much "there" there. Warhol may be great wallpaper if you're into giant soup cans, chrome and black leather furniture, white polar bear rugs and miniskirts. I prefer Song Dynasty Chinese paintings, Northwest Coast Indian carvings, Indonesian rattan furniture, Persian rugs, and loose-fitting jeans. If it occurs to you that none of that seems to go very well with Wagner, it might then occur to you that trying to pin labels on me might be a futile exercise.
    I don't think anyone wants to be labelled, do they?
    Last edited by millionrainbows; Mar-21-2020 at 01:33.

  17. #44
    Senior Member Tikoo Tuba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    578
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Striated space beings fear the power of a smooth space Zook
    may cause them to appear foolish to one another . Yes , a Zook
    is occasionally impish and , in peace to this , god gave you the
    fermata . Pause : realize nothing bad has really happened ,
    proceed with free will .

    Woven striations are the earth we stand on .

    I have met Zooks . They are of a lovely Light .
    Last edited by Tikoo Tuba; Mar-21-2020 at 20:33.

  18. #45
    Senior Member Woodduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Ashland, OR
    Posts
    18,302
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by millionrainbows View Post
    I meant ["rationalist"] generally, as a convenient label. I didn't want a philosophy course. You seemed very opposed to the French thinkers who are not straight rationalists.
    I'm opposed to the irrational and the pretentious wherever I find it. (What is a "straight rationalist"? Someone who always makes sense? Maybe you need a philosophy course.)

    You must be one of those people who say they don't label people, and don't cast a shadow.
    If you catch me labeling you with terms of "convenience" I expect you to point it out. (I don't know about that shadow business. I'll check when the sun comes out.)

    I thought it didn't matter to you what I think.
    It doesn't matter what you think, but it does matter what you write. That's what we do here. Write.

    A person's ideas represent them in lots of ways, everyone included. If we disagree, the problem might not be a question of validity, but in the way we think, which can be vastly different. So the net effect of an invalidation of statements or ideas is by proxy an invalidation of the person, to that extent.
    Well that's quite the rambling bit of nonsense. I guess all of us who disagree about stuff are busy invalidating each other's persons. After six years on the forum I must be invalidated to the point where there's nothing left of me. I'd better go look in the mirror to see if I even have a reflection.

    But I see people pushing ideas which represent their worldview, education, etc. all the time. If they invalidate my ideas, then this is also a way of labelling, branding, or categorizing the ideas, and implicitly, the person who espouses the ideas. We're just not supposed to say it out loud.
    You just said it out loud twice and it isn't any more reasonable the second time.

    Well, many [of your] posts about music have struck me as academic, and would fit right in.
    They would fit right into to your own constructed reality. Meanwhile there's objective reality.

    I don't think anyone wants to be labelled, do they?
    No. So stop making excuses for doing it.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •