Skip Navigational Links
LISTSERV email list manager
LISTSERV - COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM
LISTSERV Menu
Log In
Log In
LISTSERV 17.5 Help - CLASSICAL Archives
LISTSERV Archives
LISTSERV Archives
Search Archives
Search Archives
Register
Register
Log In
Log In

CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Menu
LISTSERV Archives LISTSERV Archives
CLASSICAL Home CLASSICAL Home

Log In Log In
Register Register

Subscribe or Unsubscribe Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Search Archives Search Archives
Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: Musical Consistency Among Movements
From:
Jim Willford <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 2 May 2000 19:30:38 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Bernard Chasan wrote:

>The "music" we hear is created by physical entities known as "humans".
>The "music" has intrinsic significance because "humans" created it, listen
>to it, respond to it.

The argument you are presenting is essentially the same one presented by
Plato in the Euthyphro between Euthyphro and Socrates.  They were unable to
resolve the issue.  I suspect we won't succeed where Plato failed though it
would be very exciting if we did.

However, though it is true that we are physical creatures, we are also able
to distinguish other categories such as spirit, truth, essence, etc., which
have no discernable physical properties.  In the physical sense they don't
"exist." But they do have an "ideal" existence.  The concept of meaning
would evidently fall into one of these "ideal" categories.

As far as we know, no other life form is capable of making these kinds of
distinctions.  For all other physical creatures, we must assume, Bach's
music has no intrinsic meaning.  If it did, wouldn't every animal with a
brain find something congenial in the Goldberg Variations? On the contrary,
our cat, for example, finds Bach bewildering at any time and extremely
annoying during nap times.  Of course, this could be just a matter of taste
but that is an entirely different argument.

I wouldn't go as far as some of those irascible academics and physicists
such as Mr. Dawkins who can't sleep at night because there are people in
the world who still believe in things they cannot see.  But I also think
it's a mistake to impute powers or values where they don't exist.  That
would be like worshipping the sun or believing that the sound of thunder
is God yelling at us.

It isn't necessary to visit other worlds and discover alien life forms
for whom Bach's music has no meaning in order to illustrate this argument.
Visit any bar at two in the morning and you will find many life forms for
whom Bach's music has no intrinsic meaning or value whatsoever.

Meaning and value exist only where consciousness has achieved a significant
degree of self-awareness and the appreciation of serious music is itself no
small achievement.

Jim Willford
Toronto, Canada

ATOM RSS1 RSS2

COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM CataList Email List Search Powered by LISTSERV