Satoshi Akima wrote:

>Stirling Newberry writes:
>
>>These two learned gentlemen have been arguing in circles - saying that
>>whatever else, we can't think of music except as language, because we must
>>think in language, and therefore if we think about music it must be as a
>>language.
>
>I must say I was thoroughly bewildered by Stirling's response.

This is an important point in reading what people write about art.  A
large fraction of the time they are working out their own way of being,
and therefore what they say has no correlation to the meaning of the
words.  Dealing with people on a personal basis consists, quite often, of
understanding when they are talking and the words are chosen specifically
for the emotional value they have, rather than the meaning.  Being, Music,
Language all have meanings to Satoshi that have zero to do with Being,
Music and Language in any accessible sense, and everything to do with his
feelings and relationship to these objects.  With what keeps him going and
listening and thinking.

Since the conversation you are having has nothing to do with the matter of
music and language and their nature, and everything to do with your going
about your life and living - arguing against your viewpoint is a waste of
time.  I am simply pointing out the descrepencies between your narrative
and logic and facts.  I do this for the same reason I point out to people
the errors in Amadeus or Quo Vadis or Pearl Harbor - the point of
historical drama isn't history, but story.  One comments on the errors so
that confusion of the two does not occur.  The point of your argument isn't
the nature of music and language, you've already bellowed out what they are
and that you have a completely closed mind on the issue - the point is your
living with your own life and your own experience.

Stirling Newberry
[log in to unmask]
http://www.mp3.com/ssn