scollins
class bud that is very well done :) great
Thread
Posts in chronological order
dysan
Excellent work about Mr BoMercury :)
hobbit in Rhye
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it.[/QUOTE]
It didn't "diminish" the track for me. Just gone the mystical aurora around something we don't know. I still like it, or even like it more. It's just another thing.
Also, those examples of yours are from science, which is very different from what we're talking here. Understanding some theorems doesn't make the theorem's proof any less challenging, but art is more subjective. Having my voice ruining that song 10 times per day can certainly break some rainbow (I spoke and am speaking from purely personal experience).
It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it.[/QUOTE]
It didn't "diminish" the track for me. Just gone the mystical aurora around something we don't know. I still like it, or even like it more. It's just another thing.
Also, those examples of yours are from science, which is very different from what we're talking here. Understanding some theorems doesn't make the theorem's proof any less challenging, but art is more subjective. Having my voice ruining that song 10 times per day can certainly break some rainbow (I spoke and am speaking from purely personal experience).
Sebastian
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.
hobbit in Rhye
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will.
People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first.
So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends.
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will.
People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first.
So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends.
ludwigs
I have always been fascinated with isolating parts and writing them down. I know lots of folk can't do this and I understand that there are many, many people who don't hear stuff that say, for example, people that have the ability to transcribe can. That's not in any way a bad thing. I can't do lots of stuff and appreciate others to highlight things that I don't have a clue about. There have been many instances of revelation accordingly.
If anything - once I have taken apart stuff it makes it more enjoyable to me cause each time I re-listen to the songs/pieces etc I now hear parts that weren't obvious to me before in my musical enjoyment. In a strange way, I also wonder why others don't hear that? But.....as mentioned earlier, I know that others do stuff that I can't fathom so it's a similar thing I guess - If you see my point?
If anything - once I have taken apart stuff it makes it more enjoyable to me cause each time I re-listen to the songs/pieces etc I now hear parts that weren't obvious to me before in my musical enjoyment. In a strange way, I also wonder why others don't hear that? But.....as mentioned earlier, I know that others do stuff that I can't fathom so it's a similar thing I guess - If you see my point?
Oscar J
Interesting post hobbit-in-Rhye!
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will.
People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first.
So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent dialogue here.
It's a bit like Keats telling Newton he was ruining the rainbow by unweaving it and Dawkins writing a book many many many years later making the case for the opposite: understanding how it works enhances your fascination for it, rather than diminishing it.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [b]hobbit-in-Rhye wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will.
People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first.
So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends.
[/QUOTE]
Excellent dialogue here.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b] Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
That is close to the truth, but I would argue that in actuality things are subtly but essentially different: science and art are two separate, distinct things, but they never occur in their pure forms. Science is a process driven by an element of artistic creativity to some extent, and you can't create art without the techniques and theories that you could argue are of a scientific nature. The two blend, in varying proportions, but they are still separate, to some extent identifiable concepts.
What Richard Dawkins fails to realize is that, while understanding a rainbow doesn't negate the enjoyment of its beauty, it does *change* the way in which this is enjoyed. The dichotomy is not between science and art, but between science and magic, science resulting in the enjoyment of knowing how something works, and magic resulting in the enjoyment of not understanding the workings/causes/nature of something. Both can be forms of beauty and both can result in profound art, but they are markedly different. As such, there has always been a distinction in art between (and an alternating successing in stylistic movements of) rationalism/naturalism and spiritualism (and mysticism)/romanticism.
[b]Sebastian wrote: [/b] Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
That is close to the truth, but I would argue that in actuality things are subtly but essentially different: science and art are two separate, distinct things, but they never occur in their pure forms. Science is a process driven by an element of artistic creativity to some extent, and you can't create art without the techniques and theories that you could argue are of a scientific nature. The two blend, in varying proportions, but they are still separate, to some extent identifiable concepts.
What Richard Dawkins fails to realize is that, while understanding a rainbow doesn't negate the enjoyment of its beauty, it does *change* the way in which this is enjoyed. The dichotomy is not between science and art, but between science and magic, science resulting in the enjoyment of knowing how something works, and magic resulting in the enjoyment of not understanding the workings/causes/nature of something. Both can be forms of beauty and both can result in profound art, but they are markedly different. As such, there has always been a distinction in art between (and an alternating successing in stylistic movements of) rationalism/naturalism and spiritualism (and mysticism)/romanticism.
thomasquinn 32989
[QUOTE]
[b]hobbit-in-Rhye wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will.
People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first.
So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends.
[/QUOTE]
You are essentially arguing for a distinction between philosophical objectivism (science) and philosophical subjectivism (art). While that is an interesting and quite defensible notion, I would point out that it has been debated (and found imperfect) numerous times throughout art history: this has been one of the most fundamental discussions in the field of aesthetics since the late 18th century.
The example you give does not, in my opinion, do justice to the nature of art or science. In the world of physics, hard science, many different views of the world and the universe coexist and contend with one another. There are certain mathematical notions that are universally accepted, but nothing is beyond debate, providing you can back up the debate in a form acceptable to scientific discourse. There are vast amounts of subjective reasoning involved in deciding (consciously or unconsciously) how to view a certain scientific concept. Take the dual nature of the photon (the particle that makes up light): it is both a wave and a particle, but what that means in practical terms depends on what scientific model of the universe you choose to adopt.
As for art - radically new artistic movements have, throughout history, been met with the same kind of hostility on the same scale as paradigm-shifting scientific movements, and the individual renegade artists faces essentially the same problems in gaining acceptance that the renegade physicist does. You might find the institutional theory of art interesting in this respect.
There is such a thing as non-Euclidian geometry, by the way.
[b]hobbit-in-Rhye wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Sebastian wrote:[/b]
Except that 'science' is also 'art' and 'art' is also 'science', which is in no small part what Dawkins (and many others) had been saying for ages.[/QUOTE]
The "is" above is rather rhetoric, isn't it? Some aspects of science belong to art and vice versa, but logically they are 2 different objects so they surely possede different traits. Art is subjected to a more personal interpretation. Science has more rules and standards - once you accept Euclid's axioms then the sum of a triangle's three angles is no way less than 180 degrees. You can make up your own axioms but they will struggle more to be accepted than a new kind of music will.
People may love Queen or hate Queen, life still goes on. But you will hardly going anywhere in geometry if you don't go through Euclid first.
So again, my previous post is only my individual interpretation about a song, no way I stated it as an universal truth. If Bohardy and you are still intrigued by the songs that you know inside out, then very good, very good indeed my friends.
[/QUOTE]
You are essentially arguing for a distinction between philosophical objectivism (science) and philosophical subjectivism (art). While that is an interesting and quite defensible notion, I would point out that it has been debated (and found imperfect) numerous times throughout art history: this has been one of the most fundamental discussions in the field of aesthetics since the late 18th century.
The example you give does not, in my opinion, do justice to the nature of art or science. In the world of physics, hard science, many different views of the world and the universe coexist and contend with one another. There are certain mathematical notions that are universally accepted, but nothing is beyond debate, providing you can back up the debate in a form acceptable to scientific discourse. There are vast amounts of subjective reasoning involved in deciding (consciously or unconsciously) how to view a certain scientific concept. Take the dual nature of the photon (the particle that makes up light): it is both a wave and a particle, but what that means in practical terms depends on what scientific model of the universe you choose to adopt.
As for art - radically new artistic movements have, throughout history, been met with the same kind of hostility on the same scale as paradigm-shifting scientific movements, and the individual renegade artists faces essentially the same problems in gaining acceptance that the renegade physicist does. You might find the institutional theory of art interesting in this respect.
There is such a thing as non-Euclidian geometry, by the way.
hobbit in Rhye
Thank you for the thoughtful posts, thomasquinn. I have been on a trip for several days so couldn't reply you sooner. You said that my examples didn't do justice to the distinction between art and science. Which examples would you choose then?
I know about the non-Euclidian geometry, but it's also another axiom-based branch. Everything inside it must be strict. It has struggled long and harder than any kind of art to be accepted. For a new music to be popular, it only needs to prevail to people's personal taste, which I repeated again and again above. The totally-unexpected success of Nirvana has pushed Grunge to its peak, while puzzled critics: just because it is the sound that the generation X craved, no more no less. Meanwhile for a new science to be baptised, it need to build a whole universe within: axioms that don't clash, theorems that are abundant enough, and results that fit into the reality. It may have its confusing moments (photon's dual nature as you mentioned, Godel's incompleteness theorems, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,...) but even its uncertainty has to be formulized. Don't observe a quantum system, she is shy!
I don't know about the debate in 18th century that you spoke of, maybe everything I said has been told (or negated) a thousand times. Doesn't make it a closed debate though, I think this kind of debate can't be closed off. I'm afraid I can't go any further, I don't even know half of the philosophy terms in your post. I don't know which came first, the egg or the chicken, I just eat them both ^^
To bring the topic back to Queen, they have some axioms for their music to begin with:
1) We didn't take ourselves too seriously
2) Deafen and blind 'em (the audience) in the 1st ten minutes
3) We never should repeat ourselves
Everything else came as consequences ^^
I know about the non-Euclidian geometry, but it's also another axiom-based branch. Everything inside it must be strict. It has struggled long and harder than any kind of art to be accepted. For a new music to be popular, it only needs to prevail to people's personal taste, which I repeated again and again above. The totally-unexpected success of Nirvana has pushed Grunge to its peak, while puzzled critics: just because it is the sound that the generation X craved, no more no less. Meanwhile for a new science to be baptised, it need to build a whole universe within: axioms that don't clash, theorems that are abundant enough, and results that fit into the reality. It may have its confusing moments (photon's dual nature as you mentioned, Godel's incompleteness theorems, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,...) but even its uncertainty has to be formulized. Don't observe a quantum system, she is shy!
I don't know about the debate in 18th century that you spoke of, maybe everything I said has been told (or negated) a thousand times. Doesn't make it a closed debate though, I think this kind of debate can't be closed off. I'm afraid I can't go any further, I don't even know half of the philosophy terms in your post. I don't know which came first, the egg or the chicken, I just eat them both ^^
To bring the topic back to Queen, they have some axioms for their music to begin with:
1) We didn't take ourselves too seriously
2) Deafen and blind 'em (the audience) in the 1st ten minutes
3) We never should repeat ourselves
Everything else came as consequences ^^
Bohardy
As Dysan requested the intro section in WAV on the FFMS thread, here it is.
dysan
I just wanted to let Bohardy know that I still listen to these regularly. Incredible.
Bohardy
Love you too Dysan! xxxx
dysan
2019 update: Still listening to them!