ANUS.com?

[TylerTheNuke]

So that you don't have 50-level pagodas of nested quoting that take four hundred hours to scroll past

Pfft. It doesn't bother me. Other forums do that and its all cool.

Ahh, astrum. Gotcha!

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

Of course, that's definitely part of the story and a huge chunk of language owes its meaning to something analogous to that, but many sentences (in fact the most important parts of language) owe their meaning to direct conditioning with observable, non-verbal circumstances.

I don't buy this at all. The most significant elements of any language (certainly the most durable) are grammar and syntax - neither of which has any correspondance with "observable, non-verbal circumstances" and both of which function in the classically structuralist pattern.

 

[Cythraul]

Cythraul,

Both denotation and connotation are forms of representation - any time a symbol stands in for an object or concept, representation occurs. Denotation is a more 'direct' form of representation - but not the only form. We see this all the time with metaphors and other forms of indirect, connotative representation - and music works the same way.

That's correct. I realize that there are other problems with my view so I might just drop it.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

That's correct. I realize that there are other problems with my view so I might just drop it.

In fairness to you, some of my past positions on the subject were fairly indefensible, so I suspect that may have played a role in some of the confusion.

 

[Cythraul]

However, you're, ah, misrepresenting my argument as a whole - which is that you can't seperate content from aesthetic when analyzing art (i.e. "Oh, this band is technical, they must be good").

I'm starting to lose my train of thought here. Nevertheless, I'll try to keep on track. If I understand you correctly, then I don't really disagree with you here. If music can have semantic content, analogous to the way in which words/sentences can have semantic content, then properly evaluating the content of a musical work depends upon an antecedent understanding of the "language". That goes without saying. But strictly speaking, you are not evaluating the symbols, but the content expressed by the symbols. Thus, aesthetic value reduces to the content expressed by the work, even if there can be no separating of the the content from the aesthetic. I don't think you disagree with this.

To have any functional, externalized meaning, representation has to make use of a symbolic 'language' held to some degree in common by both creator and audience. To represent say, the values of the 'Aryans,' an artist has to make use of symbols that represent the ideas in question within the cultural discourse in which they work (more on the significance of discourse later).

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean here but my point in using a counterfactual was to demonstrate the conceivability of anything representing anything else. The same conceivability holds for language in general, e.g. It could've been the case that "cats" refers to dogs. There's nothing about the nature of a symbol that necessitates its referential relationship to such and such, even if certain factors did in fact cause it to be the case that such and such symbol denotes such and such.

You're catching on! Purely aestheticist analysis tries to reach some sort of value judgment merely by examining the signs. But to do so is to examine an arbitrary collection of symbols with no value in and of themselves. A more holistic (and, I think, valid) approach is to examine signs, signified and the relationship between the two. Which is what I've been arguing for in the first place.

I don't think I disagree with you. Here's my real beef with the idea that music can have semantic content: I don't object to the idea that music could or does have semantic content per se. What I'm skeptical about is the specificity of semantic content that can be gleaned from experiencing musical works. That is, I think music can represent something very general, but I think there's a strict limit to what we are entitled to suppose that a musical work represents.

edit: maybe you don't disagree with that either?

 

[Cythraul]

I don't buy this at all. The most significant elements of any language (certainly the most durable) are grammar and syntax - neither of which has any correspondance with "observable, non-verbal circumstances" and both of which function in the classically structuralist pattern.

What I meant by importance was importance with respect to communication (I think this statement is dumb; disregard it). Observation sentences form the part of language that is the most obviously intersubjective in character. There is no real communication without a grounding in observation sentences. This is a view which primarily concerns semantics.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

I'm starting to lose my train of thought here. Nevertheless, I'll try to keep on track. If I understand you correctly, then I don't really disagree with you here. If music can have semantic content, analogous to the way in which words/sentences can have semantic content, then properly evaluating the content of a musical work depends upon an antecedent understanding of the "language". That goes without saying. But strictly speaking, you are not evaluating the symbols, but the content expressed by the symbols. Thus, aesthetic value reduces to the content expressed by the work, even if there can be no separating of the the content from the aesthetic. I don't think you disagree with this.

Yes and no. You are evaluating the 'semantic load' so to speak, but to form a value judgment (rather than an interpretation), you have to evaluate not only the content, but the way the content is presented - and that means looking at the signs as they relate to other signs and the signs as they relate to what is signified.

To put it another way, the Iliad and the movie Troy share a basic story - their internal content is roughly analogous. Does anyone here believe that their value as works of art is essentially the same?

I'm not entirely clear on what you mean here but my point in using a counterfactual was to demonstrate the conceivability of anything representing anything else. The same conceivability holds for language in general, e.g. It could've been the case that "cats" refers to dogs. There's nothing about the nature of a symbol that necessitates its referential relationship to such and such, even if certain factors did in fact cause it to be the case that such and such symbol denotes such and such.

And my point was that the significant element isn't the symbol itself in the abstract but the way the symbol relates to that which it signifies. The realities of 'Aryan values' or 'cats' or 'the Eiffel Tower' remain the same regardless of the symbols used to represent those realities.

The other element, of course, is that symbols, however arbitrary, do not exist in a vaccum. Symbolic representation is mediated through a particular cultural discourse - which both structures the symbols and gives them meaning. Artists working within that particular discourse or tradition have their own symbolic language structured and disciplined by the conventions of the discourse. We can hypothetically posit the inversion of meaning in Britney Spears' work by changing the 'value' of the symbols she uses - but the reality of what she is representing itself does not change, so the relative positioning of the symbols in relationship to what is signified would not change.

To simplify, if the symbolic value in our Hypothetical Cultural Discourse of "Oops I Did It Again" had been the embrace of 'Aryan values,' our Hypothetical Britney Spears would not have recorded "Oops I Did It Again," rather, she would have recorded something that symbolically represented the same real values that "Oops I Did It Again" represents in our Actual Cultural Discourse.

Err, that wasn't as much of a simplification as I wanted it to be....

I don't think I disagree with you. Here's my real beef with the idea that music can have semantic content: I don't object to the idea that music could or does have semantic content per se. What I'm skeptical about is the specificity of semantic content that can be gleaned from experiencing musical works. That is, I think music can represent something very general, but I think there's a strict limit to what we are entitled to suppose that a musical work represents.

When we're dealing with 'pure' (instrumental) music, I think it's fair to say that the most we can glean with certainty are more generalized abstractions. On the other hand, in these forums, that's very rarely what we're dealing with. Instead, we're usually dealing with music that has lyrical content - which allows a great deal more specificity in what we glean from it...

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

There is no real communication without a grounding in observation sentences. This is a view which primarily concerns semantics.

That's true - but the elements which allow observation sentences to make sense are structural. The meaning of 'bird' or 'blue' or 'me' or 'you' ultimately derives from its place in the structure of the language (including the non-verbal elements of language - like pointing and posture).

 

[Carcassian]

Umm...chaps...interesting to us all, as I suppose this is, could we restrict the under graduate level of Philosophy to the Philosophy board on UM ?

 

[Wires & Waves]

this is pretty much the best thread in gmd at the moment so i'd rather they didn't

 

[Cythraul]

Yes and no. You are evaluating the 'semantic load' so to speak, but to form a value judgment (rather than an interpretation), you have to evaluate not only the content, but the way the content is presented - and that means looking at the signs as they relate to other signs and the signs as they relate to what is signified.

To put it another way, the Iliad and the movie Troy share a basic story - their internal content is roughly analogous. Does anyone here believe that their value as works of art is essentially the same?

I think this has clicked with me now. Perhaps I was confusing these two questions: "Is what this art object communicates good?" and "Is this art object good?" I can't believe I completely missed the point. The question, "Is this art object good?" is ,obviously, essentially a question about the object itself, even if the determination of its value comes down to the question of what it communicates and its effectiveness at communicating it...or something.

To simplify, if the symbolic value in our Hypothetical Cultural Discourse of "Oops I Did It Again" had been the embrace of 'Aryan values,' our Hypothetical Britney Spears would not have recorded "Oops I Did It Again," rather, she would have recorded something that symbolically represented the same real values that "Oops I Did It Again" represents in our Actual Cultural Discourse.

I don't think this is inconsistent with what I've put forward. I think it's just fine that Britney Spears in Hypothetical Cultural Discourse would have recorded something other than "Oops I Did It Again", because what Britney Spears would have done is not what is of interest. What is of interest is the symbol system itself.

When we're dealing with 'pure' (instrumental) music, I think it's fair to say that the most we can glean with certainty are more generalized abstractions. On the other hand, in these forums, that's very rarely what we're dealing with. Instead, we're usually dealing with music that has lyrical content - which allows a great deal more specificity in what we glean from it...

Sure. I tend to always have purely instrumental music in mind when thinking about aesthetics. Certainly, lyrics put constraints on interpretations.

 

[Cythraul]

That's true - but the elements which allow observation sentences to make sense are structural. The meaning of 'bird' or 'blue' or 'me' or 'you' ultimately derives from its place in the structure of the language (including the non-verbal elements of language - like pointing and posture).

I don't see how language could even get off the ground on this account. If structural elements are what give sense to observation sentences, and if the rest of language is just as constrained, then one wouldn't be able to understand any part of a language unless they understood the whole language, which is impossible.

edit: at least this is what one could conclude from the uncharitable reading.

 

[My Man Mahmoud]

I don't see how language could even get off the ground on this account. If structural elements are what give sense to observation sentences, and if the rest of language is just as constrained, then one wouldn't be able to understand any part of a language unless they understood the whole language, which is impossible.

edit: at least this is what one could conclude from the uncharitable reading.

Chomsky's neurolinguistic theory suggests that we're hardwired for linguistic structure. I tend to agree in a very abstract sense (though I think his 'universal grammar' is, in all likelihood, utter bollocks). Our brains are evolved to be programmable - and the structure of our language in effect programs itself into our neural networks through experience.

 

[Hatebreeder]

Though I hunger for knowledge, I tend to ignore deep discussions like this on forums.

 

[Saparmurat_Niyazov]

Though I hunger for knowledge, I tend to ignore deep discussions like this on forums.

Almost +1 rep for that...
Eh, I'll just give you a

 

[Hell Awaits Us All]

wow this thread has really succeeded in making me feel like a complete moron

I hope I'll be as intelligent as some of the guys on this thread someday

 

[Carcassian]

Chomsky's neurolinguistic theory suggests that we're hardwired for linguistic structure. I tend to agree in a very abstract sense (though I think his 'universal grammar' is, in all likelihood, utter bollocks). Our brains are evolved to be programmable - and the structure of our language in effect programs itself into our neural networks through experience.

Ah, casting my mind back to the Philosophy of Language ( 1996, I think I studied that module), I tended to think that Chomsky was probably spot on about his theory on language. I have to agree that I also doubted the validity of universal inherent grammar, but didn't think that it had to be disregarded wholesale; rather that it was probably true to a degree, which might go some way to explain some of the (few) similarities in most languages that can't be explained by the natural evolution of languages.

 

[TylerTheNuke]

wow this thread has really succeeded in making me feel like a complete moron

I hope I'll be as intelligent as some of the guys on this thread someday

haha, this thread has attracted all of the more intelegent people, I think. I've decided to stop following this debate myself. Its interesting, but unless I am actually doing the debating, it grows wearysome. I'm not really that all-knowing myself. I'm just good at responding to ideas, rather then presenting my own.

 

[Kreator/Destroyer]

wow this thread has really succeeded in making me feel like a complete moron

I hope I'll be as intelligent as some of the guys on this thread someday

i don't have the slightest clue of what is going on or why it started but metalheads fighting over stuff i would entitle shit-that-i-don't-know always succeeds in making my day

 

[J.]

ANUS likes Graveland and Sort Vokter, so they're not total numbskulls

and I bought the Havohej CD based on their praise. I wasn't sorry.