Thank you for your stimulating views. We are getting closer I
guess. Concerning your query, with my bold statement below, I said "I
feel". This is perhaps my extrapolation from what I've been hearing from Judith
about Rosen's concepts, which may be confirmed by Judith. I now add a few more
words to my previous statement, as the following;
"...I feel [the same thing for] Rosen's work [which] is beyond physics and
biology and deals with all aspects of human life and living in general..".,
with the potential of different worlds, i.e transcendental. How
about this?
Now with the new position of Judith on the 6-months
periodicity of the Journal (I support the idea) you'll have an ample time.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:58
PM
Subject: Re: Causality vs.
Entailment
Dear Ayten,
you wrote interesting connotations into the
'complexity-world' of music:
>...what Bethoven once said, -the
words may not be authentic- "whoever perceives the depth of my music well
will never be negatively effected by the misery which the life and
living bring. But to reach this stage requires repeatedly listening
to my music, at times the same piece." ...<
RR played Bach for relaxation (and so do I
among others)
I wonder if for just realxing in another plane
of complexity, or to (subconsciously?) activate the 'latent' domains of
speculation. I am absorbed when I play, but afterwards sometimes topical
ideas emerge I didn't even think of.
(Painters/sculptors experience it ditto.)
A mathematician friend gets into a similar
"trans" when tackling his math.
(He responded with furious negation when I
mentioned the "applied math" for sciences as a 'modeling' for
it).
It is not attention-focusing, it is
transcendence into worlds of their own, different ones, like a
dream. Not speculative.
In the words of my late music professor a
'contemporary' music deals with the 'problems' af 'that' present in its own
manner and this makes it disturbing for
contemporaries to listen. Some of Beethoven's contemporaries said they cannot
listen to his music: they get an ear-ache from it.
A later generation is past those problems
(has new ones) and can enjoy the 'old' beauty without the aggrevation.
I have yet to find the connections between
those diverse 'total worlds' on different planes. They MUST have some
intrinsic connection, not through those words, we use now. Any 'connecting'
looks artificial and fake. I wonder if there is a way to form "Rosennean"
models in music? A simulacron, ie. simplified mimicking is possible, that is
not a model. The well known "paraphrase"-s are metaphoric, in some cases
even more complex than the original.
IMO it would be a mistake to categorize such
mysteries by our present state of the mind (epistemology). We would get into a
fake model-world and draw inadequate, wrong conclusions. Then it is hard
to change it once believed.
You wrote:
>...I feel [the same thing for] Rosen's
work [which] is beyond physics and biology and deals with all aspects of human
life and living in general....<
And I feel the first part of your statement is
incongruent with the second part: human life is terrestrially biological, as
usually conceived. RR complexity must include more generality, the potential
of different worlds' different types of phenomena, what you duly imply in
'living in general'.
I wonder if he wrote or said something in this
direction?
John M
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 4:40 AM
Subject: Re: Causality vs. Entailment
SNIP previous
posts