The Logic Off Topic list

IMHO a lot of Scientists are also musicians, in fact, in my experience it
seems to be the most common art form that Scientist types do for relaxation
as a hobby!

In fact, music can be represented by maths- numbers, frequencies,
measurements of loudness, subdivisions of the beat or bar etc........

I think that maths is art, and so is music. They are two forms of abstract
art, IMHO, maybe the most abstract??

Cheers

John

Groovey Band website             mail to : chickenjohn@...
http://www.grooveyband.co.uk/

East Kent Morris Minor Club web site    or  ; john@...
http://www.ekmm.co.uk

Shake The Snake web site (other band)   or  ; john@...
http://www.shakethesnake.co.uk


----- Original Message -----

From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 November 2001 16:47
Subject: Re: [L-OT] Digital Signals & Mating Signals


> >I'm glad someone's
> >interested in it.
>
> Actually most mathematicians believe the beauty of mathematics in and of
> itself without any regard to real world applications. I remember when I
> was a student, one professor quoted some famous mathematicians said,
> about his work in math :
> "I knit eight armed sweaters. If an octopus comes along and finds them
> useful thats fine." I think this was in regard to Hilbert spaces, which
> were invented in the 1920's in a purely mathematical context, but then
> decades later were found to be the perfect representation for quantum
> mechanics. Mathematics is full of these kinds of eventual applications.
> Galois who lived in the 1820's could not imagine that his theories would
> be useful for modem and satelitte error correcting codes in the future.
>
> Most, but not all mathematicians, are musicians of some sort too. My
> graduate advisor used to play classical violin in community concerts as a
> hobby. As an undergraduate, we had a math club, and had a party at one of
> the professors' houses. Almost everyone there took a turn on the piano or
> guitar.
>
> Mathematicians are very much artists.
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I have a relative who is a mathematician researcher at Brunel University
London "used to teach at Manchester University at the time", he told me that
they admitted a lot of student based on the fact that they are musicians
more than there grades! And all of them seem to do very well....

> IMHO a lot of Scientists are also musicians, in fact, in my experience it
> seems to be the most common art form that Scientist types do for relaxation
> as a hobby!
> 
> In fact, music can be represented by maths- numbers, frequencies,
> measurements of loudness, subdivisions of the beat or bar etc........
> 
> I think that maths is art, and so is music. They are two forms of abstract
> art, IMHO, maybe the most abstract??
> 
> Cheers
> 
> John

Thoughts from the mind of John Matthews, 09-11-2001:

>In fact, music can be represented by maths- numbers, frequencies,
>measurements of loudness, subdivisions of the beat or bar etc........

Wah...  A tiny portion of what we call "music" can be represented by 
numbers -- much as a colorspace can be represented by numbers.  By 
there's no way the reason I get tears to my eyes when hearing Bach's 
"erbarme dich" can be represented in numbers.
The essence of any form of art is unquantifiable.  Throwing a 
technological numberminded mindset at art isn't doing the world any 
good imo.

>I think that maths is art, and so is music. They are two forms of abstract
>art, IMHO, maybe the most abstract??

Yes, I agree that some maths is art, just as some music is art.  As 
to the most abstract: nah...  Are paintings by Mark Rothko less 
abstract than a 19th century opera?

GAmoore wrote:
>  > Mathematicians are very much artists.

Some mathematicians, yes.  Most are however just plain dull 9-5 
office workers.  The same holds for physicists or any other 
"high-level/intelligence functioning kind of guy/gal".  Artists: 
Godel, Einstein, Heissenberg.  Non-artists: most of us out there, 
simply doing our jobs.
Sweeping generalisations such as the above don't really say anything 
eventually, do they?  Personally I do believe on a fundamental level 
there's a connection between the arts and science.  Just as there is 
a connection between arts & science and religion / spirituality 
(reading alomst any biography on contemporary "great" scientists 
_and_ artists makes at least that much clear).  But these connections 
are too intricate (and too difficult to spot for lots of people) to 
be able to pinpoint them with simple generalising two-line statements.


tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

--- In logic-ot@y..., LogicBaby <basharar@m...> wrote:
> I have a relative who is a mathematician researcher at Brunel University
> London "used to teach at Manchester University at the time", he told me that
> they admitted a lot of student based on the fact that they are musicians
> more than there grades! And all of them seem to do very well....

Only quality musicians and mathematicians have in common is discipline. To excel at either fields demand this quality, but it isn't the only fields that demand this. Strange way to get into a faculty.
Yoonchi.

Hendrik wrote:
> Wah...  A tiny portion of what we call "music" can be represented by
> numbers -- tears in eyes, Bach etc.......

yes, but a digital recording of that piece, has, by the definition of
digital, been reduced to numbers, has it not?? is the emotion therefore lost
on a CD or other digital media?

I'd say , No.

although some forms of music do sound better on an analogue medium or better
still, live.

To be able to describe something by using numbers does not devalue it IMHO.

John.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hendrik Jan Veenstra <h@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 10 November 2001 08:44
Subject: Re: [L-OT] music and maths


> Thoughts from the mind of John Matthews, 09-11-2001:
>
> >In fact, music can be represented by maths- numbers, frequencies,
> >measurements of loudness, subdivisions of the beat or bar etc........
>
> Wah...  A tiny portion of what we call "music" can be represented by
> numbers -- much as a colorspace can be represented by numbers.  By
> there's no way the reason I get tears to my eyes when hearing Bach's
> "erbarme dich" can be represented in numbers.
> The essence of any form of art is unquantifiable.  Throwing a
> technological numberminded mindset at art isn't doing the world any
> good imo.
>
> >I think that maths is art, and so is music. They are two forms of
abstract

> >art, IMHO, maybe the most abstract??
>
> Yes, I agree that some maths is art, just as some music is art.  As
> to the most abstract: nah...  Are paintings by Mark Rothko less
> abstract than a 19th century opera?
>
> GAmoore wrote:
> >  > Mathematicians are very much artists.
>
> Some mathematicians, yes.  Most are however just plain dull 9-5
> office workers.  The same holds for physicists or any other
> "high-level/intelligence functioning kind of guy/gal".  Artists:
> Godel, Einstein, Heissenberg.  Non-artists: most of us out there,
> simply doing our jobs.
> Sweeping generalisations such as the above don't really say anything
> eventually, do they?  Personally I do believe on a fundamental level
> there's a connection between the arts and science.  Just as there is
> a connection between arts & science and religion / spirituality
> (reading alomst any biography on contemporary "great" scientists
> _and_ artists makes at least that much clear).  But these connections
> are too intricate (and too difficult to spot for lots of people) to
> be able to pinpoint them with simple generalising two-line statements.
>
>
> tata,
> HJ
> --
>      Hendrik Jan Veenstra
>      email: mailto:h@...
>      www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

>>  > Mathematicians are very much artists.
>
>Some mathematicians, yes.  Most are however just plain dull 9-5 
>office workers. 

Oh come on! Just because you can't see the fruits of their labor, doesn't 
mean it isn't beautiful. Wasn't there one of my quotes that something 
like ... mathematics is like mountain climbing, ... only a select few are 
able to see certain mountain glaciers after a great amount of effort. 

Imagine hanging around a music studio .... if you were deaf. You might 
see a bunch of self-important weirdos and have no idea of what they were 
creating. In the same way, many math people look like wierdo's. Often 
sloppy in their dress. Sometimes their desks are piled in papers. 

But they create. The look at chaos and bring order to it. They find new 
ways of thinking. They find new methods of solution. Using only their 
wits .... and often their intuition and instinct they discover. Every 
paper in pure mathematics must be original - adding something new to 
human knowledge. (This is quite different in the sciences - where they 
publish dozens of times as many papers per researcher - to conduct an 
experiment even if the result is not clear, to verify another 
researcher's data or refute, etc. Science articles and math articles are 
as different as night and day!)

And, exactly like music, it becomes very addicting. They will spend all 
their free time fixated on a problem. Sometimes working for years without 
results - trying different lines of attack. And at the end - there are no 
gold records, no cheering crowds, ... , only a small group even 
understand what you've done.

For example, Wiles at Princeton, who solved Fermat's theorem after 300 
years in 1994...I heard that, at the time, less than 50 people in the 
world could understand the details of his work. But I'm sure he got a 
high from it. His name will go down in history.

>Only quality musicians and mathematicians have in common is discipline. To 
>excel at either fields demand this quality, but it isn't the only fields 
>that demand this. Strange way to get into a faculty.

Then I would suggest you don't what mathematics really is, or what 
mathematicians do - which is no insult - you're in the majority.

> For example, Wiles at Princeton, who solved Fermat's theorem after 300
> years in 1994.


He got this old? ;-)))

> ..I heard that, at the time, less than 50 people in the
> world could understand the details of his work.

That makes it easier to convince people that you "solved" something. 
;-)))))))
(only joking, don't worry)

-- 
Joeri Vankeirsbilck
joeri@...

Belway Productions      -     http://www.belway.com
List-admin   Logic-users/SoundD*ver-users/Logic-TDM

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 10-11-2001:

>  >>  > Mathematicians are very much artists.
>>
>>Some mathematicians, yes.  Most are however just plain dull 9-5
>>office workers.
>
>Oh come on! Just because you can't see the fruits of their labor, doesn't
>mean it isn't beautiful.

Beautiful != art.

>Imagine hanging around a music studio .... if you were deaf. You might
>see a bunch of self-important weirdos and have no idea of what they were
>creating. In the same way, many math people look like wierdo's. Often
>sloppy in their dress. Sometimes their desks are piled in papers.
>
>But they create. The look at chaos and bring order to it.

Not every musician is an artist.

>For example, Wiles at Princeton, who solved Fermat's theorem after 300
>years in 1994...I heard that, at the time, less than 50 people in the
>world could understand the details of his work. But I'm sure he got a
>high from it. His name will go down in history.

And rightfully so.  Solving a theorem that has puzzled many great 
mathematicians for some 350 years _is_ a work of art, I guess.


tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

--- In logic-ot@y..., GAmoore@a... wrote:
> >>  > Mathematicians are very much artists.
> >
> >Some mathematicians, yes.  Most are however just plain dull 9-5 
> >office workers. 
> 
> Oh come on! Just because you can't see the fruits of their labor, 
doesn't 
> mean it isn't beautiful.

Surely the FRUITS of their labours might be beautiful, but how can 
maths be abstact.

sure music can be described in purely mathematical terms, but maths 
certainly doesn't move me emotionly, whereas music certainly does.

Maak Bow

Thoughts from the mind of maakbow@..., 10-11-2001:

>--- In logic-ot@y..., GAmoore@a... wrote:
>>  >>  > Mathematicians are very much artists.
>>  >
>>  >Some mathematicians, yes.  Most are however just plain dull 9-5
>>  >office workers.
>>
>>  Oh come on! Just because you can't see the fruits of their labor,
>doesn't
>>  mean it isn't beautiful.
>
>Surely the FRUITS of their labours might be beautiful, but how can
>maths be abstact.

How can maths be abstract?  Maths _is_ abstract...  Or did you mean 
"beautiful" instead of abstract?  Well: beauty is in the eye of the 
beholder...  Certainly for me certain mathematics can be a pure 
esthetic pleasure.

>sure music can be described in purely mathematical terms,

No, it can't.  The essence of music is it's... "quality"... the fact 
that it moves you, makes you shiver or weep... and that essence can't 
be described in mathematical terms.  The only thing you can describe 
mathematically is its "surface structure" -- which pitch goes where 
for how long -- but that's about as meaningful as describing a great 
painting with a list of numbers, enumerating the exact RGB-values for 
every "pixel" in the painting.  Such a list will never reveal to you 
why the Mona Lisa is... well.. the Mona Lisa :).

>but maths certainly doesn't move me emotionly, whereas music certainly does.

Which is not an argument for anything.  The fact that it doesn't move 
_you_ is of no consequence to the people who _do_ get moved my 
beautiful abstractions...

>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
>Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95
>Refill any ink cartridge for less!
>Includes black and color ink.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is that a crude attempt at describing, in mathematical terms, the 
Mona Lisa?  LOL!

cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 10-11-2001:

>an equation can represents something from physics, chemistry, music,
>business, cooking,

Yeah, I like those about cooking the best... :-)

I got a bloody good equation for a pasta... oh well, let's not get 
dragged away...

:-)

-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

>Surely the FRUITS of their labours might be beautiful, but how can 
>maths be abstact.

'abstract' is one of the key components of mathematics. You are thinking 
of applications of math, but math itself is ethereal and illusive. Math 
has many levels of abstraction. The first level is the fact that an 
equation can represents something from physics, chemistry, music, 
business, cooking, or whatever,and when you delete all of the 
particulars, you are left with the pure essence or abstraction of the 
problem. Thats just high school level. Believe me, or anyone else who has 
studied advanced math - it gets very abstract! 

>sure music can be described in purely mathematical terms, 

I think you mean mostly numeric terms. Most junior, senior and grad math 
books have few numbers at all - and almost look like novels with plenty 
of strange characters. There's a lot of words and few numbers.


>but maths 
>certainly doesn't move me emotionly, whereas music certainly does.

Some people are moved by a great chess game, a witty comment, an 
excellent soccer play, a great kung fu kick, a great novel, etc.

>And rightfully so.  Solving a theorem that has puzzled many great 
>mathematicians for some 350 years _is_ a work of art, I guess.

Its not just that. Its hard to explain. There is a beauty in the clever 
and novel ideas, just as there is in the clever use of melody and 
unexpected use of the orchestra or sampler. I don't claim to understand 
Wiles work, but almost all of math has some sort of inherent beauty to 
those who understand it. I personally like Galois's ideas - how he 
abstracted the search for solutions of a polynomial equation, to 
symetries of roots, which lead to group theory, and from that lead to 
proofs of the impossibility of solving the quintic, trisecting an angle, 
and doubling a cube.

Applied math and science people look at things quite differently than 
those in pure math. Pure math degrees are usually ".. of arts", whereas 
all the applied math degrees are "... of science."

>Beautiful != art.

I hate to ask, but how does one define art then? 

There is the ancient chinese book "The art of war". Is that art?

>>Surely the FRUITS of their labours might be beautiful, but how can
>>maths be abstact.

Did I say that? I didn't say that. Someone else did. 


>>sure music can be described in purely mathematical terms,
>
>No, it can't.  The essence of music is it's... "quality"... 

In can be described in simple numeric terms - pitch, duration, tempo, 
volume. That is what the other writer was implying, but I didn't say this 
is all there is to it. In fact, I don't consider that really math so much 
as numerical qualities. "mathematics" implies some sort of system. 
Harmony is more mathematical.

>>an equation can represents something from physics, chemistry, music,
>>business, cooking,
>
>Yeah, I like those about cooking the best... :-)


Well I was recently using Newton's law of cooling in describing a cake 
being taken out of the oven... sorry I guess its not "cooking" but rather 
"edible physics". I would like to see your equation for pasta. Sounds 
delicious.

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 10-11-2001:

>  >Beautiful != art.
>
>I hate to ask, but how does one define art then?
>
>There is the ancient chinese book "The art of war". Is that art?

Oh no, I won't go there...

-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 10-11-2001:

>  >>Surely the FRUITS of their labours might be beautiful, but how can
>>>maths be abstact.
>
>Did I say that? I didn't say that. Someone else did.

Did I say you said that?  I don't think so.

>  >>sure music can be described in purely mathematical terms,
>>
>>No, it can't.  The essence of music is it's... "quality"...
>
>In can be described in simple numeric terms - pitch, duration, tempo,
>volume. That is what the other writer was implying,

I know.  I just claimed that a numerical description of music is, in 
essence,not a description at all.  Whether you call such a 
description maths or not is of no consequence to me, since such 
descriptions are pointless to begin with.


tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 10-11-2001:

>  >>an equation can represents something from physics, chemistry, music,
>>>business, cooking,
>>
>  >Yeah, I like those about cooking the best... :-)
>
>Well I was recently using Newton's law of cooling in describing a cake
>being taken out of the oven... sorry I guess its not "cooking" but rather
>"edible physics". I would like to see your equation for pasta. Sounds
>delicious.

For 2 persons:

Take a small can of anchovies in oil.  Drain the oil into a pan, and 
put the anchovies in cold water to de-salt them.  Chop up 5 shallots 
(small onios), and slowly glaze them in the fish-oil.  At the same 
time add one piece of finely cut (not squeezed) garlic -- don't let 
it get brown.  Let glaze for a few minutes.
Chop up a bunch of parsley -- about 5 large tablespoons.  Add to the 
pan, and let simmer for a minute.
Add a glass (or 2 :) of white wine, turn up the heath to maximum, and 
let almost all wine evaporate, until there's just a thin film left.
Now add half of a .25 litre pack of whipping cream (un-whipped), 
leave heath at maximum, and let it boil until the cream starts 
turning brownish (important).  Stir all the time of course.
In the meantime you've removed the skin from a large tomato (by 
putting it in hot water for some time), and chopped it in square 
pieces.  Remove the wettish stuff first (seeds & such).  Get the 
anchovies out of the water, and chop up in very small pieces.
When the cream is turning brownish, lower the heath and add the other 
half of the cream.  Add the anchovies, and let it completely dissolve 
on a low fire.  Finally add the tomato-pieces, and add the juice of 
1/2 lemon.  Let it heat up for 1-2 minutes.

While preparing the above sauce, cook pasta, possibly of the 
"farfalle" kind -- looking like a bow-tie.  Since the sauce is very 
thin, you need flattish pasta, so it has enough surface for the sauce 
to cling to.  Spaghetti won't do.

Enjoy...


tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Thoughts from the mind of John Matthews, 10-11-2001:

>Hendrik wrote:
>>  Wah...  A tiny portion of what we call "music" can be represented by
>>  numbers -- tears in eyes, Bach etc.......
>
>yes, but a digital recording of that piece, has, by the definition of
>digital, been reduced to numbers, has it not?? is the emotion therefore lost
>on a CD or other digital media?
>
>I'd say , No.

Leaving out stuff like quantisation errors... :-)  I'd agree with 
you.  Of course you can reduce almost anything to numbers.  However, 
to me a description is not the same as a representation.  A digital 
recording would be a representation and not a description.
"Description" to me seems to imply something about "meaningfulness". 
Clearly a bunch of 1's and 0's on a CD is not bvery meaningful.

>To be able to describe something by using numbers does not devalue it IMHO.

Again, I would  use the word "represent" instead of describe.  But 
maybe that's just me.

cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

I would say cooking is more to do with chemistry than physics!  :-)

Chemists, as well as a lot of them being musicians, also enjoy to cook!

:-)

----- Original Message -----

From: <GAmoore@...>
To: <logic-ot@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 November 2001 04:04
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [L-OT] music and maths


> >>an equation can represents something from physics, chemistry, music,
> >>business, cooking,
> >
> >Yeah, I like those about cooking the best... :-)
>
>
> Well I was recently using Newton's law of cooling in describing a cake
> being taken out of the oven... sorry I guess its not "cooking" but rather
> "edible physics". I would like to see your equation for pasta. Sounds
> delicious.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

GA Moore said:
> >I hate to ask, but how does one define art then?
> >There is the ancient chinese book "The art of war". Is that art?

Hendrik Jan said:
>Oh no, I won't go there...

Thank you.

And ... it was art. (Another little joke please OK!!)

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

John Matthews wrote:
>I would say cooking is more to do with chemistry than physics!  :-)
>Chemists, as well as a lot of them being musicians, also enjoy to cook!
>:-)

http://www.science.demon.co.uk/handbook/11.htm

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

>To be able to describe something by using numbers does not devalue it IMHO.

It doesn't. However, it doesn't describe all of it either. I think that 
is what HJ is saying. Just I can tell you I am 5 feet 11 inches and about 
170 pounds - those numbers don't really describe me very adequately in 
terms of personality or other things - you know bad habits, etc.

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 11-11-2001:

>  >To be able to describe something by using numbers does not devalue it IMHO.
>
>It doesn't. However, it doesn't describe all of it either. I think that
>is what HJ is saying. Just I can tell you I am 5 feet 11 inches and about
>170 pounds - those numbers don't really describe me very adequately in
>terms of personality or other things - you know bad habits, etc.

Yes it does: such length & weight means you're a bit on the heavy 
side, which means you like good food and tend to eat more than you 
need.  Such behaviour is commonly associated with a pleasure-oriented 
and superficial lifestyle in which little regard is given to the more 
contemplative aspects of life.  You probably drive a rather expensive 
car, and like to go to bed in time and get up late.  You like sex, 
but don't like the responsibilties that come with a steady 
relationship.  At the same time however, you'd like for someone to be 
around you and tend to your needs.  This discrepancy leaves you in a 
constate state of inner struggle, which in the long run will wear you 
down, and eventually will make you feel utterly depressed.  As a 
result of that depressiono, you'll lose your job and house and car, 
and end up a homeless vagabond, roaming the streets at night.  There 
you'll finally be able to get rid of the "demons of pleasure" that 
have hunted you all your life, and find peace in the knowledge that 
all things material are perishable and temporary.  Having become an 
old and homeless sage, you'll tell your new-found insights to anyone 
who will listen.  Still roaming the richer neighbourhoods, you'll run 
into a wealthy guy who is so touched and impressed by your wisdom, 
that he'll let you live in his big mansion, and hires a young and 
good-looking girl who'll tend to all your needs till the end of your 
days.

See, the description you gave of yourself was pretty revealing and 
complete, wasn't it?

:-)

cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

>>yes, but a digital recording of that piece, has, by the definition of
>>digital, been reduced to numbers, has it not?? is the emotion therefore lost
>>on a CD or other digital media?
>>
>>I'd say , No.
>
>Leaving out stuff like quantisation errors... :-)  I'd agree with 
>you.  Of course you can reduce almost anything to numbers.  However, 
>to me a description is not the same as a representation.  A digital 
>recording would be a representation and not a description.
>"Description" to me seems to imply something about "meaningfulness". 
>Clearly a bunch of 1's and 0's on a CD is not bvery meaningful.


You can also record the sound of trash can when you throw a rotten egg in 
it - digitially with 0's and 1's - but most would not consider that 
music. However, you never know what will pop up on the next hit record.

How remarkably accurate! Thats right on.......except the overweight part, 
actually everyone says I look normal or thin....which unfortunately was 
the foundation upon on which everything was based.  LOL.

> I can tell you I am 5 feet 11 inches and about
>>170 pounds - those numbers don't really describe me very adequately in
>>terms of personality or other things - you know bad habits, etc.
>
>Yes it does: such length & weight means you're a bit on the heavy 
>side, which means you like good food and tend to eat more than you 
>need.  Such behaviour is commonly associated with a pleasure-oriented 
>and superficial lifestyle in which little regard is given to the more 
>contemplative aspects of life.  You probably drive a rather expensive 
>car, and like to go to bed in time and get up late.  You like sex, 
>but don't like the responsibilties that come with a steady 
>relationship.  At the same time however, you'd like for someone to be 
>around you and tend to your needs.  This discrepancy leaves you in a 
>constate state of inner struggle, which in the long run will wear you 
>down, and eventually will make you feel utterly depressed.  As a 
>result of that depressiono, you'll lose your job and house and car, 
>and end up a homeless vagabond, roaming the streets at night.  There 
>you'll finally be able to get rid of the "demons of pleasure" that 
>have hunted you all your life, and find peace in the knowledge that 
>all things material are perishable and temporary.  Having become an 
>old and homeless sage, you'll tell your new-found insights to anyone 
>who will listen.  Still roaming the richer neighbourhoods, you'll run 
>into a wealthy guy who is so touched and impressed by your wisdom, 
>that he'll let you live in his big mansion, and hires a young and 
>good-looking girl who'll tend to all your needs till the end of your 
>days.
>
>See, the description you gave of yourself was pretty revealing and 
>complete, wasn't it?

GA Moore wrote:

>You can also record the sound of trash can when you throw a rotten egg in
>it - digitially with 0's and 1's - but most would not consider that
>music. However, you never know what will pop up on the next hit record.

LOL.
Unfortunately, you are probably more right about 'the next hit record' than 
most of us would like to believe.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 11-11-2001:

>  > I can tell you I am 5 feet 11 inches and about
>  >>170 pounds - those numbers don't really describe me very adequately in
>  >>terms of personality or other things - you know bad habits, etc.
>  >
>  >Yes it does: such length & weight means you're a bit on the heavy
>  >side, which means you like good food and tend to eat more than you
>[...]
>
>How remarkably accurate! Thats right on.......except the overweight part,
>actually everyone says I look normal or thin....which unfortunately was
>the foundation upon on which everything was based.  LOL.

But then... you can't say that it was "right on" and accurate to 
start with.  So we have a massive contradiction here.  Ah! 
Inconsistency!  And as you well know, from an inconsistency, 
everything follows -- including my description of you.  Which was 
thus, in hindsight, true all along...

Your turn :-).


cheers,
HJ

-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

> Some people are moved by a great chess game, a witty comment, an 
> excellent soccer play, a great kung fu kick, a great novel, etc.

I don't believe that movement to be the same way that music can speak 
to ones emotions, music is way more powerful in that respect.

maak

> >sure music can be described in purely mathematical terms,
> 
> No, it can't.  

I did not 'say can only be described...


> The only thing you can describe 
> mathematically is its "surface structure" -- which pitch goes where 
> for how long -- but that's about as meaningful as describing a 
>great painting with a list of numbers, enumerating the exact RGB-
>values for every "pixel" in the painting.  Such a list will never 
>reveal to you why the Mona Lisa is... well.. the Mona Lisa :).

I totally agree
 
 
> >but maths certainly doesn't move me emotionly, whereas music 
certainly does.
> 
> Which is not an argument for anything. 

I wasn't trying to argue anything....or am I on the wrong list???

Maak

>> Some people are moved by a great chess game, a witty comment, an 
>> excellent soccer play, a great kung fu kick, a great novel, etc.
>
>I don't believe that movement to be the same way that music can speak 
>to ones emotions, music is way more powerful in that respect.

Music is not just better in that way - its music's only value. If it 
weren't for the emotions... music would just be noise.

Thoughts from the mind of GAmoore@..., 12-11-2001:

>  >> Some people are moved by a great chess game, a witty comment, an
>>>  excellent soccer play, a great kung fu kick, a great novel, etc.
>>
>>I don't believe that movement to be the same way that music can speak
>>to ones emotions, music is way more powerful in that respect.

Your belief is precisely that: your belief.

>Music is not just better in that way - its music's only value. If it
>weren't for the emotions... music would just be noise.

IMO it all depends on how you're "sensitized" to certain stimuli. 
I've been able to feel "cold shivers" of excitment when dealing with 
certain pieces of mathematical logic for example.  Listening to 
certain types of music on the other hand I just find plain boring.  A 
good novel can make me weep, under certain conditions.  There are 
paintings that left me completely silent with awe.  Etc, etc.

It's pointless to try to give music some exclusive domain that 
supposedly can't be touched by other forms of human creativity.  If 
anything, the limitations are within oneself and not in the medium 
per se.


cheers,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html

Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:

>IMO it all depends on how you're "sensitized" to certain stimuli.
Neuro-Linguistic Programming. Primary modalities.

>I've been able to feel "cold shivers" of excitment when dealing with
>certain pieces of mathematical logic for example.
I think that's what Tony Thompson was trying to say. His sensory modalities 
have never yet been moved by a mathematical theorem and so therefore 
presumably the muse of mathematics has never favoured him by sending him 
mathematics in a way he could relate to through any of his modalities.

>Listening to
>certain types of music on the other hand I just find plain boring.
No modality stimulation? Probably, there's someone or other out there who 
finds it great music.

>  A
>good novel can make me weep, under certain conditions.  There are
>paintings that left me completely silent with awe.  Etc, etc.
The arguments of NLP.

>It's pointless to try to give music some exclusive domain that
>supposedly can't be touched by other forms of human creativity.
Agreed,

>If
>anything, the limitations are within oneself and not in the medium
>per se.

Agreed. And ... this is pretty much what the advocates of neurolinguistic 
programming are trying to say. Just reprogramme your neurons and overcome 
those limitations, many of which (but not all) can be thought of as 
limitations to communication, and perceived limitations in the willingness 
and desire to both express yourself and also allow yourself to be expressed 
to.

Kool Musick
Keep Musick Kool


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

<GAmoore@...> wrote:
> Music is not just better in that way - its music's only value. If it
> weren't for the emotions... music would just be noise.

Of course.
But that doesn't have to do anything with any certain type of music.
For example, I really like some monotonous beat kinda stuff, certainly not
made with much emotion (I know that because some of that stuff I made by
myself, something like a byproduct from fooling around with various things).
But after a while it kinda gets into me and touches uhm... something inside
me.
What is the saying like? "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" I think. How
true.

Regards,
Sascha

Thoughts from the mind of Kool Musick, 13-11-2001:

>Hendrik Jan Veenstra wrote:
>  >Listening to
>>certain types of music on the other hand I just find plain boring.
>No modality stimulation? Probably, there's someone or other out there who
>finds it great music.

Yes, that's exactly what I was saying (or so I thought).

>  >A good novel can make me weep, under certain conditions.  There are
>  >paintings that left me completely silent with awe.  Etc, etc.
>The arguments of NLP.

Yes, and...?  I'm not following the discussion on NLP btw, and don't 
intend to start doing so...

>  >If anything, the limitations are within oneself and not in the medium
>  >per se.
>
>Agreed. And ... this is pretty much what the advocates of neurolinguistic
>programming are trying to say.

I thought you disliked NLP, and yet you seem to agree with things I 
say, which -- you claim -- are arguments in favour of NLP.

Oh well, never mind.  I don't care for NLP or whatever.  I just 
vented a personal opinion.  If that opinion happens to coincide with 
some viewpoint some scientists may have or may have had, than that's 
fine, but of no great consequence to my opinion as such.


tata,
HJ
-- 
     Hendrik Jan Veenstra
     email: mailto:h@...
     www:   http://www.ision.nl/users/h/index.html