MOTM

Wow, this list is great - so far no flame war, only more reasoned 
discussion...

On May 31, 2005, at 3:50 PM, paulhaneberg wrote:

> It was I who made the original comment questioning why we would have
> evolved an innate response to music.
>
> This was in response to comments about what each of our motivations
> and goals are in being synthesists.
>
> It was not intended as a religious comment.  I would add that any
> scientific theory should be open for discussion without that
> discussion being considered religious.  If I had for instance
> mentioned the theory of relativity would that also imply a religious
> point of view?
>
> I would agree that this discussion group should not be about
> politics or religion, but why does the use of the word "evolved"
> imply a religious or anti-religious connotation?

Few things:  first, this is an example of how ideas (and life in 
general, imo) cannot be so easily compartmentalized - especially ideas 
that affect one's life in significant ways - like art, music, science 
and religion - all of which are related and I suspect most 
musicians/artists have ideas about science and religion that have a 
large impact on the art they create.  Second, I think the objection 
people had to the direction of this thread, at least after Elhardt 
joined it if not to your original post Paul, was that it was getting 
off topic - not to forbidden topics per se, but just significantly away 
from MOTM topics.  So, for example, neither religion nor science are 
"closed" for discussion on their own merit or lack thereof, but, on the 
basis of their lack of MOTM relevance.  Having said that, we actually 
talk about scientific (ckt design anyone?) and religious (motivations 
for making music, along with numerous assumptions about life and right 
and wrong that fill our posts about other specific topics) all the 
time.  So it doesn't bother me as long as it is interesting and 
reasonable.  :)  Third, the theory of relativity, or any scientific 
theory is a religious view - or overlaps or affects religion - inasmuch 
as someone has religious beliefs that are part of, or directly related 
to the theory.  In this case, Darwinian Evolution answers questions of 
origin, which are also answered by many world religions.  In many 
cases, those answers are in conflict, hence the response of the 
religious believers to the claims of science.  Historically, it was 
science that trespassed on religion's turf in considering questions of 
origins.  I think that was good, in that any method, scientific or 
otherwise, that we can use to find out the truth about the world we 
live in, deserves a voice, imo.  However, for science - or religion, or 
any other body of knowledge that we define - to claim to have sole 
authority over all the other bodies of knowledge is going too far, 
unless the one claiming authority can prove the others wrong.


> If I had questioned the validity of the theory of evolution, (which
> I had not done,) why would someone assume that the motivation was
> religous?
> Cannot a person question a scientific theory on other grounds?

Its funny you say that, as the religious believers who question 
evolution usually do so on scientific grounds (see the works of Philip 
Johnson, for example) but are often dismissed by scientists who either 
do not want to bother to respond on scientific grounds, or who have no 
good response, as being "religious", and not scientific, and therefore 
ultimately irrelevant to the discussion.

>
> My comments were merely an attempt to define my motivation for
> wanting to learn more about synthesis, and I said that it was
> because I was interested in achieving a certain aesthetic goal.\

And getting back on topic, I found those comments really interesting 
and some of the best I've read on this or any other music related list. 
  I have many of the same ideas and motivations about music, and synth 
music in particular - and, to get really on topic - this is the kind of 
music I want to use my MOTM to create, and thus my module selection and 
buying patterns will be affected.  ;-)  Which isn't to say I favor the 
vanilla modules (which is of course an oxymoron when speaking of MOTM) 
- the power of a modular lies especially in the complicated/powerful CV 
modules, as far as I'm concerned.

>
> Had I said it was a spiritual quest would that not have been equaly
> valid in this particular context?

Indeed.

>
> It is usually hard to find the answers if you don't first ask the
> questions.
> Paul Haneberg

Keep thinking, asking, seeking, patching...
Larry D.