Re: [Fis] Meaning of music?

Luis Serra wrote:

>
> Dear FISers,
>
> Last postings, that have dealt with the very difficult and interesting
> topic of meaning (even the meaning of meaning has been questioned and
> analyzed), have reminded me the discussion about music and
> information, in which, if I am not wrong, Juan G. Roederer made the
> question "what is music?"
> Of course, the context and central topic of that discussion was very
> different, but at least in my modest opinion it is connected with the
> present discussion.
> I would appreciate a lot to know your opinions about the *meaning of
> music*.
>
> Is it correct to say that music as a form of communication has a meaning?
> And what about other forms of art (painting, sculpture, poetry...)?
>
> Given that we have some FIS colleagues from Arts and Humanities fields
> and/or very close to them, I would appreciate a lot that they share
> with us their perspective. Maybe this issue could provide a bridge of
> formal connection between science and humanities... don't you think?
>
> Best regards,
>
> Luis
>
These are a few of the things that keep me awake at night.

So here is the perspective of a modern semiotician interested in the
foundations of such questions.

Meaning is the experience of the trace of experience left by a sign -
where a sign is the individuated experience of a mark. All individuated
experiences are signs. The subjects of signs are marks. Marks are
either natural marks arising from nature or metaphysical marks arising
from intent.

A definition is the meaning / sign pair. Only by the assembled set of
definitions embodied by the organism can it distinguish between signs
whose subjects are natural marks and signs whose subjects are
metaphysical marks.

If you care about such things you might look at it this way: imagine
the embodied set of meanings as a complex vector space where each state
vector represents a trace of experience, imagine each sign as existing
in a similar complementary space.

So, in this generalization it really does not matter if we are speaking
of music, painting, or theatre. Equally it does not matter if we speak
of the marks of literature, science or the stars.

The distinguishing factors are the nature of meaning synthesis that the
marks undertake in the organism and the learning of convention that
surrounds them. There are two forms of meaning synthesis, formal
synthesis and intuitive synthesis.

[As an aside, to see how this works consider the difference between
astronomers and astrologers.]

So, to answer your question directly I will cast it so: How does an
organism distinguish between the music of Beethoven and the song of a
lark? And depending on the nature of the organism the answer is it can
or it cannot.

A member of our species that is newly born cannot distinguish the two
because it has not yet learned the formal conventions that allow it to.
It will treat the birdsong and Beethoven in precisely the same way.

Now, the question of communication extends from this model. Is it
correct to say that music as a form of communication has a meaning?

It is. But again the question is no different than that which relates to
communication in general. The distinguishing factor between the
metaphysical marks left by artists and those left by scientists is the
intent - where intent is the meaning state evoked within the creator of
the mark in the creation process (which I call semiosis).

Does it make sense to say "What did Beethoven intent in his fifth
symphony?" Only if you are interested in Beethoven's internal
processes, but not otherwise.

Artists, in general, are nature's provocateurs. We often use ambiguity
to provoke questions and challenge convention. Scientists, by contrast,
seek to establish convention. We do so to enable reliable communication
of knowledge about the world.

Your next question should relate to the notion of "truth." :)

The answer to that question and background to my particular work can be
found at: http://www.what-it-all-means.com

Since I anticipate the question I will answer it here. Truth is an
experience. It is the map between what we know (our experience-of our
embodied complex vector space of meaning) and the way things are. Can
we communicate truth by any means? Beethoven or Einstein? No. Each of
us must individually undertake the labor to construct an internal
definition set that can enable that rare experience. There is,
after-all, no royal road to geometry.

With respect,
Steven

--
Dr. Steven Ericsson Zenith