Re: [Fis] Meaning of music?

Steven,
As a painter, I can relate most closely to your discussion, but I am not
sure I can sensibly discuss it.

Does painting have meaning?: of course, as a form of human intentional
activity it has meaning.

Does a painting have meaning?: maybe not. Suppose for a moment that having
a meaning is an indication of failure. if the artist has intentionally
done everything possible to make every element of his or her work
absolutely interdependent so that no part can be extracted without
destroying the whole. The reverberations amongst the parts are what make
it what it is..The trace is perhaps then only information but not meaning.

In that case, meaning, (I am thinking in a pedestrian way about paintings
whose meaning is discussed through verbal language, perhaps occasionally
through mathematics or geometry --as in Michael Leyton's work-- or some
other system of signs), meaning can no longer accomodate the experience,
particularly the sensory elements of the experience. What is left,
stripped of those elements, is an empty shell. Perhaps the explanation is
not the meaning, but only pointing to the meaning, which remains within the
experience. But if the meaning is not extractable from the experience,
then can we say that there is a meaning at all?
(My lack of background in philosophy and science is leading me into a
quagmire here. I wish I were better prepared to understand all the elements
of your discussion)

  Is my wish to refuse meaning an impossible wish for an art of
irreducible essence,and perhaps really rather silly? Yet, some examples,
particularly in music, being discussed here seem to approach that state.

We clearly don't approach other phenomena with the same severe restrictions
as I have expressed above concerning art, which casts serious doubt on my
prejudices. That is why these fis discussions continue to fascinate me, as
incomprehensible as they mostly are to me.

Jim Cogswell

--On Friday, February 6, 2004 4:48 PM -0800 Steven Ericsson Zenith
<steven@pearavenue.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>

Jim Cogswell
Professor, School of Art & Design, University of Michigan
2000 Bonisteel Boulevard, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2069
Phone: (734) 764-0397
mailto:jcogs@umich.edu
http://www.art-design.umich.edu/faculty/cogswell/index.html
http://www.umich.edu/~jcogs
http://fis.iguw.tuwien.ac.at/resources/jim_cogswell/

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Tue Feb 10 02:24:48 2004