Hello everyone
Struan writes:
>Greetings,
>
>Glove. As a professional jazz musician (until last year) I can assure you
that perfect pitch can be
>learned. I don't possess it but I know people who do and in two cases I
know how they learned it. I
>can't be arsed to do so myself as I don't see one advantage over relative
pitch, but that is beside
>the point. I don't think this is related to our the current discussion of
what is good, but if you
>think it is then please do tell me why.
Hi Struan
I believe you may be mistaking relative pitch for absolute pitch... the
former CAN be learned, the latter CANNOT. I was attempting to equate "good"
with absolute or perfect pitch and the fact that it does not have to be
referenced with another pitch to determine the goodness of it. Probably a
rather weak analogy, I admit, and a bit of a stretch to see where its going.
Recent improvements on brain imaging techiques have been used in an attempt
to discover the difference in processes that go into absolute pitch and
relative pitch, which seem to indicate that while relative pitch depends on
unique patterns of cerebral activity (learning), absolute pitch depends on
the recruitment of a specialized network involving retrieval and
manipulation of verbal-tonal associations. It seems reasonable to extend
that into other fields besides music, though I haven't read of any such
studies as yet.
Struan:
>
>">So when you ask "Can we ascertain what is good from empirical evidence?"
I
>>would rather put it that we acertain empirical evidence from what is good
>>intellectually and turn it into unambiguous social level agreements which
>>has no regard to the "absolute" value contained therein, yet it must be
>>there implicitly."
>
>Forgive me, but that makes no sense to me whatsoever. Care to explain?
Glove:
I was attempting to use the absolute pitch analogy to show that perception
does not necessarily require an empirical basis to tell us what is good,
even though this is a common misconception brought about by deterministic
science.
Struan:
>
>">Basically your question seems to boil down to "what is quality?" I am not
>>sure anyone has an answer to that question, for even by looking deeply
into
>>the interaction between the social and intellect levels, we are still
unable
>>to say with certainty what Dynamic force of value dictates in any given
>>situation."
>
>Is this more non-naturalistic situation ethics? If it is then my questions
to Magnus apply to you
>also.
Glove:
Hmmm... I will need some time to ponder this...
Struan:
>
>">Therefore I would say that the MOQ states that all schools of
>>thought are correct on this very difficult question."
>
>Presumably you would exclude the school of thought that regards the MoQ's
take on quality as
>bollocks? Care to be a tad more precise? If the MoQ is all things to all
men then it becomes nothing
>to anyone and I can't imagine that you accept that for one minute.
Glove:
Again you ask a very difficult question. From the nature of your questions I
detect a note of cultural relativism. According to the MOQ, Quality is all,
and all is Quality. I believe that answers your first question... no, it
does not exclude any school of thought that regards the MOQ as bollocks
(love that word!). To be more precise, any theory which can gather empirical
evidence for its existence is a viable theory because of the implicit
assumption that we must make in the absolute quality contained in all
perception. Our senses arise in a local fashion, brought to be by a hint of
absolution which disappears when recognition takes place.
The MOQ is all things to all people... well, perhaps yes, perhaps no... I'll
have to ponder on that one a bit more too...
Best wishes,
glove
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:59 BST