On Sat, Sep 08, 2007 at 05:18:04PM +0100, matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > Your questions betray a radically extensionalist view of music,
> > > > Jay -- you seem to be suggesting that a performance of Cage's
> > > > piece is identical with any 4'33" interval of silence.
> > > >
> > > > > What is the sound of one hand clapping?
> > > >
> > > > Obviously you don't watch The Simpsons. :-)
> > > >
> > > > > "No entity without identity."
> > > >
> > > > Ah, confirmation of your extensionalism!
> > >
> > > What Jay had actually missed was the intentional nature of a
> > > performance.
> > Er, uh...huh? I chided Jay about his apparently extensional view of
> > musical performances, i.e., the view that they are identical with the
> > sound produced.
> MW: Well then perhaps I should be asking what you mean by
> extensionalism, since it seems to be different from my understanding. (01)
I explained my meaning clearly and explicitly -- see the "i.e." above. (02)
> MW: My understanding would be that under extensionalism, the
> identity of an object (that it is a distinct object) is defined by its
> extension. So a performance of 4'33" is a particular piece of space time
> including temporal parts of the performers and listeners and some
> instrument(s). (03)
Ok, that's sort of a richer notion of extensionalism vis-a-vis musical
performance, as it brings the performers into play as well. Seems to me
a legitimate alternative. But again, I said what I meant. (04)
> It would not be any peice of silent 4'33", because it needs to be an
> intentional silent performance of 4'33" to qualify. (05)
As was exactly my point in categorizing the view that seemed implicit in
Jay's question as extensional (not that that was necessarily his own
> > Obviously, what is missing from such a view are the intentional
> > elements of a performance (as I even illustrated; see below).
> MW: Yes, we are agreed on this. It is the leap to a problem with
> extensionalism that I do not follow. (07)
Leap? I used a term traditionally contrasted with the intentional to
characterize a view of musical performance that seemed to be missing the
intentional element. Seems exactly the right choice, if I do say so
> > > (You may recall Leo pointing out the intentional nature of
> > > performance.)
> > And you may recall my pointing out that musical performances are not
> > extensional. ;-)
> MW: Well I would say that they were extensional, so clearly we mean
> something different. I'd like to know what you mean. (09)
Well, I can say it again in different words if you'd like, and perhaps
use some other linguistic marker besides "i.e." to flag it, but I
thought it was pretty clear the first time 'round. ;-) (010)
> > > There is no performance of 4' 33" unless it is intended to be. The
> > > intentional nature of performance is a key element of its identity.
> > *boggle* In addition to registering my disagreement with an
> > extensional view of musical performance, I paid explicit homage to
> > the intentional in a passage you neglected to quote:
> > > > Obviously [4'33"] begins at the beginning; given the nature of the
> > > > piece it seems to me it begins when the performer gives
> > > > some sort of internal nod and, of course, ends 4'33" later.
> > > Extensionalism here is irrelevant, except that it allows you to
> > > answer the question of how many performances there were in a
> > > particular hall at a particular time based on the participation of
> > > the performers and the audience.
> > I think you need to re-read my post. Our views of performance are
> > apparently quite similar. Why you failed to see that is rather
> > baffling to me.
> MW: I agree our views of performance are similar. I am baffled by
> what you mean by extensionalism. (011)
And I remain baffled as to why! :-) (012)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (014)