OFF: Discussing music

[Paul Mather]

Steve Swann asks:

> If that's the case, why would we bother to discuss anything, ever?  I
> mean, if it was all just a matter of everybody having their solitary,
> inviolate opinion preserved in vacuum, there would be no point trying
> to carry on a conversation at all.  We'd all be just little isolated
> satellites, beeping out messages that none of the others listened to.

In other words, the world would be just like usenet... ;-)

This is a deep ontological problem, and one I won't go into in much
depth.  I fall firmly into the "relativist" camp, and believe---in the
limit---that everyone's opinion is valid.  Whether I *believe* what
others profess, or *accept* it is a matter for me to decide.  I am the
arbiter and processor of the information I receive (though not always,
but we struggle towards that goal).

I can easily accept that someone could *genuinely believe* that, say,
Mekong Delta's _The Music of Erich Zann_ is pure, unmusical, crap.
For them it *is*.  But whether I believe it, or accept it to be valid
*for me*, is another matter.  I decide.  For me, it isn't.  We are all
happy, despite there now being two "truths" regarding that album
(unless the other person also believes that all Mekong Delta fans
should be systematically liquidated:). :-)

I disagree that we all have our "solitary, inviolate opinion preserved
in vacuum."  In fact, I believe it is very difficult *not* to be
affected (to some degree, however small) by the information onslaught
all around us.  Our brains form concepts and opinions based upon the
information we receive, and words---like sight, sound, and smell---are
just another information source.  (Cue soundtrack of "Coded
Languages.":)  So they must invariably affect our opinion (to some
degree).  This is why I believe that conversation and discourse is
important; it allows the spread of information and concepts.

The real trick, however, is to be discriminating in processing what
you receive. :-)

> If we were to take that approach on this list, we'd soon be back to
> the level of discussion that you see on Usenet news:
>
>         It rules!
>         No, it sucks!
>         No, it rules!
>         No, it sucks!
>         ...etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum

I agree.  And, in a sense, you are arguing the case for "relativism."
A statement like "it sucks!" lacks a huge amount of context that is
otherwise present when someone supplies supporting argument and says,
instead, "it sucks because ..."  It is the supporting argument that
allows us to place the originator in an appropriate mind space
relative to us.  And, once placed, we can better evaluate their input
in relation to our own beliefs.

Cheers,

Paul.

e-mail: paul at csgrad.cs.vt.edu                    A stranger in a strange land.