Support |
----- Original Message ----- From: "Miko Biffle" <biffoz@arczip.com> > I'm just questioning some of the so-called obvious assertions you're > writing > reams about. I don't buy the no-talent, anyone-can-do-it theory. I never claimed that anyone had no talent. You must be referring to someone else or misrepresenting my points to conveniently, albeit fallaciously refute them. What is obvious is that what Keller was doing, the actual playing part, is something that many, many multi-instrumentalists could do if they chose to do so. Note, I don't mean the effort part in getting the following and crowed, etc. What is also oblivious, at least to me, is that if you establish your own set of criteria for success, go out and perform according to those criteria, then of course you are achieving success...because it follows logically from the criteria. Anyone can define success in anyway they want, and therefore if they claim success according to those criteria, you can't deny that form of success, only the criteria. In short, I proposed one set of criteria from which I thought Keller wasn't anything special. Other folks suggested another set of criteria, which led to the contrary...and I accepted this based on the criteria. So, what obvious part do you not get here? I agree with you, and now you are arguing with the way I agree with you? Puzzling. How far do you want to propagate the debate here? > DO believe it's all about integrity and that insincerity is the slippery > foundation that will destroy anything in it's path. Good for you. That's one set of criteria you use to evaluate...but it's not an objective algorithm for truth. Anyone is entitled to disagree with you based on another set of rules. Note, before you leap into an other ad hominem, I'm not suggesting I disagree with you here...unless you want to argue that I can't agree with you in "that way". . :) I'm not calling you a > fakir-I'm completely convinced of your creativity and honesty. I'm just > debating what you're calling obvious; that there's more to this simple > stuff > than we really think. Well, maybe now that I've explained what I think is obvious, you will empathize with my approach here. It's like me arguing that tomatoes are bad because I hate the way they taste, and then someone saying tomatoes are good because they like the way they taste. What is obvious here is that there are two different sets of criteria being used to derive contradictory statements, just like there many, many sets of criteria to define musical success. Once we understand those criteria, then it's easy to understand why people draw the conclusions they do from them. Once you explained yourself and why you thought Keller was successful....I immediately got it....no convincing required. But, heck, I can multitask all day long if you want to practice arguing with semantics. Kris