Re: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an excellentcomposition?

["Krispen Hartung" <khartung@cableone.net>]

Good point. I guess you've pegged the practical part of this 
non-cognitivist 
(NC) theory, in terms of every day practice.

For example, let's say someone says "Britney Spears is better than Fripp" 
(which I'm sure comes across as repugnant to many of us!).  All we ask is 
a 
clarification of "better" because it is a general and nebulous term (or in 
the extreme view, meaningless for non-cognitivists).  That statement, 
according to NC's is meaningless....how could it possibly be universally 
true independent of individuals' minds, or even inside one's own mind? 
This 
statement might appear to be absurd to some folks, because there are some 
who feel very strongly that the statement is false (many of us here), and 
others (a younger and different generation) who may think it is true, but 
it 
very well can't be both true and false. The statement, according to NCs, 
just can't be possibly true or false, because it is impossible for them to 
imagine an actual fact (empirical or introspective) that would correspond 
to 
the statement (which is the common criteria for statements to be true on 
many epistemologies). What would the constituents of this fact be? 
Empirical 
data? Entities in the mind? What? What is "better"? Can I examine Britney 
Spears and find this thing called "better"? Where is the attribute? In the 
mind? If so, how can a person have a property that is in someone else's 
mind? Nuts.  It's all nonsensical according to NCs, an abuse of language 
and 
violator of Occam's Razor.

So, what to do with the problem statement? What to do, what to 
do....hmmmm. 
We re-translate. We ask the person making the statement to clarify what 
they 
mean.  They might say, "Well, Fripp really doesn't do anything for me, and 
I 
absolutely love to dance to Britney Spear's music....or I love the way 
Britney's music makes me feel...or, [in coverse], Fripp's Soundscapes 
really 
put me in a nice state of mind...." and so on. Now we are getting 
somewhere! 
Now we are not hiding behind the nebulous language which introduces this 
mysterious entity/property of "better".  We are saying what we mean, 
reflecting Miles' words: "Stop saying things you don't mean folks!" That 
harpoons the issue right in the kisser, man. It doesn't get any better 
than 
that in terms of revealing the problem.

Yet, it is interesting how this above NC theory still leaves a sense of 
dissatisfaction with folks, because as I mentioned to Any offline:

"A.J. Ayer pissed a lot of people off when he published his book as the 
finally blow from the Logical Positivists to rationalists and 
metaphysicians.  There were people literally hunting him down on the 
streets 
if the UK). Logical Positivists made people very angry and defensive 
because 
they stomped all over something that most people think as sacred, namely 
values. It makes people irate when a philosophy states that their use of 
the 
term good, evil, right, wrong, etc...is meaningless and just their emotive 
reaction. Human beings are comforted in the idea that their values are 
somehow "out there", objective" and authorities....it makes them feel 
secure, vs. ladened with doubts and thoughts that they are on their own 
with 
their own, with only emotion as the basis of their principles."  - now 
enters Existentialism and the notion of taking responsibility for one's 
own 
actions....no objective security blanket out there to bail us out! :)

So, moreover, despite the bad taste that NC puts in the mouths of 
traditionalists, rationalists, and objectivists...the outcome I think is 
productive, because it forces us to be honest with each other. X is better 
than Y tells me nothing, but if someone elaborates on how a piece of music 
makes them feel in detail, this is really insightful! This is the type of 
reaction I like to hear about my own music.  "Better" just complicates 
things. I thank the NC theory in this case.

Kris


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Miles Ward" <miles932@gmail.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: RE: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have 
an 
excellentcomposition?


I find a lot of value in the re-examination of "easy language" that
aesthetic anti-cognitivism encourages.  Stop saying things you don't mean
folks!  I feel that I'm closer to the truth of the matter when I give that
kind of finite context to my evaluations, or when others do so when
evaluating me.  It tastes to me to be more genuine, rewarding.

Tasty!
-Miles

-----Original Message-----
From: Krispen Hartung [mailto:khartung@cableone.net]
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:01 AM
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
Subject: Re: Well OT Re: What do you think is necessary in order to have an
excellentcomposition?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "andy butler" <akbutler@tiscali.co.uk>

>> If you understand the theory and premises, then you will understand the
>> points I made.

> Unless the theory is flawed, which it seemed to be.

They're all flawed, so that seems to be a moot point, not an
advantage to any of us. You aren't offering a counter-theory that
you think is not flawed, I hope...correct? Find me a speculative
theory of these sorts that is both complete and consistent
(showing that Gödel was wrong).  Flawed is a requirement of
even being invited to the poker game. It is the thinkers in human
history who claim that their theories are air tight and have no flaws that
scare us and become dangerous.  I like flawed. It means
that speculative thinking is not a dead discipline, and that
all those philosophy books in the libraries ought not to be
burned afterall, because each theory has some piece of
expanding human understanding.  So, I am cool with
retorts that a theory is flawed, provided one also admits
that the theory they are proposing in its place has its
own imperfections, and that we have agreed to take
the analysis down a deeper level.

But I think we may have worked this out offline, eh?

Kris