Ender

Walrus

Nowhere did i state that art/music was meaningless. Reread my posts carefully.

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Ender!

You said:

"Life is meaningless".

Music can be a part of a person's life. Thus it helps provide for a meaningful existence.

Can you explain then what you meant by "Life is meaningless." [viz. the artist]



Walrus

Ender

Correct. Which takes us to the inference of YOUR OWN MAKING....

I do not dispute that music can mean something to someone, whatever it may be, but that there is an a priori "meaning" in existence to be discovered.

You were nothing before you were born. You suffer in your life. THen you will return to nothing after death. Life, as pure existence, has no meaning, and is absurd. Ergo, existence is irrational and all our desires to apply logic or reason is futile.

Meaninglessness encapsulated!

~WiGGiN~

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Ender ]</p>

WJ

Ender!

You said:

"I do not dispute that music can mean something to someone, whatever it may be, but that there is an a priori "meaning" in existence to be discovered."

"You were nothing before you were born. You suffer in your life. THen you will return to nothing after death. Life, as pure existence, has no meaning, and is absurd. Ergo, existence is irrational and all our desires to apply logic or reason is futile."

------------

Ok, so all that means what, for the artist? In otherwords, how does or should, the artist express that knowing of what you just said about his/her existence? Or, how can an apriori concept translate into creative expression?

Is that your point(s)?

Walrus

Ender

That the artist faces the canvas w/o anything there in advance. The artist is not following a schema, a pattern when he begins to paint or draw or photoshop. No previous decision predetermines the next movement of the brush, the pencil, the cursor. The picture is completed when he decides it is finished. The last line is the one he chooses as the end.

By no right does an artist claim whatever is art but their own aesthetic standard.

Art does not exist outside the specific choices of the artist- who brings the concept of art into the world with their specific work of art. As a result they take responsibility for the concept of art as a whole. They are stating what art means for everyone else as well. Artists create the values by which that work demands to be judged.

My point is that there is no such a priori predetermining explanation that defines creativity. Everything in art is ad hoc, after the fact, and contingent upon the subjectivity of the artist.

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Wiggen!

Well, I'm not sure that if what you say is true about subjectivity (which I agree with), then how could..."They are stating what art means for everyone else as well." be true as well? I mean I'm not saying contradiction can't exist .

I think we are back to interpretation and expression of the apriori in one's mind about a some thing. Whether everyone can relate to that some thing is the question. Or, on the same side of the theory, we have the subconscious feeding information to the conscious mind about a some thing when we get the so-called spurt of creative juices, and/or *only* when our minds are ready to receive it can we manifest this some thing in a truly novel way.

In the beginning, someone created music, was it novel then? I suppose so. And I also suppose the question remains (one question anyway), are we completely out of the 'epistemic programmable database' of truly novel creativity? If so, then the bridge to the apriori remains open. Is that what you mean?

Walrus

Ender

It is not a contradiction. When the artist employs the concept of art, they are giving it a meaning for everyone to see. This resembles the “intersubjectivity” of language, that a concept of one’s creation is available for everyone else to witness and comment on, agree or disagree with, or attempt to elaborate on.
You seem to be misusing the term a priori here. What do you mean by a priori?
It’s called interpretation and a question of hermeneutics.
How did you get from hermeneutics to Freud’s theory of the subconscious? Personally I consider Freud’s theory of little worth.
I fear I do not follow in the slightest. You are aware of the difference between a priori and a posteriori? This seems ad hoc and slippery thinking in mixing cognitive programming with an a priori notion.

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Wiggen!


Ok, I'm still still trying to follow your theme of meaningless existence and creative expression.

You said;

"It is not a contradiction. When the artist employs the concept of art, they are giving it a meaning for everyone to see. This resembles the “intersubjectivity” of language, that a concept of one’s creation is available for everyone else to witness and comment on, agree or disagree with, or attempt to elaborate on."


You implied earlier that this representation of art in whatever medium is something that all people should swallow. That is how I surmised it was a contradiction. And that is because the subjective interpretation of [meaningless/meaningful]existence from the artist is simply that, subjective. So, you are not forced into buying-in to it. In fact, even if it was an 'objective view' (whatever that means) you still aren't required buy into it!


Then, changing gears, you said:

"You seem to be misusing the term a priori here. What do you mean by a priori?

How did you get from hermeneutics to Freud’s theory of the subconscious? Personally I consider Freud’s theory of little worth."

I'm still confused about your ideas of how the apriori and the conscious mind develops novelty [in music]? Could you please elaborate here? The reason I'm confused is because you inferred, like I did, that past experience somehow enters the conscious mind in the form of creativity?

Or instead, one of the many points I made was that two people from different background's can 'invent' an idea or solution outside their expertise with no apparent experience in the respective domain. So in that sense, their solution was apriori.

And another thought, which Kim had made early on, suggested all possible combinations of 'novel creativeness' already exist. It's just a matter of somehow being able [in our case of music] cognitively manifesting all possible combinations of notes, chord progressions, etc, etc. onto the instrument at the right time.

Any of that make sense?

Walrus

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Ender

Walrus, why don't you try and answer my question what do you mean by a priori without an ad hoc example that doesn't come even close to the standard, Kantian definition.

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Wiggin!



Do you wish to derail the argument or contribute to it? I mean, are you a musicain, artist, or a philosopher, and/or both? Do you have a theory behind novel conscious creativeness or not?

Please.

PS, if you don't have one, those of us interested in this discussion certainly understand... .

Walrus