Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:48:28 -0500 (EST)
From: eric-AT-dorsai.org (Eric Feinblatt)
Subject: Re: Materialism and aesthetic pleasure



malgosia wrote:

>Eric, my difficulty is exactly with disentangling the notion of "structure"
>from ideas of "meaning", which you seem to think is a straightforward
>operation.  It seems to me that any judgement as to how a given element
>functions structurally -- for example, that a given tone is a passing tone
>and thus is "on its way" towards a harmonic tone; or that a given figure is
>an ornament rather than an "essential" component of the melody -- engages
>in some very intimate commerce with considerations of meaning.
>
malgosia,

I think, perhaps, our confusion here stems from method. You seem to
presuppose a philosophical methodology involving totalizing imperatives,
desire for unity and cohesion, a system building as it were within which
"structural analysis" is elemental and, therefore, priveleged. That being
the case, there is no question that "considerations of meaning",
hierarchical evaluations, etc, enter into the equation. I am assuming
(suggesting), however, that it is possible to proceed scientifically, by
experiment and hyposthesis, to investigate without a priori judgements how
an element or elements may function structurally within a system. This
would operate more along the lines of Saul's "recognition" rather than
"perception".


malgosia wrote:

I didn't mean "privilege" in the sense of a value judgement, but in the sense
of imposing a hierarchy of importance.  Doesn't every perception of _structure_
involve judging certain events as primary and others as subordinate?


Gee, doesn't "a hierarchy of importance" imply a value judgement? Don't
"primary" and "subordinate" do the same?

-Eric




     --- from list avant-garde-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---