Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 18:20:48 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Language?


On Wed, 13 May 1998, Christopher Honey wrote:

> The notes on the page signify certain sounds.  But the sounds do not 
> necessarily refer to any specific thing.   A b-flat note played 
> on a violin (I don't know anything about violins or b-flats, but 
> bear with me) doesn't "mean" anything.  However much e.e. cummings 
> (or Pynchon, Simic, etc.) plays with the language, he is merely 
> stretching the boundaries of the system, not working outside it.  I 
> think.

Some of this may be a bit off the topic of this discussion and the list,
but here goes:

If the notes on the page do indeed signify, do they signify certain sounds
or certain actions? (I suppose notated electronic music would complicate
this issue.)  Or do they signify something more like vibrations (in the
air, on a string) or even mathematical ratios?

If individual notes don't signify, on the other hand, how about musical
phrases? (i.e., _this_ phrase signifies _this_ feeling, _this_ thought,
_this_ poetic gesture...)  Here I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's observation
that understanding a certain "statement" or linguistic "phrase" is a lot
like understanding a musical phrase.  But if this is the case, then it
seems something like a structuralist model of language is required to make
sense of music-as-linguistic -- for surely no single, isolated note could
"mean" anything.  Which touches on a question that's been on my mind for
some time: what does a structuralist model of language really accomplish
that a phenomenological model is by definition incapable of? 

Jay

			   jwt-AT-dana.ucc.nau.edu
:::::::::::::::::::::::=============================-------------------------



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---