From: Patsloane <Patsloane-AT-aol.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 15:44:07 EST
Subject: Re: PLC: A Music Theory


In a message dated 98-01-21 14:00:27 EST, you write:

> > And, can you provide me with an example of how a lack of knowledge of 
> music theory has embarrassed thinkers who write about music? The more 
> weisnichtvo (Carlyle?) and "things in general" the writer the better.
>  
>  This is a great question; I can't site anyone off-hand, but it's worth 
> looking  into.  Hegel, who I happen to like, says some really empty, even
stupid 
> things  about music.  So does Heidegger.  And its clear the Boulez
understood much
>  better what Foucault was up to that the reverse.
>  Reg
>  
Reg,
In answer to George's question, Hegel wasn't embarrassed when he said stupid
things about music, because Hegel didn't know the things he was saying were
stupid.

Maybe we should be talking about stupidity. Except maybe in history and
philosophy of religion, stupidity gets brushed aside as a factor that  isn't
supposed to count. But of course it does count. I think GT (above) is toying
with the idea that it's OK to be stupid if one isn't embarrassed by one's
stupidity. I fail to see why he wants to privilege lack of embarrassment, but
possibly he'll tell us.

pat



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