Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 16:22:18 -0600
From: George Trail <gtrail-AT-UH.EDU>
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
>
I meant, Pat, embarassed him in the eyes of others. Your reading is, uh, at
best imaginative, at worst, stupid.
g




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