Klarinet Archive - Posting 000892.txt from 1998/11

From: Neil Leupold <nleupold@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl] Re: Should I..? [No, you shouldn't.]
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 02:14:10 -0500

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Tony Pay wrote:

> You are being selective here about your quoting.

I'm selective in my quoting not for the purpose of altering
the meaning of your original words. If I have failed to pre-
serve the spirit of your meaning while in the process of trying
to focus on a particular element of your message as a whole,
I apologize. Henceforth, I will attempt with greater diligence
to capture your meaning to the best of my understanding of its
content.

I originally wrote:

> > So while you and Dan Leeson and others of varying genuine and
> > self-purported advancement probably feel that your personal tastes and
> > needs are not being fully met by the daily discourse, understand that
> > every other member of the list feels that way too.

To which you respded:

> ...it is a statement about the nature of enquiry itself. Otherwise we
> enter the postmodernist nightmare that anything anybody says is as good
> as anything else anybody else says, regardless of logic. Being a
> musician itself is a process of enquiry.

I won't quibble over the specific verbiage of your second sentence above
with respect to the relative value of statements under comparison. I inter-
pret the sentence to indicate that the value of a message may be measured
in part on the basis of its accuracy and usefulness to a recipient of the
message. If my interpretation is fairly close to your intent, then I agree
with you wholeheartedly. We're not in a situation of "anything goes" on
the Klarinet list. People in general make judgments of relative merit
about the information they receive over the course of their daily lives.
That capacity for judgment does not shut down when somebody logs onto
email and reads contributions by members of the Klarinet community.
Do I understand correctly that you are somewhat apprehensive about
the quality of that judgment across the population of Klarinet sub-
scribers?

> You seem to find it offensive that I want to argue this. At any rate
> you certainly seem to find it necessary to take a high moral tone.
> Perhaps you think, mistakenly, that it's the same issue as the highly
> emotive subject of free speech and censorship.

"No" to all of the above, but I don't say that with the intent of
being beligerent or disagreeable. Truthfully. I understand very
well your desire to clarify to the list that there is some importance
about phrasing one's statements carefully in order to ensure that
the reader is not mis-led or misinformed. I take no offense at all
regarding your desire to argue the point. I certainly intend none
of my responses to carry a moral tone of any kind, regardless of
the word choice I used in response to an interesting post by Scott
Morrow. I was simply following his lead in that case, and beyond
it, the thread you've begun here is a purely academic matter. For
the record, I make no connection between the rights of American
citizens to vote, peaceably assemble, or publicly voice their
opinions...in comparison to advocacy on the Klarinet list that the
manner in which contributors word their submissions might better
serve this community if given greater consideration prior to
hitting the "send" button.

> I, on the other hand find it offensive to encounter the results of what
> I would say are unhealthy relationships between those who *know* and
> those who *want only to be told*, in the world of music. It's
> sufficiently prevalent to be more than worth while pointing out, even
> at the risk of damaging the exquisite balance of this list.

It is lamentable that students are misinformed or misguided, even by
the best-intentioned instructors. My opposite viewpoint on the matter
is that there is a greater harvest to be reaped by educating the re-
cipients of guidance -- be it well-founded or not -- to use their judg-
ment and discriminative abilities regarding the information received on
Klarinet, just as they are inclined to do with their own private teach-
ers. This seems like a more fruitful path than indicating that members
of the list are sometimes careless when they make statements couched in
terms of absolute fact. We already know this, which is not to say that
it wouldn't be nice if people actually *did* measure their words more
carefully when responding to a given query. For my own part, I've always
proceeded by default on the basis that nothing stated on this list is
cast in stone or imparted from "on high."

I apologize for being unable to address the remainder of your comments.
This is not meant to be disrespectful in any way. In the final argu-
ment, I think we're both right. I think you're right that Klarinet
members would all benefit to some degree if it were always made clear
that the information they're sending is not a form of clarinet gospel.
And I think I'm right as well for suggesting that, from a recipient's
standpoint, what you recommend goes without saying. For any who did
not previously observe such a fundamental caveat, I imagine they will
heed it henceforth given the exposure that this thread has afforded
the issue.

Neil

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