Klarinet Archive - Posting 000137.txt from 2000/03

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] Toys? Obsessions?
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:57:50 -0500

On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 23:22:07 EST, klarann@-----.com said:

> On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:30:15 GMT Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
> writes:
>
> > We need another way of characterising something that isn't properly
> > connected to the world it's actually designed to live in.
>
> Essentials and options?

Well, that's not quite it, but my own suggestions were way off beam.

It's the "not relating something sufficiently to its proper context"
that makes that something a toy in that context, in my previous use of
the word 'toy'.

Obviously, a clarinet can be intelligently looked at in other contexts:
as a piece of history, or as an object to be tinkered with, say.

And clearly, though Walter is fascinated by his mouthpieces, and calls
them his 'toys', he's actually relating them to their proper context in
a totally appropriate way.

What I'm trying to get at is,

"Something-that-you-think-is-very-important-in-a-particular-context-but-is
actually-only-important-within-a-richer-version-of-that-context."

Like my obsession with 'which is the best computer language?', or
someone's obsession with 'which is the best ligature?', and our
respective partisanship of our 'choice'.

So here, 'obsession' is better than 'falling in love', because it
captures the 'inability to look beyond the love object' that I was
trying for.

So perhaps, just, 'obsessions'.

(I'll get my coat:-)

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE www.gmn.com/artists/welcome.asp
tel/fax 01865 553339

... Did you know that no-one ever reads these things?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org