Klarinet Archive - Posting 000718.txt from 2002/05

From: w7wright@-----.net (William Wright)
Subj: Re: [kl] synesthesia, science, and generally OT comments
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:51:07 -0400

<><> Bill Edinger wrote:
I'm afraid I can't agree with your argument at all, Bill. There was no
such thing as a "scientist" in the days when alchemists like Parcelsus
ruled - they were just barely beginning to establish the concept of
scientific reasoning,

What you're saying is that humans didn't do it right in those days ---
even though they tried --- and therefore they don't deserve the title
"scientist."

That's how I feel about some "musicians." A few renowned "musicians"
felt that same way about Stravinsky in earlier days.

We have the same problem today (of choosing a proper definition). Some
scientists believe that a particle can be in two places at once and
others don't. So which of them is "not a scientist" and which of them
is simply "wrong"?

I suppose we could bring this discussion on topic by debating whether
rap is really music or not, but I don't see much that can be said except
to agree that standards and definitions change, and our knowledge slowly
advances or retreats.

Bill, what you're really saying here is that Paracelsus had bad motives.
This is strictly a value judgement. You're entitled to your values, of
course.

Cheers,
Bill

================

If I had Stadler's mouthpiece, would I play better? Or do I need his
ligature also? Or perhaps he and I are different persons? If I had
Mozart's pen, would I compose better?

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