Klarinet Archive - Posting 000137.txt from 2003/07
From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: Re: [kl] Anons
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 15:36:47 -0400
On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 10:52:10 +0100, tony-w@-----.uk said:
> Tony Pay said:
>
> > I think that the opinions/statements of no matter who, aren't
> > particularly interesting. Even very eminent people sometimes have
> > strange opinions, and make strange statements. On the other hand,
> > the *arguments* they may make, as opposed to their statements or
> > opinions, stand independently of their source.
>
> Tony W. says:
>
> I believe that all three are linked intellectually, and do not stand
> independently from each other.
There is a very clear intellectual distinction between what is *true*,
and can be asserted independently of the authority of the person
asserting it, and what is *opinion*, no matter whose opinion.
Appreciating that distinction has been immensely important for the
achievment and maintenance of much that we hold dear in our lives; and
not appreciating it has led to much hardship. (Cf. Lysenko.) The search
for, and approximation to such truth is the foundation of scientific
enquiry, including our progress in medicine, and is what allows whatever
justice we have in our courts.
> If they are separated into individual components then this is not how
> everyday normal living and thinking is conducted.
Well, I think it's as well to reflect that 'how everyday normal living
and thinking is conducted' includes, for some unlucky people even as we
speak, the shooting and blowing up of others and of themselves, whether
in individual acts or acts of war.
In the endeavour to end that sorry state of affairs, it's just as
important to get into the habit of forcing yourself to agree with what
you can see to be true statements about facts in the world -- and not
to cover them over even if you find them to be unpalatable -- as it is
to get into the habit of recognising what you yourself stand for, and
into the habit and honour of being 'true' to yourself.
In order to do that, we all need practice, reflection, and the help of
others.
> I`m a "normal" guy who tries to stay on the ground with my thinking.
> My thinking never does reach a higher plane in my normal day`s
> routine, for example answering klarinet mail ( I`m not sure that it`s
> able to anyway :<) ) Hence, I think it`s possible that you Tony, and
> one or two others may be trying to elevate this argument to a position
> where the mind has to enter into such an advanced state of logical
> analysis, this in itself makes it not particularly interesting for
> <what it`s worth>.
Since you have got hot under the collar once or twice yourself on the
list, I want to tell you that the argument you produce here, which I
have seen all too often before, incenses me more than I can adequately
express.
*I'm a normal guy too*. And I'm a normal guy who's thoroughly fed up
with people who pretend that even simple things are too complicated for
them to consider carefully; and in addition that what they may have to
take time in order to consider carefully is by that token 'not
particularly interesting'.
'Advanced state of logical analysis' -- MY ARSE.
By the way, remind me to avoid ever having you on a jury with me. Did
you never see, "Twelve Angry Men"?
[skip of stuff about anonymity]
> I made the same remark again when I mentioned the Malcolm Arnold
> Divertimento, and no-one pulled me up for it. Yes, this was
> deliberately putting my toe into the waters again.
But it wasn't the same at all. What you said before was:
"It's probably fair to say that without exception all like it [Martin's
CD]."
and what you said about the MAD was:
"I think it's fair to say that most, if not all, would enjoy it."
These are different statements, because
'Without exception all do' is a statement about our world, whereas
'Most, if not all, would' is a prediction about a possible future world.
You would have avoided all this if you had said to NoName, "OK, you're
right. But it's still true that large numbers of list members have
enjoyed it, and posted that they have, which is enough for me."
You can still do that.
> So I believe that with much sincere respect to a fine musician and
> thinker, the remaining explanations below to be superfluous. I only
> want to remain an "everyday" thinker.
Which is much better than being a 'fine' thinker, who is "trying to
elevate the argument to a position where the mind has to enter into such
an advanced state of logical analysis, this in itself makes it not
particularly interesting for <what it`s worth>."
Isn't it?
Do you understand, Tony, that in spite of your superficially genial
engagement with the list, you are actually quite an arrogant and
opinionated man?
You don't need to defend that, because many wonderful people have been
arrogant and opinionated. What you might do is to see where that stance
works for you, and where it doesn't.
You might see, for example, that you are a lesser musician than Arnold
Schoenberg.
> I really do have to get into my day now.
Oh, poo. Busy old, important old you.
> My original compromise of a few days ago is still not resolved. But
> thank you indeed to Tony for trying to consider this dilemma in a so
> charmingly genteel and thoughtful manner. You have my respect.
Doubtless that's gone away now.
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE GMN family artist: www.gmn.com
tel/fax 01865 553339
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/
