Klarinet Archive - Posting 000090.txt from 2010/08

From: Jennifer Jones <helen.jennifer@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Projection
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:35:26 -0400

That did not make sense.

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jennifer Jones
<helen.jennifer@-----.com> wrote:
> Ken Shaw wrote:
>>Tony, you may be enlightened by looking up the definition of
>>"projection" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
>
> It seems to me that Tony pointed out his interest in the article to
> explain his delayed response. =A0I don't see how projection comes into
> Tony's post.

Excuse me. I do not know what Tony was thinking when he made the
post. Though, I still think that Tony's statement of interest could
explain why he responded in a delayed fashion. He may not have been
aware of the initial request for criticism at the time of the post and
may have stumbled upon it later. And given his interest, I would not
be at all surprised if the topic was still compelling to him a year
later. Commentary is, of course welcome by the subject under
discussion. But, please, if not interested, then don't comment.

> This may have some bearing on my response. =A0Except I can't find
> another means of explaining it.

This is dreadfully cryptic and borders on the absurd or simply not
making sense. I rewrite:

Projection may have some bearing on my response.

There are three ways I view the discussion of incorporation of
Benade's modifications into the clarinet:

-at face value, as a literal link between sadness and the extreme form, cry=
ing
-as a literal link between sadness and the extreme form, crying,
heuristically considering the use of an emotional term in the context
of discussion of a topic that does not inherently have emotion and
often serves as an escape from emotional issues
or
-as projection of personal mental associations (due to familial issues
or other historical experiences) on to the topic under discussion in
the article.

The third view was addressed in my previous post. The first I address
below. The second is cursorily touched upon, as it builds upon the
first.

Ugh. I can't figure out how to get away from this psychological crud
(use of the concept projection), except just to accept what I said in
my first post and leave it at that.

Namely, that it is not inherently sad that Benade's innovations have
not been incorporated, rather in the world outside the mind, they
simply exist. It is silly to bring emotion into the topic because of
the literal link between sadness and crying. The main way I would see
sadness come into it would be if someone has worked really hard to get
the improvements incorporated into the clarinet, had not succeeded
*and* found that that makes him or her sad. However, that is an issue
inherent to that person and I argue that it can be useful to leave
such issues out, when writing on technical topics. It can be argued
that in the context of teaching and any personal bond(s) that
forms(form) between student(s) and teacher, such emotional issues may
come into play constructively.

This can also be looked at in terms of value judgements; the sad or
interesting nature of incorporation of Benade's innovations is a value
judgement projected by the author or reader on the topic at hand. It
may be useful to leave these out because when an author makes a value
judgement it invites a value judgement in response.

When writing, (e.g. technically or for teaching), these issues need to
be considered.

For me, it would be interesting if the innovations were incorporated.
However, the sadness or interesting nature of incorporation of
Benade's innovations is independent of the innovations and is a
personal issue. So I have changed my mind and now think that it makes
more sense to simply state that Benade's innovations have not been
incorporated into the clarinet manufacturing process.

To leave the psychological baggage behind, and not employ the concept
of projection in considering my initial response to the bore design
article:

I responded in a cool and collected manner, heuristically linking an
emotional word to its most extreme form and considering the
consequences.

or

It is impossible; emotion was thoroughly integral to my response. I
responded emotionally to an emotional word, addressing its meaning in
an extreme form.

And hence, I have found a means of explaining my response to the bore
design article without using projection.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Jones

P.S. I have changed my mind regarding my suggestion that the negative
stance "sadly..." should be replaced with a positive stance such as
"It would be interesting to see these innovations incorporated into
the manufacture of the clarinet... " I prefer a simple statement
that Benade's design innovations have not been incorporated into
clarinet manufacturing.

> Ugh. =A0Projection is one way of reading things such that they are in
> common with your view. =A0The bit in the article that says "Sadly no one
> has incorporated Benade's modifications into clarinets" brings in an
> element of emotion, that can subtly play on emotional hangups people
> may have. =A0It can be used as a motivator, which unfortunately in my
> family did serve that purpose.
>
> Nonetheless, whether the author intended to play on the emotional hang
> ups, he still did use the word sadly. =A0Granted, being sad is less extre=
me
> that actually crying. =A0The connection still exists. =A0Why else use
> the word? =A0The author may be using it to point out something that
> needs to be done. =A0Why not simply state that a useful thing to do
> would be to incorporate Benade's suggestions into the design of the
> clarinet? =A0Are negative motivators stronger than positive ones?
>
> How else could the use of the word sadly be interpreted? =A0As mere
> imitation of phrases other people use? =A0Then this would still carry
> the baggage of using sadly as a means of motivation. =A0Though the
> author may not be thinking in those terms, it is still imitation of
> someone else using sadness as a motivator.
>
> Projection may be a tool to make us think about whether what we are
> about to say will add something interesting to the conversation.
> On the other hand, most people add interesting things to the
> conversation without that tool.
>
> Are metaphors and similes a form of projection?
>
> -Jennifer Jones
>

References:

article
my original post

original posts of Kenneth Shaw and Tony Pay

ensuing argument?

my orignial
relation between value and emotion
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com