Klarinet Archive - Posting 000099.txt from 2010/08
From: Jennifer Jones <helen.jennifer@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Projection
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 04:05:19 -0400
The finished version:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Jennifer Jones
<helen.jennifer@-----.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:02 PM, K S <krsmav@-----.com> 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. I don't see how projection comes into
> Tony's post.
I wish to amend that I do not know what Tony was thinking when he made
the statement of interest. Though, I still think that the 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 found 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
from Tony Pay. But, please, if not interested, then don't comment.
On the other hand, Tony's post could be read as if he was defending
his friend (5). Which still does not affect my judgement that
projection does not come into play in Tony Pay's post. As stated
before, I think it supports my judgement that Tony's connection with
the clarinet maker Bangham could explain a response at a later date,
especially if he did not learn of Ken Shaw's criticism of the article
until that date.
> This may have some bearing on my response. Except 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 to the bore design article (1).
There are three ways I interpret my response to the portion of the
article labeling as sad a lack of incorporation of Benade's
modifications into the clarinet:
-at face value, as a literal link between sadness and the extreme form, crying
-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.
The best way I see to get away from use of the concept projection, is
to simply accept what I said in my first post and leave it at that.
Separating the emotional word from the acoustic innovations addressed
in the bore design article; 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 components may come into play constructively.
Emotions are, after all, hard-wired into human beings.
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.
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
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.
I welcome any comments or criticisms.
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... " A simple statement that
Benade's design innovations have not been incorporated into clarinet
manufacturing would be a bit better than stating that this
modification would interesting. Both of those options are preferable
to using "Sadly..."
> Ugh. Projection is one way of reading things such that they are in
> common with your view. The 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. It 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. Granted, being sad is less extreme
> that actually crying. The connection still exists. Why else use
> the word? The author may be using it to point out something that
> needs to be done. Why not simply state that a useful thing to do
> would be to incorporate Benade's suggestions into the design of the
> clarinet? Are negative motivators stronger than positive ones?
>
> How else could the use of the word sadly be interpreted? As mere
> imitation of phrases other people use? Then this would still carry
> the baggage of using sadly as a means of motivation. Though 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:
1) article
http://www.woodwindcourse.co.uk/user/image/clarinet_bore_design.doc
2) my original post
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2010/08/000043.txt
3) how I found the argument
http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/lookup.php/Klarinet/2010/08/000028.txt
4) what inspired me to join in:
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/EarlyClarinet/message/2001
5) statement of interest:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=314881&t=314881
6) For more history:
original BB posts of Ken Shaw, stevensfo and Tony Pay
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=281033&t=280953
excellent illustration of how this really is a tempest in a tea pot
7) a cryptic list of what are presumably errors in the bore design article
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=327459&t=326999&v=t
errors
_______________________________________________
Klarinet mailing list
Klarinet@-----.com
To do darn near anything to your subscription, go to:
http://klarinet-list.serve-music.com
