 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2016-11-23 00:12
I am conscious of interjecting myself into an ongoing discussion here. FWIW:
I was fortunate enough to attend a "Great Books" college. As far as the broader world is concerned this was a tragic and pitiable error. On the contrary, I find it to be just about the most interesting and the most useful thing I have ever done. There were no lectures, just discussions of books lead by a "tutor" (professor). We argued a lot.
The ideals of "free exchange of ideas", "dispassionate inquiry", and such were much better realized there than anywhere else I've been, but even at its best it can be a spectacular failure. That doesn't mean we didn't learn anything. There were no boring classes. Tiresome, yes. Boring, no. Often times learning came after class, when you had the opportunity to reflect on what was said, and didn't have to identify or admit your mistakes or confusion in the fray of the moment. We weren't changing only our opinions about things, we were changing ourselves, and being changed. A blade is sharpened by friction.
More importantly, I learned the following. Learning takes time. Discussion takes time. We are wrong more than we are right. Doing something right (as musicians know) often requires doing it wrong about 10,000 times.
One of the great falsehoods of our time is that learning is easy. People think you are supposed to be right all the time. In school we are rewarded only for being right. Being wrong is looked down upon. Being wrong, making mistakes, or even being perceived as wrong, is a basis for being personally judged and devalued. That judgment is wrong. You must almost always be wrong before you can be right. Being wrong is part of the deal. It's the way it works. If someone is never wrong, they probably don't understand what they happen to be right about. They are just repeating something. If you are wrong a lot, but correct yourself, then you know WHY you are right in the end. Socrates likens learning to childbirth. It's painful and hard. It can be very enjoyable, but is is also work (like music).
We are also taught that ignorance is only bad and blameworthy. "Ignorant" is commonly used in place of "prejudiced" or "morally deficient", but that's not what it really means. Ignorance means "without knowledge". There can be blameworthy ignorance, when you don't know something you should, but that is not what it really means. If I am ignorant, it just means I don't know something. There is no learning without ignorance. What any of us know is very small in comparison to what we don't know.
Resistance to acknowledging that someone else is right, and we are wrong, isn't only a matter of pride (although that often comes into it). Sometimes we are reluctant to accept what someone else says because we do not see it for ourselves. I have often been in a situation where I could not refute someone else's claim or argument, but I did not accept it. Later I may have come to agree with them, I may have modified my own view, or I may have satisfied myself they were wrong. In any case it was worth the discussion because I learned something.
- Matthew Simington
Post Edited (2016-11-23 00:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2016-11-23 17:58
Matthew Simington wrote,
>I have often been in a situation where I could not refute someone else's claim or argument, but I did not accept it. Later I may have come to agree with them, I may have modified my own view, or I may have satisfied myself they were wrong. In any case it was worth the discussion because I learned something.
>
These comments from Tony Pay and Matthew Simington particularly resonate with me right now because my husband and I spent the past Saturday as voluntary judges in a high school forensics tournament. (That's forensics as in speech and debate, not dead bodies. He's a retired trial attorney. I'm a film critic and I was a high school debate nerd, back in the days when dinosaurs ruled the earth.) We judge in several tournaments per year. Forensics teaches participants to hear and understand both sides of an argument. For debates, participants must prepare both sides of each argument. The teams don't know until the last minute before a round which sides they'll have to argue. Impromptu speech contestants draw three topics, choose one, then have seven minutes to prepare and deliver a speech on the chosen topic.
I've noticed that people with backgrounds in speech and debate have a difficult time declaring that we're absolutely, positively, 100 percent sure about anything. Well, I'm often sure I'm not sure, but that's about as far as I'll go. And I've been wrong plenty of times here on this bulleting board -- and Tony Pay has often been the one to correct my mistakes. Post-truth society? Fie upon it!
A couple of days ago, the local public radio station played Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 5. Listening to that final movement, I realized I had my debate experience to thank for the fact that, when my high school orchestra played this piece in the mid-1960s, I decided to ignore a former teacher's assertion that double-tonguing was not possible on reed instruments.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2016-11-23 18:27
Tough subject, but important to ponder.
If "saving face" is too important, whether for ourselves or protection of the feelings of others- knowledge of truth, and progress, both suffer. I'm pretty sure that's bad, nearly all the time.
If "saving face" is not important enough, especially for the protection of the feelings of others- we will be callous, cruel, and uncaring. I'm pretty sure that's undesirable also, and might also impede progress on many fronts.
We all have observed or been part of situations that were or are too far one way or the other. I've done both, and I usually know when I'm off base. Most of us don't need better discernment, we just need to fix what we already recognize.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk ★2017
Date: 2016-11-23 20:17
Some very interesting themes are pointed out here. This thread may not have much to do with playing the clarinet, but has everything to do with communication and learning: think clarinet bulletin boards and clarinet teaching.
A colleague of me remarked some years ago (not where I'm employed now): 'I won't go into any discussion with you, because you always win'. His remark has been an eye opener for me. At first, I didn't understand because I always thought that the art of discussing has nothing to do with winning but everything with gaining a higher level of knowledge by challenging each other, and helping to get your thoughts clear. More recently, I realised again that some colleagues are very reluctant to participate in discussions, even when invited.
I have a background in physics and during the nineties I worked at the Philips NatLab, the research centre of the electronics manufacturer Philips. There were about 2000 highly educated people walking around the premises, and discussions were a very normal part of the culture. Somebody just walked into your office and challenged your statements. The resulting exchange of ideas and visions and the clearing up of all kinds of misunderstanding helped us tremendously in achieving our goal: a better understanding of the (physical) truth.
So, I have experienced a professional environment where discussions and challenging of others where highly appreciated, and I have worked in places where people were avoiding this form of communication. Since I believe that discussions can be beneficial to all participants, the question is: why do some people avoid them, or others want the last word because they refuse to 'lose'?
Maybe this is because of low self confidence, and/or they think discussions are a kind of arm wrestling and they are not as strong as their opponent. Of course, I am realising now that the 'level of challenge' you put into a discussion should be balanced with the level of knowledge of the participants. But even when one of the participants has gained much more knowledge in some field it should always be possible to ask one or two questions which make him think. I still try do do that in order to learn something from their answer and maybe they learn something from my question, too. This has everything to do with respect and willingness to learn.
But, I have learned not everybody feels it that way. I've been following the Klarinet list and later this board since 1994 and lots of threads got out of hand because of this (learned a lot too, by the way). Especially the arts may be a field in which it is difficult to find 'truths'. But Mr. Pay's quest for getting things clear and specific is exactly mine: without that we only can exchange private beliefs and views and accept them or not and that's it. We will even not be sure we simply understand what the other is saying.
(Again, formulating this reply helped me with getting some of my ideas more clear for myself!)
Regards,
Luuk
Philips Symphonic Band
The Netherlands
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
