Are your systems more Plato or Aristotle?


I think mine is more on the side of Plato. I prefer a system that can communicate the essense of music rather than the substance of music.

Let's face it. With the current technology, no system in the world that can recreate a live event therefore it might as well create, let's say an alternate reality, that you may enjoy. If you can't get the real thing, there's no point of pretending. I mean you can't even be sure of your own existence.

Sweet dreams!!!
andy2

Showing 4 responses by viggen

I would think Plutonians would emphasize more of an examination what is music through metaphysicals; whereas, Aristoleans would emphasize more on the equipment and measurements through the physicals. Also, the former would be "ever-evolving", and the latter would be in its final state. Neither would represent a school of thought of pure musical enjoyment as both "see" the music but not actually hearing it.
You seem to have incorporated both the relativeness/phenomenological of German Hegalians and the stringentness/empirical of British Hegalians in your description timelessness and (lack of) static nature. It is a bit confusing.
I've not heard of Adorno, however, I get what you are saying in regards to art being the cipher between the person and the temporal. However, just a matter of semantics, I rather see the examination of how the person deciphers art rather than how art deciphers the person as the key to understanding "history." Cuz, as you said, nature/history is a myth. But, and here is my assertion, human nature remains static.
I would love to learn more about the theories of dialectics/aethetics. My self education of these probably stopped at around the 19th century. Thanks for the heads up. Rereading old reprints/reinterpreted books on epistomology and the like just doesn't do it for me anymore. Perhaps these will. I will "borrow" the books/essays you suggested next time I frequent Borders.