source file: mills2.txt
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:25:51 -0800

Subject: Truth and Beauty

From: James Kukula <kukula@synopsys.com>

I hear that millenia ago folks could reason from one mathematical proposition
to another, but they didn't have the idea that there was some nice neat
foundation from which all other true propositions could be derived. Euclid's
name is often associated with that technique. & of course Goedel's.

So with music. Certainly there are lots of musical systems, including
alternative tuning systems. We can compare these, discover relationships of
mutual support or conflict, etc. And we can also try to dig or distill to
find some foundation or essence, some secure truth from which we can infer
the truth value of the many musical propositions we entertain. 

Somehow it seems that when folks go foundation hunting, they often bag quite
a variety of game. Variety is not altogether bad in fruit, but it's death to
roots. The effort to resolve conflicts instead intensifies the conflicts.  

If science cannot resolve a conflict, is the matter worth pursuing? If we say
"no", then don't we discard the most important treasures of humanity? If we
say "yes", do we thereby enlist in new rounds of religious warfare?

Stephen Toulmin's COSMOPOLIS: THE HIDDEN AGENDA OF MODERNITY nicely argues
that science grew out of the bitter religious conflicts that arose during the
16th & 17th Centuries. Toulmin describes some of the devastation of the 30
years war, 1618-1648. I was eating lunch with a Polish friend the other day,
who recalled that the Polish population declined from 10 million to 6 million
during just a few years of that conflict. I've heard that some regions of
Central Europe suffered 70% mortality during that war. 

So science was more or less an agreement to focus on issues that could be
resolved by recourse to objective observation, logic, etc. To remove other
issues from the political sphere. To decriminalize (religious) heresy.

I've just started looking at ECOLOGIES OF KNOWLEDGE: WORK AND POLITICS IN
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ed. by Susan L. Star. A sentence:

  The sociology of art has been concerned with the question of whether some
  things aren't *really* just beautiful (in a timeless or transcendental
  fashion).

There's a note on this sentence to Howard Becker, no specific work. But in
the bibliography his ART WORLDS is listed, so that might have some relevance
to the matter.

This issue is perhaps the fundamental problem of our time, so its scope is
far vaster than music and tuning. But music and tuning might actually capture
the issue in a nutshell. Mathematics meets aesthetics, face to face. 

Out of the muck grows and blossoms the most beautiful flower!

Jim

Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl
           with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:54 +0100
Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA08234; Mon, 17 Feb 1997 05:54:20 +0100
Received: from ella.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA08227
Received: from  by ella.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI)
	 id UAA27479; Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:52:42 -0800
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:52:42 -0800
Message-Id: <199702162350_MC2-115B-A62A@compuserve.com>
Errors-To: madole@mills.edu
Reply-To: tuning@ella.mills.edu
Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu
Sender: tuning@ella.mills.edu