Topic: Neurodiversity and its poisonous alliance with feminist Bolshevik Frankfurtism
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY started this discussion 13 years ago #31,984
We have here a confusing situation with respect to the complete disconnect between how the biological sciences actually have understood autism, how psychiatry has slowly manipulated diagnostic criteria over time to pursue a political agenda and so, the misinforming of the former by the latter in order to gradually pervert the course of the development of the condition's understanding in the sciences. I won't deliberate specifics, I only have some of the pre-requesite knowledge with little of the accompanying patience to go through it all without feelings a sense of indignation at being wronged by these very phenomena.
One common thematic trope throughout the history of the diagnostic assessment and characterization of the autist is that he was emotionally never very human. Even within the realms of the early days of its development as a subset of childhood disintegrative schizophrenia during the early 20th century, whilst now today, because schizophrenia is the darling of Jewish afflictions (with more of the Ashkenazi population suffering as a proportion with its associated genes than any other on Earth), it is now exalted to a new status of human beauty, whilst autism is still denigrated as the cardless deck of all conditions, even beneath mental retardation, who are considered human in spite of their intelligence, while the peculiar intellectual characteristics of the autist make him little more than an overglorified, charmless cousin of the psychopath. This trope has now been amplified with time, its portrayal worsening with every piece of media coverage either purportedly positive or overbearingly, blatantly negative in its intended or implicit connotation.
The Neurodiversity movement has done little to help, and it's just as well that I have spent this time at such a distance from the general autism community, separating myself from what I once considered to be at the bastion of its defense, but no longer, because I have since learned, from this experiential position of extended distance, that the movement from the beginning was tainted through influences installed and contrived by various preceding radicalist organizations; you might have heard of the Frankfurt school conspiracy, I will return to that in a moment, but Donna Williams, one of the Frankfurt school's prominent and prolific intellectuals, had her hand in establishing the inchoate Neurodiversity movement. The main principle of Neurodiversity, far from being to combat any stereotype associated with the condition, is to perpetuate it and make this soulless caricature of the unhuman robota a source of inspiration to feed an intrinsic pride drawn narcissistically from within, fueling an egotistical impetus within its adherents to become impervious to reason and criticism, in what amounts to little more than emotional trickery, like any aspect of the "confidence movement" that had afflicted primary schools contemporaneously to Neurodiversity's establishment on internet forums. This artifice really begins to culminate when this is used to position themselves upon a springboard from which they launch on the all-attack: traditional society is evil because it is based on 'neurotypical' values, capitalistic economics is evil because it is based on 'neurotypical' values, hell, even "heteronormativity" (communist speak for natural human sexual relations) becomes nominated under this morally indignified category, because it is based on 'neurotypical' values. This is never truly established, and in fact, often contradictory positions of what constitute "neurotypicality" run rife within the movement, but that is not important, for sentiment is more important with reasoning, just like any other movement inspired by the Frankfurt school, whether that be the queers (LGBT rights), the feminists, the Anarcho-communists, etc. The neologism itself sounds like some pomobabble joke, but the ferverence of my belief in the hypocrisy then had clouded my faculties of reason.
It is not even so much of a movement that any of its adherents feel a part of than any of its adherents feel that they should be taken up by and wasted out in some Fabianistic Shaw-esque manner. No active participation or determination should be found of any of the movement's followers within its quarters lest some troglodyte will throw accusations of trying to "neurotypicalize" discourse, and they will proceed to ban you from all of its outlets upon the slightest implication that, even in good faith, do you posit it to them that their impassive attitude and willing capitulation to a nomenklatura of appointed co-ordinative 'masters', as Amy Roberts and Gareth Wilson of AFF have appointed themselves, is doing more harm than good for any alleged "progression" of their rights, as with any form of toxic progressivist-degeneration.
They are apologetics for a number of things the autist should find questionable does he care so much as an ounce for his own self-preservation. Vaccinations, the pharmaceutical companies, the socialistic welfare system of many nations which their ideological forebears — the Frankfurt Trotskyists — had successfully infiltrated in the West, and increasingly, feminists have been pouring into their ranks with the rampant inflation of the diagnostic worth of Asperger's syndrome in its expansion to encompass all scum-and-sundry. From a biological perspective it is worth nothing that hypermasculine neurology and a female hormonal environment run antithetically to each other., and believe me, a lot of these individuals are no stereotypical bulldyke or transsexual male either, they are as bitchy, as cavilling, as whining, as manipulative as any other femalewhore succubus having walked this planet hitherto.
So then we come back to the perpetuated myth's origin: in its rekindling by the feminists. They are closely allied with the Frankfurt Trotskyists, socialistic Fabians, and by implication, the Neurodiversity movement; in many respects, mainstream science, far from being the establishment juxtaposed to the "revolutionary" Neurodiversity movement, is the final culmination of Neurodiversity's goals in having subverted its process for the sublimation of autists to this rhetorical narrative.
The encodification is rather simple. Autism, despite being the diagnostic (read: metaphorical) dumping ground of all perceptively defective or undesirable stereotypical "extreme males," to borrow Cohen's terminology, during the 1980s-90s (depending on location, having moved Eastward with time), by the erstwhile femme-infiltrated neo-pedagogic psychiatry, became by the 2000s yet another "male dominated institution" — yes, apparently feminists even envy ghettos of their own creation — and so by the protocols laid out by their Frankfurter forebears to be manifested by the Neurodiversity of its intellectual descendency had compulsorily been obligatorily destroyed. Autism under this context becomes synonymous with male; because they are not absolute morons, it would've been a far stretch to have just done away with mankind by imposing some kind of blanket proscription on any form of psychological masculinity in the immediate, for that would've revealed the substance of the greater Trotskyist agenda, a subsuming of European culture, fundamentally encapsulated by an "autistic" process in its initial creation (understand that in their syllogism, autism becomes a codeword for all the evils of the former establishmentarianism which they perceive as needing to fight; European race-preservation, meritocracy, patriarchy, etc, is countered by the forces of race-egalitarianist/denialism, inclusivity, matriarchy, etc.) It is a classic turn of the Hegelian dialectic; covertly impose one meaning on top of a conventionally accepted meaning, to justify the crushing of its new precedent — maleness becomes a disease, maleness must be 'cured' for the pandemic to be wiped out.
The next step, in the 2010s, this decade, is to step up the inhumanity of this semantically superimposed reviled boogeyman, the autist male, a task semi-successfully attained through the promotion of such serial killers as Adam Lanza, which become archetypical memetic devices exemplifying the cold-bloodedness and unsympatheticness of the autistic "elemental disbalance with the divine feminine" to take supreme hegemony of our era.
Thus, the tomes are inset by conventional theory: the autistic male remains nothing more than a pathological, walking hard-disk, that objectivizes and fetishizes its immediate environment, mulling predatorily for its next prey, trying desperately to regain control over a situation which it has, by the holy commandments of the feminist narrative, no right to step edgewise in or even side-step of, for it deserves to be subjugated in atonement for the "sins" of its ancestors, the European male prodigies and geniuses who built our civilization, as the feminists believe, in a conspiracy to subsume them under the duty of undue slavery. Though, history tells us a different story about psychopathic females having emerged time and again in ancient Greece, Rome, even in the Dark and Middle Ages — especially in the Celtic world , where their lunar-power mythology runs rampant and I dare say is the inspiration for their vow to extend the single-parent matriarchy today, to worsen with the erection of an even more enormous welfare-state under the SNP's administration post-independence — to frustrate the further deceleration of their respective cultures' progress into complete collapse.
One common thematic trope throughout the history of the diagnostic assessment and characterization of the autist is that he was emotionally never very human. Even within the realms of the early days of its development as a subset of childhood disintegrative schizophrenia during the early 20th century, whilst now today, because schizophrenia is the darling of Jewish afflictions (with more of the Ashkenazi population suffering as a proportion with its associated genes than any other on Earth), it is now exalted to a new status of human beauty, whilst autism is still denigrated as the cardless deck of all conditions, even beneath mental retardation, who are considered human in spite of their intelligence, while the peculiar intellectual characteristics of the autist make him little more than an overglorified, charmless cousin of the psychopath. This trope has now been amplified with time, its portrayal worsening with every piece of media coverage either purportedly positive or overbearingly, blatantly negative in its intended or implicit connotation.
The Neurodiversity movement has done little to help, and it's just as well that I have spent this time at such a distance from the general autism community, separating myself from what I once considered to be at the bastion of its defense, but no longer, because I have since learned, from this experiential position of extended distance, that the movement from the beginning was tainted through influences installed and contrived by various preceding radicalist organizations; you might have heard of the Frankfurt school conspiracy, I will return to that in a moment, but Donna Williams, one of the Frankfurt school's prominent and prolific intellectuals, had her hand in establishing the inchoate Neurodiversity movement. The main principle of Neurodiversity, far from being to combat any stereotype associated with the condition, is to perpetuate it and make this soulless caricature of the unhuman robota a source of inspiration to feed an intrinsic pride drawn narcissistically from within, fueling an egotistical impetus within its adherents to become impervious to reason and criticism, in what amounts to little more than emotional trickery, like any aspect of the "confidence movement" that had afflicted primary schools contemporaneously to Neurodiversity's establishment on internet forums. This artifice really begins to culminate when this is used to position themselves upon a springboard from which they launch on the all-attack: traditional society is evil because it is based on 'neurotypical' values, capitalistic economics is evil because it is based on 'neurotypical' values, hell, even "heteronormativity" (communist speak for natural human sexual relations) becomes nominated under this morally indignified category, because it is based on 'neurotypical' values. This is never truly established, and in fact, often contradictory positions of what constitute "neurotypicality" run rife within the movement, but that is not important, for sentiment is more important with reasoning, just like any other movement inspired by the Frankfurt school, whether that be the queers (LGBT rights), the feminists, the Anarcho-communists, etc. The neologism itself sounds like some pomobabble joke, but the ferverence of my belief in the hypocrisy then had clouded my faculties of reason.
It is not even so much of a movement that any of its adherents feel a part of than any of its adherents feel that they should be taken up by and wasted out in some Fabianistic Shaw-esque manner. No active participation or determination should be found of any of the movement's followers within its quarters lest some troglodyte will throw accusations of trying to "neurotypicalize" discourse, and they will proceed to ban you from all of its outlets upon the slightest implication that, even in good faith, do you posit it to them that their impassive attitude and willing capitulation to a nomenklatura of appointed co-ordinative 'masters', as Amy Roberts and Gareth Wilson of AFF have appointed themselves, is doing more harm than good for any alleged "progression" of their rights, as with any form of toxic progressivist-degeneration.
They are apologetics for a number of things the autist should find questionable does he care so much as an ounce for his own self-preservation. Vaccinations, the pharmaceutical companies, the socialistic welfare system of many nations which their ideological forebears — the Frankfurt Trotskyists — had successfully infiltrated in the West, and increasingly, feminists have been pouring into their ranks with the rampant inflation of the diagnostic worth of Asperger's syndrome in its expansion to encompass all scum-and-sundry. From a biological perspective it is worth nothing that hypermasculine neurology and a female hormonal environment run antithetically to each other., and believe me, a lot of these individuals are no stereotypical bulldyke or transsexual male either, they are as bitchy, as cavilling, as whining, as manipulative as any other femalewhore succubus having walked this planet hitherto.
So then we come back to the perpetuated myth's origin: in its rekindling by the feminists. They are closely allied with the Frankfurt Trotskyists, socialistic Fabians, and by implication, the Neurodiversity movement; in many respects, mainstream science, far from being the establishment juxtaposed to the "revolutionary" Neurodiversity movement, is the final culmination of Neurodiversity's goals in having subverted its process for the sublimation of autists to this rhetorical narrative.
The encodification is rather simple. Autism, despite being the diagnostic (read: metaphorical) dumping ground of all perceptively defective or undesirable stereotypical "extreme males," to borrow Cohen's terminology, during the 1980s-90s (depending on location, having moved Eastward with time), by the erstwhile femme-infiltrated neo-pedagogic psychiatry, became by the 2000s yet another "male dominated institution" — yes, apparently feminists even envy ghettos of their own creation — and so by the protocols laid out by their Frankfurter forebears to be manifested by the Neurodiversity of its intellectual descendency had compulsorily been obligatorily destroyed. Autism under this context becomes synonymous with male; because they are not absolute morons, it would've been a far stretch to have just done away with mankind by imposing some kind of blanket proscription on any form of psychological masculinity in the immediate, for that would've revealed the substance of the greater Trotskyist agenda, a subsuming of European culture, fundamentally encapsulated by an "autistic" process in its initial creation (understand that in their syllogism, autism becomes a codeword for all the evils of the former establishmentarianism which they perceive as needing to fight; European race-preservation, meritocracy, patriarchy, etc, is countered by the forces of race-egalitarianist/denialism, inclusivity, matriarchy, etc.) It is a classic turn of the Hegelian dialectic; covertly impose one meaning on top of a conventionally accepted meaning, to justify the crushing of its new precedent — maleness becomes a disease, maleness must be 'cured' for the pandemic to be wiped out.
The next step, in the 2010s, this decade, is to step up the inhumanity of this semantically superimposed reviled boogeyman, the autist male, a task semi-successfully attained through the promotion of such serial killers as Adam Lanza, which become archetypical memetic devices exemplifying the cold-bloodedness and unsympatheticness of the autistic "elemental disbalance with the divine feminine" to take supreme hegemony of our era.
Thus, the tomes are inset by conventional theory: the autistic male remains nothing more than a pathological, walking hard-disk, that objectivizes and fetishizes its immediate environment, mulling predatorily for its next prey, trying desperately to regain control over a situation which it has, by the holy commandments of the feminist narrative, no right to step edgewise in or even side-step of, for it deserves to be subjugated in atonement for the "sins" of its ancestors, the European male prodigies and geniuses who built our civilization, as the feminists believe, in a conspiracy to subsume them under the duty of undue slavery. Though, history tells us a different story about psychopathic females having emerged time and again in ancient Greece, Rome, even in the Dark and Middle Ages — especially in the Celtic world , where their lunar-power mythology runs rampant and I dare say is the inspiration for their vow to extend the single-parent matriarchy today, to worsen with the erection of an even more enormous welfare-state under the SNP's administration post-independence — to frustrate the further deceleration of their respective cultures' progress into complete collapse.
!KThEOwLwbU joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 26 seconds later[^] [v] #448,689
Not fuxking rreeeaaaadddddiiinnnnggggg
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,690
@previous (!KThEOwLwbU)
The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something peculiarly abstruse and mysterious.
——John Stuart Mill
To reify (from Latin res: a thing) is to treat an idea or abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence. False reification, then, is the error of assuming that a pattern of data represents a “thing” in the real world, when there is no evidence for the existence of the thing other than the pattern. One of the oldest and best know examples is the Zodiac. In ancient times, people in various cultures identified patterns of stars along the ecliptic with figures of animals, mythical beings, and the like (with different cultures identifying different patterns). Then, for reasons beyond the scope of this essay, people developed the belief, still held by many today, that the positions of the sun, moon, and planets relative to these figures at the time of a person’s birth determine his or her character, personality, and fate, in a way that reflects the attributes of the animals or mythical beings identified with the star patterns and the planets.2 Yet the patterns themselves exist only relative to the position of an observer on earth—some stars in a constellation may be a few dozen light years away, others millions—an observer elsewhere in the universe would not see the same patterns. And the identities of the constellations are clearly creations of the human imagination, and some rather vivid imaginations at that.
I first encountered the concept of false reification in Stephen Jay Gould’s excellent book, The Mismeasure of Man.3, 4 The reification error that most concerns Gould is that scores from IQ tests represent a real-world phenomenon called “general intelligence” (and, further, that this commodity is heritable). However, I find the concept equally applicable to tuning theory and, by extension, to music theory in general. And, although no misconception in music theory is likely to result in such serious social consequences as those produced by the misapplication of intelligence testing, it can still lead to the expenditure of much time and energy on the formulation, presentation, and debating of theories that ultimately have little bearing on how any actual music might be composed or heard. Typically, these theories are based on mathematical models or constructive methods abstracted from scales or other musical structures.
Of course, everyone who has worked with Just Intonation is aware that numbers can represent real, significant musical phenomena. The very basis of Just Intonation is that musical intervals that can be represented by small integer frequency ratios are a distinct class, readily distinguished from (and, arguably, more beautiful than) those represented by more complex ratios. Clearly, this distinction extends to chords (triads, tetrads, pentads, and beyond) that can be represented as low-numbered subsets of a harmonic series. Given these undoubted facts, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the numerical properties of larger musical structures—scales, gamuts, melodies, harmonic progressions, and so on—would be similarly descriptive or predictive of their perceivable musical properties. To a certain extent, this is undoubtedly true. A scale or gamut comprising a network of closely connected consonant intervals based on low prime-limit ratios will certainly sound different and have different musical properties than one comprising large number and/or high prime-limit ratios (or irrational intervals); a scale with equal tetrachords will have different melodic properties than one with unequal tetrachords, and so on. These properties are obvious to the ear and do not require sophisticated mathematical analysis to discover.
Given that some characteristics of a scale, tuning system, or composition can be represented mathematically, it might seem a reasonable conclusion, or at least a reasonable speculation, that all significant features can be so represented. Perhaps so, although the truth of this statement is far from self-evident. From this arises the corollary that all features of a tuning system (or of a musical composition) that can be represented mathematically are musically significant and that there is a rather precise correspondence between mathematical and musical properties. Continuing down this path, we arrive at the idea that structures that are mathematically interesting, elegant, beautiful, or sophisticated necessarily have similar musical properties, or that the more sophisticated the mathematics required to describe or generate a tuning, the better will be the resulting music. Here we are deep in the territory of false reification. The computation, manipulation, and examination of the mathematical representations of tunings and other musical structures easily becomes an end in itself, far removed from the creation of actual music; in other words, it becomes a kind of recreational mathematics.
Part of the problem is the inherent difficulty of proving the truth of any proposition of music theory (or, by extension, of aesthetics) whatever. Because they are working with tables of numbers, geometric lattices, equations, and the like, tuning theorists may conclude that their theories can be proven on paper (or on a computer screen) like any other mathematical theorem. But to the extent that the numbers are meant to represent musical (that is, aesthetic), as opposed to merely acoustic phenomena, this cannot be so, at least not with our current level of understanding of human perception and emotional response. The proof of music must be in the hearing. Thus, to test any prescriptive theory, actual music based on the theory must be composed and heard. But this results in further difficulties. Different composers, given the same material, will produce vastly different results; indeed the same composer, working with the same material at different stages in his or her career (or even on successive days), may produce vastly different results. And, of course, different listeners may have very different reactions to the same composition and performance. How, then, can we determine to what extent the aesthetic impression created by a musical composition results from the theoretical properties of the raw material, the musicality, creativity, or stylistic preferences of the composer, or the musical tastes of the listeners?
Supposing that much of what passes for tuning theory is, in fact, recreational mathematics, is there any harm in this? Recreational mathematics is, no doubt, an enjoyable, blameless hobby that can occasionally result in mathematical discoveries of real value. And it is certainly possible that composers, in experimenting with the structures devised by mathematicians, may discover new musical possibilities that might otherwise go unnoticed. The harm, if any, is of two sorts. The first is that talented composers (or potential composers) may be seduced by the beauty of the numbers and spend too much time in mathematical exercises, to the neglect of composing, or be led to the false conclusion that music can be understood from the manipulation of numbers, without the intervention of the ears. A second and worse harm would result if it were believed that a high degree of mathematical sophistication was a prerequisite for composing in Just Intonation, where in fact no more than an understanding of elementary arithmetic is required.
Should the mathematical study of tuning be abandoned, then? I do not propose this, nor do I think that such a proposal would be taken very seriously by those engaged in this activity. What I do suggest, however, its that those who are interested in composing music resist the temptation to be seduced into recreational mathematics and instead devote more time to the aural study of tunings. Spend more time with your instruments and voice and less with computers and calculators, and better music will almost certainly be the result. The ear is and must ever be the best and final judge of music. A modest amount of math is necessary for the understanding of Just Intonation, but more is not necessarily better.
On Tuning Theory and False Reification
The tendency has always been strong to believe that whatever received a name must be an entity or being, having an independent existence of its own. And if no real entity answering to the name could be found, men did not for that reason suppose that none existed, but imagined that it was something peculiarly abstruse and mysterious.
——John Stuart Mill
To reify (from Latin res: a thing) is to treat an idea or abstraction as if it had concrete or material existence. False reification, then, is the error of assuming that a pattern of data represents a “thing” in the real world, when there is no evidence for the existence of the thing other than the pattern. One of the oldest and best know examples is the Zodiac. In ancient times, people in various cultures identified patterns of stars along the ecliptic with figures of animals, mythical beings, and the like (with different cultures identifying different patterns). Then, for reasons beyond the scope of this essay, people developed the belief, still held by many today, that the positions of the sun, moon, and planets relative to these figures at the time of a person’s birth determine his or her character, personality, and fate, in a way that reflects the attributes of the animals or mythical beings identified with the star patterns and the planets.2 Yet the patterns themselves exist only relative to the position of an observer on earth—some stars in a constellation may be a few dozen light years away, others millions—an observer elsewhere in the universe would not see the same patterns. And the identities of the constellations are clearly creations of the human imagination, and some rather vivid imaginations at that.
I first encountered the concept of false reification in Stephen Jay Gould’s excellent book, The Mismeasure of Man.3, 4 The reification error that most concerns Gould is that scores from IQ tests represent a real-world phenomenon called “general intelligence” (and, further, that this commodity is heritable). However, I find the concept equally applicable to tuning theory and, by extension, to music theory in general. And, although no misconception in music theory is likely to result in such serious social consequences as those produced by the misapplication of intelligence testing, it can still lead to the expenditure of much time and energy on the formulation, presentation, and debating of theories that ultimately have little bearing on how any actual music might be composed or heard. Typically, these theories are based on mathematical models or constructive methods abstracted from scales or other musical structures.
Of course, everyone who has worked with Just Intonation is aware that numbers can represent real, significant musical phenomena. The very basis of Just Intonation is that musical intervals that can be represented by small integer frequency ratios are a distinct class, readily distinguished from (and, arguably, more beautiful than) those represented by more complex ratios. Clearly, this distinction extends to chords (triads, tetrads, pentads, and beyond) that can be represented as low-numbered subsets of a harmonic series. Given these undoubted facts, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the numerical properties of larger musical structures—scales, gamuts, melodies, harmonic progressions, and so on—would be similarly descriptive or predictive of their perceivable musical properties. To a certain extent, this is undoubtedly true. A scale or gamut comprising a network of closely connected consonant intervals based on low prime-limit ratios will certainly sound different and have different musical properties than one comprising large number and/or high prime-limit ratios (or irrational intervals); a scale with equal tetrachords will have different melodic properties than one with unequal tetrachords, and so on. These properties are obvious to the ear and do not require sophisticated mathematical analysis to discover.
Given that some characteristics of a scale, tuning system, or composition can be represented mathematically, it might seem a reasonable conclusion, or at least a reasonable speculation, that all significant features can be so represented. Perhaps so, although the truth of this statement is far from self-evident. From this arises the corollary that all features of a tuning system (or of a musical composition) that can be represented mathematically are musically significant and that there is a rather precise correspondence between mathematical and musical properties. Continuing down this path, we arrive at the idea that structures that are mathematically interesting, elegant, beautiful, or sophisticated necessarily have similar musical properties, or that the more sophisticated the mathematics required to describe or generate a tuning, the better will be the resulting music. Here we are deep in the territory of false reification. The computation, manipulation, and examination of the mathematical representations of tunings and other musical structures easily becomes an end in itself, far removed from the creation of actual music; in other words, it becomes a kind of recreational mathematics.
Part of the problem is the inherent difficulty of proving the truth of any proposition of music theory (or, by extension, of aesthetics) whatever. Because they are working with tables of numbers, geometric lattices, equations, and the like, tuning theorists may conclude that their theories can be proven on paper (or on a computer screen) like any other mathematical theorem. But to the extent that the numbers are meant to represent musical (that is, aesthetic), as opposed to merely acoustic phenomena, this cannot be so, at least not with our current level of understanding of human perception and emotional response. The proof of music must be in the hearing. Thus, to test any prescriptive theory, actual music based on the theory must be composed and heard. But this results in further difficulties. Different composers, given the same material, will produce vastly different results; indeed the same composer, working with the same material at different stages in his or her career (or even on successive days), may produce vastly different results. And, of course, different listeners may have very different reactions to the same composition and performance. How, then, can we determine to what extent the aesthetic impression created by a musical composition results from the theoretical properties of the raw material, the musicality, creativity, or stylistic preferences of the composer, or the musical tastes of the listeners?
Supposing that much of what passes for tuning theory is, in fact, recreational mathematics, is there any harm in this? Recreational mathematics is, no doubt, an enjoyable, blameless hobby that can occasionally result in mathematical discoveries of real value. And it is certainly possible that composers, in experimenting with the structures devised by mathematicians, may discover new musical possibilities that might otherwise go unnoticed. The harm, if any, is of two sorts. The first is that talented composers (or potential composers) may be seduced by the beauty of the numbers and spend too much time in mathematical exercises, to the neglect of composing, or be led to the false conclusion that music can be understood from the manipulation of numbers, without the intervention of the ears. A second and worse harm would result if it were believed that a high degree of mathematical sophistication was a prerequisite for composing in Just Intonation, where in fact no more than an understanding of elementary arithmetic is required.
Should the mathematical study of tuning be abandoned, then? I do not propose this, nor do I think that such a proposal would be taken very seriously by those engaged in this activity. What I do suggest, however, its that those who are interested in composing music resist the temptation to be seduced into recreational mathematics and instead devote more time to the aural study of tunings. Spend more time with your instruments and voice and less with computers and calculators, and better music will almost certainly be the result. The ear is and must ever be the best and final judge of music. A modest amount of math is necessary for the understanding of Just Intonation, but more is not necessarily better.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,693
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
I R about to go back out to my Ocean a Blue. Walter yes I no u may not no Matt was banned by Meta
But Y Y Y? all this shit copypasta?
I R about to go back out to my Ocean a Blue. Walter yes I no u may not no Matt was banned by Meta
But Y Y Y? all this shit copypasta?
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 11 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #448,694
TTEH !JXsxEkDBLs joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,706
didnt read lol
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,713
only McWalter could make a dry-as-fuck wallotext about his love of the Big Mac disguised as an autfag brand wordsalad
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,738
lol autism
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 8 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,784
watler
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 9 hours later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,851
> hell, even "heteronormativity" (communist speak for natural human sexual relations) becomes nominated under this morally indignified category
I thought you were saying something interesting here, but you lost me there. Stop trying to collapse the whole range of "natural" human sexuality down to solely the most common and most structurally imposed form.
Hate to say it, dude, but I think it's pretty "natural" that I happen to want other guys to fuck me.
I thought you were saying something interesting here, but you lost me there. Stop trying to collapse the whole range of "natural" human sexuality down to solely the most common and most structurally imposed form.
Hate to say it, dude, but I think it's pretty "natural" that I happen to want other guys to fuck me.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 26 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #448,856
Anonymous H replied with this 13 years ago, 55 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,864
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,879
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,937
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Yeah, yeah, alright. Good. Please - if your head is gonna stay back in the '40s, keep the rest of yourself back there as well. Alright?
Yeah, yeah, alright. Good. Please - if your head is gonna stay back in the '40s, keep the rest of yourself back there as well. Alright?
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,938
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,939
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Hm? Autphag?
(Honestly could tell that it might've not been you.)
Hm? Autphag?
(Honestly could tell that it might've not been you.)
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #448,941
@previous (decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj)
My attention span could only allow for me to type out two paragraphs at most.
My attention span could only allow for me to type out two paragraphs at most.
decibelmilliwatts !!8lSAEPzaj replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,037
@previous (HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY)
Searched the dude up.
sdfjkfdskljdskjlfjkdlfskjldfskjldsf Dude should've been raised by caring, loving, competent commie parents.
OW.
That's.
Searched the dude up.
sdfjkfdskljdskjlfjkdlfskjldfskjldsf Dude should've been raised by caring, loving, competent commie parents.
OW.
That's.
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #449,038
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 9 months later, 9 months after the original post[^] [v] #490,342
Sweet, sweet truth.
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 months after the original post[^] [v] #490,354
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx replied with this 12 years ago, 10 hours later, 9 months after the original post[^] [v] #490,381
McWatler
HaikerensGuide !dBGi/iH4eY (OP) replied with this 12 years ago, 52 minutes later, 9 months after the original post[^] [v] #490,385
Anonymous I replied with this 12 years ago, 4 hours later, 9 months after the original post[^] [v] #490,416
@op
Illegible gibberish.
Illegible gibberish.