Thread is now about Holist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

He's also cherrypicking root word definitions to suit his made-up definition, because "autos" is most often used to denote "self" in the recursive sense. "Authentic" means, essentially, that it is what it presents itself to be. It is itself. Not that it "is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles" which is just some made-up wankery.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

He's also cherrypicking root word definitions to suit his made-up definition, because "autos" is most often used to denote "self" in the recursive sense. "Authentic" means, essentially, that it is what it presents itself to be. It is itself. Not that it "is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles" which is just some made-up wankery.

Sometimes, I just sit back and watch Holist - and all the others like him, over the years - dig their heels in deep in the poop, and spin like a Goddamn ballerina to prove that they're REALLY RIGHT.  Never mind that they have to do contortions like a circus freak to do so.

They should have just bought DOUR™.  It would have saved SO much trouble.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing. 

Should we? Be waiting for the real thing, I mean.
I'm very interested in what you and Roger have to say. Too bad it seems like you can't say those things to each other, though.

What the FUCK?   

Thanks, LC.  I'll just take a minute and not ever give a fuck what you have to say, ever again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think Roger is upset that we have been discussing for several pages something that in his opinion shouldn't have taken more space than a footnote.

Nope.  Roger doesn't care.  When I'm ready to write the next bit, I'll write it regardless of how long Holist has been screeching his hatred to an uncaring universe.

Then, when I'm done, I'll wad them all up and put them in Richter's thread.

[LMNO]

Another quick question -- does the artist in question really have to agree with Jungian psychology, or is it that holist needs to see what he believes to be an acceptance of the shadow in the work?  And if it's the latter, doesn't that make the application of authentic¹ up to holist, and therefore... subjective?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Another quick question -- does the artist in question really have to agree with Jungian psychology, or is it that holist needs to see what he believes to be an acceptance of the shadow in the work?  And if it's the latter, doesn't that make the application of authentic¹ up to holist, and therefore... subjective?

Dunno.  I'm still trying to understand why I haven't explained my point if I explained my point and then ignored 10 pages of Holist being furious about my point.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Oh, wait.  I get it.

If I make my point and it isn't actually refuted, then I have only made my point as long as nobody gets mad that someone else tried to be right.  Therefore, when Holist gets an enflamed ass because I made a statement, I have only stated my point if I answer EACH AND EVERY FUCKING POST MADE BY DUMBSHIT for A DOZEN PAGES AFTERWARD.

Am I on the money here, Cataplanga?  Is that what the fuck you were looking for?  Or was that just a chance for a fucking cheap shot?



Heh.  Yeah, that last was a rhetorical question.  You've never said anything to me that WASN'T a cheap shot.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok, a couple of things:

Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord 

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all. I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.

Maybe he's been talking to this guy? http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash-can/38188-have-hypothesis-needs-equation-help-me-plz.html

This guy is convinced that sounds that come from "real" musicians are physically different from sounds that come from non-"real" musicians.

[LMNO]

DOUR: Here's my point.
holist: Bladdidy blah, moral reletavism blah, making up definitions (butthurt, 12 pages).
LC: I'd be interested in hearing DOUR's point.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Can't see that.  Nigel, can you ex-post?

[LMNO]

Ok, a couple of things:

Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord 

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all. I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.

Maybe he's been talking to this guy? http://www.thescienceforum.com/trash-can/38188-have-hypothesis-needs-equation-help-me-plz.html

This guy is convinced that sounds that come from "real" musicians are physically different from sounds that come from non-"real" musicians.

I... wha...


...

[The Good Reverend Roger]

DOUR: Here's my point.
holist: Bladdidy blah, moral reletavism blah, making up definitions (butthurt, 12 pages).
LC: I'd be interested in hearing DOUR's point.

More like:

DOUR:  Here's my point.
holist:  HOW DARE YOU MAKE A POINT?  Here's <all the shit LMNO brought up, plus some bile>
LC:  Dour and holist are clearly both equally at fault for this mess.

Fuck LC in his earhole.  I didn't help trash my own thread, so I am equally at fault.



I mean, this thread is basically just a scratch pad for me.  I dropped out of the actual conversation once the thread became a LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE holist production/wholly-owned subsidiary.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The one good thing about all this is that I'll never need a new butthole, like what happened to ECH.

I mean, I just have to post an opinion, and I get a half a dozen new assholes.

[LMNO]

 

Just add DOUR™!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

DOUR: Here's my point.
holist: Bladdidy blah, moral reletavism blah, making up definitions (butthurt, 12 pages).
LC: I'd be interested in hearing DOUR's point.

More like:

DOUR:  Here's my point.
holist:  HOW DARE YOU MAKE A POINT?  Here's <all the shit LMNO brought up, plus some bile>
LC:  Dour and holist are clearly both equally at fault for this mess.

Fuck LC in his earhole.  I didn't help trash my own thread, so I am equally at fault.



I mean, this thread is basically just a scratch pad for me.  I dropped out of the actual conversation once the thread became a LOOK AT MEEEEEEEEEE holist production/wholly-owned subsidiary.

I didn't read it that way at all, but I'm not really aware of the history you seem to have with him.