Thread is now about Holist.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist... 

Do you ever wonder about it the other way? Why holist reacts poorly to people?

It's not you; it's everyone else in the world.  God forbid you consider otherwise, even for a moment.

[Don Coyote]

It is so fucking adorable that he calls into question the reading comprehension of native English speakers.

[LMNO]

Sounds like holist is all hopped up on DOUR™ again.

[Dildo Argentino]

And also:

Now onto something else, with your intimations that you are especially trained to remove your ego from the argument despite you tossing a wobbler when you felt that you were being unfairly treated in this discussion, without referencing another more telling discussion in which is very clear that you are unable to divorce your ego or sense of self worth from your position on a topic (...)

Well actually, fuck, are you telling me that being pissed off because people are shitting on you for no good reason (and, you know, let's bracket the issue of whether that is a correct assessment of what was happening, and just accept that it was certainly my interpretation of the situation at the time) and not keeping it all nobly bottled up (which, apparently, would have been okay, so the law you are laying down is like "it's okay to have butthurt as long as you don't tell anyone about it") is tantamount to "tossing a wobbler"?

And are you, furthermore, completely failing to address the fact that if a person reacts badly to being unfairly treated, the question of whether he was or was not unfairly treated is fairly relevant to the assessment of that response?

Is it your opinion that being unhappy and frustrated by being unfairly treated and expressing that unhappyness and frustration indicates unbreakable attachment of ego from position? Well that seems excessively repressive to me, repressive, really, to an unhealthy degree.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Sounds like holist is all hopped up on DOUR™ again.

NOT EVEN ONCE, KIDS.

[Dildo Argentino]

Don't you get it?
Condescension is a part of the board culture. He is just trying to fit in by implying no-one else is as smart as he is.
We really should go easier on him. English is such a nuanced language. It must hard to properly insult people the way he actually wants to.

   

[The Good Reverend Roger]

It is so fucking adorable that he calls into question the reading comprehension of native English speakers.

Well, we started out with the language.  He had to LEARN it, so he knows it far better.   

[Dildo Argentino]

I don't think it's much of one, honestly, at least not for me. Apart from your difficulty with the English language, you're just another philosophy major. It's not like I'm missing out on anything.

Nice to be properly classified, ma'am. Thank you.

[Don Coyote]

It is so fucking adorable that he calls into question the reading comprehension of native English speakers.

Well, we started out with the language.  He had to LEARN it, so he knows it far better.   

Metaphor for fedora wearing hipster assholes everywhere.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Also, it's a pain in the ass when Holist flounces, because he leaves for about 12 hours, then insists on answering EVERY post when he gets back, meaning we all have to go back in time for 6 pages.

Speaking of which, all 6 parts written so far comprise 5% of this thread.  Posts by holist and about holist comprise 70% of this thread.

So it actually IS all about holist.  Again.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I moved the actual posts into Richter's thread, though any discussion of them should still occur here, around the edges of holist's holist complex.

[Dildo Argentino]

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.

First of all, let me say, dear LMNO, that this was a veritable tour-de-force of condescension. I wonder if you have the gall to deny it??

Secondly: I did not "pretty much create my definition": I used, by and large, the sense of "authentic" developed in psychology, particularly the humanistic branches, in particular the person-centered approach and also the sense of presence in the here and now from Gestalt therapy. This application has a history of several decades and has in fact permeated the pop-psychological literature to a considerable degree and I would say at least in the humanities it is common terminology.

Consequently, your condescending question alluding to the contradiction between striving for consistency and using haphazard definitions of concepts is a non-question.

You are acting like a monty python character. Of course I didn't mean that composers need to know or agree with Jungian theory in order to write authentic music! But I did mean to suggest that a robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality is the mark of the mature artist, and if the music (or any work of art) springs from such a personality, or at least from someone who recognises (explicitly or indeed implicitly,without possibly ever wondering consciously about questions of authenticity at all!) that this sort of self-actualisation is a good thing and who aims to produce art because the production of it helps them with that endeavour, then the resulting art (even if it is not pleasing, indeed, possibly quite difficult to endure) can be rightly called authentic.

So there.

I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

[LMNO]

Wait... so you're saying authenticity¹ in music is the domain only of the robust, actualised, mature, flexible personality-d artist?


Because there are a shit-ton of viable artists, and entire genres, wherein the artist is a fucking psychological trainwreck.

I am not convinced you even understand my concepts of moral relativity, so perhaps it would be best for you not to approach them.

Newsfeed?

Absolutely.