>
> Wittgenstein later said: "the clarity we are aiming at is indeed complete clarity. But this simply means that the philosophical problems should completely disappear."
>
> This Tractatus quote is about as clear as mud to me.
>
> Clay
>
>
> --- In newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com, Mark Pring <markpringnz@> wrote:
> >
> > Well I think Wittgenstein pretty much summed it up:
> >
> > "The sense of the world must lie outside the world. In the world everything is as it is, and everything happens as it does happen: in it no value exists -and if it did exist it would have no value.
> >
> > If there is any value that does have value, it must lie outside the whole sphere of what happens and is the case. For all that happens and is the case is accidental.
> >
> > What makes it non-accidental cannot lie within the world, since if it did it would itself be accidental.
> >
> > It must lie outside the world."
> >
> > Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus 6.4 1
> >
> > Well I think that makes everything clear.
> >
> > Now what does that have to do with mellotrons? How did we get here?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 12/7/09, jonesalley <jonesalley@> wrote:
> >
> > From: jonesalley <jonesalley@>
> > Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Tronspotting
> > To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Monday, December 7, 2009, 6:19 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Â
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I make it a point to avoid debates like that as the black holes of wasted time that they are. I never assert that there's "no such thing" when the subject comes up, but I always politely request those who flatly state that such exists to provide some concrete evidence before I accept it as a stipulation. I don't see the value for people on either side of that question arguing about it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and there is no way to prove something affirmatively does not exist. On the other hand, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the burden of proof is on those making the claim. That's not to say that I don't have strong personal convictions, but merely that they are of no importance to anybody but me!
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In newmellotrongroup@ yahoogroups. com, fdoddy@ wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I have no argument with "god" or those "who see no reason to postulate the existence of such". Most times they want to argue with me. "Do what you will, but do no harm" to paraphrase an old saying.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > fd
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: jonesalley <jonesalley@ ...>
> >
> > > To: newmellotrongroup@ yahoogroups. com
> >
> > > Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2009 9:43 pm
> >
> > > Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Tronspotting
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > When someone makes an assertion that something is "the greatest" of anything, then yes, it becomes a question of empirical reality. And the whole "god" argument doesn't carry any weight at all with those of us who see no reason to postulate the existence of such...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > --- In newmellotrongroup@ yahoogroups. com, fdoddy@ wrote:
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > That's the problem, modern folk are hell bent on everything being "verifiable empirical fact". If you can't see it, it ain't true. What a bunch of crap that ends up being when trying to create beauty, find God, or just plain old trying to feel joyful. So anecdotal evidence or instinct has no weight on things musical? I think it's more than just "very nice", it's essential for people to develop there own musical systems, no matter how unsupported they are. Laugh, go ahead, laugh at Yanni's own system of music notation or balk at the legitimacy of turntables as instruments, or question the "sonority" of a Balinese monkey chant. But they work...
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > I have never met Bernie Kornowicz face to face, but I'll guarantee you if I did, it would prove my intuition that he is a quality human being. Why? I've seen the smile on his face and read his emails and posts, however brief or trivial and gotten a feeling for him. Intuition and feeling but no verifiable empirical analysis needed.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > My mother is dead. I loved her. Do you need me to show you that I loved her to prove it empirically?
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > fritz
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > > From: jonesalley <jonesalley@ >
> >
> > > > To: newmellotrongroup@ yahoogroups. com
> >
> > > > Sent: Sun, Dec 6, 2009 1:50 pm
> >
> > > > Subject: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Tronspotting
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > This is all very nice, but it only rises to the level of unsupportable assertion of opinion, not independently verifiable empirical fact.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > > > The human voice is one of the only "perfect" instruments. We all
> >
> > > > > > know that polyphonic instruments are well-tempered and thus each
> >
> > > > > > chord produced is "close", but imperfect. If you've ever sung in a
> >
> > > > > > group without accompaniment, whether it be madrigals, barbershop,
> >
> > > > > > etc., one of the great opportunities is you can sing each chord
> >
> > > > > > perfectly because the trained human ear can seek the perfect chord âââ¬"
> >
> > > > > > and ring overtones (and undertones if you're really good) all over
> >
> > > > > > the place âââ¬" it's one of the reasons that choral/ensemble singing is
> >
> > > > > > so fun!
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > Music began with someone hummingâââ¬Ã¦.
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > >
> >
> > > > > > I think almost everyone here would agree. The human voice is the
> >
> > > > > > greatest of all instruments.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > >
> >
>
