Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!udel!princeton!phoenix!eliot
From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: 2nd rate European Conference
Message-ID: <5088@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 7 Jan 91 20:27:08 GMT
References: <16244@venera.isi.edu> <5064@idunno.Princeton.EDU> <16247@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: news@idunno.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Shitson University, New Crapsey
Lines: 40

In article <16247@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) writes:

;Hold your horses, Eliot (while I saddle mine)!  You may have intended your
;"whose concept" question to be rhetorical, but I felt it deserved a literal
;answer.  All I wanted to do was lay out what seemed to be the premise behind
;that sentence that set you off.  I make no claim to buying into that premise,
;but I certainly think it is worth debating.  On the other hand, if you wish to
;reject that premise as violently as your prose would indicate, I wonder why you
;even bother wasting so much time to compose your diatribes.

No, don't get away from the topic at hand, Steve. We're not talking
about your emotional response to my articles. We're talking about
the statement "analysis always presupposes segmentation." I don't 
follow that the "premise" of this statement is that "analysis 
should be coupled to perception." That's not my reading at all. That's your
reading. much less a "literal" answer to my query. 

The only "premise" that I read there is an uncontestable 
view of what analysis is. I don't read that "understanding the process 
of segmentation" affects the overall character of the first dogma, for
instance. I certainly read nothing like an implicit critique of the
notion of "segmentation" but rather its assertion. 

Regarding your reply, that "analysis is tightly coupled to perception,"
I'm wondering what exactly it is that "perception" is meant to 
oppose? A messy case of unexplicated primitives here. If there is some
"non-perceptual" aspect of analysis, that oppose the "perceptual" part
of the "coupling," then clearly "perception" is NOT operating as 
a "foundation" for "analysis." This makes no sense to me. Why is analysis
not "perceptual," inescapably so? Explain, and good luck.

If you think it's worth debating THEN DEBATE ALREADY. I presented
my case in the last article. Now it's your turn. 

And just who ought to be "giving it up," Steve -- that we'll let the
kids decide.

=handelman
=princeton
=music