Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!Love-Hounds-request
From: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.music.gaffa
Subject: ivity
Message-ID: <8702132052.AA27338@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 13-Feb-87 13:44:51 EST
Article-I.D.: EDDIE.8702132052.AA27338
Posted: Fri Feb 13 13:44:51 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Feb-87 02:20:56 EST
Sender: daemon@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU
Reply-To: Love-Hounds
Organization: Love-Hounds Anonymous
Lines: 28
Approved: nessus@eddie.mit.edu

Really-From: Robert Stanzel <apollo!rps>

IED struggles with Philosophy 101:

>... Although it is not possible to set up a standard of
>aesthetic value with which all can agree, it is certainly
>possible to DESCRIBE and analyse specific aesthetic characteristics.
>YOU may "see" as much complexity in Eno's lyrics as you do
>in Kate's, but that does not change the fact that Kate's
>generally possess a considerably higher degree of multivalence,
>both structural and thematic.

I began to see convergence in this paragraph:  sure, we can describe and
analyze.  But then you blow it in the last sentence -- one can't usefully
compare aesthetics.  In the quote, your first phrase contradicts your last.
 
>If you could possibly have cited an example to refute this, no doubt
>you would have by now. However, here's another chance for you --
>PROVE IED wrong! But don't just SAY he's wrong.

You've missed the point again:  there can be no proof.  Note that I made no
specific references to artists in my last note, but you've chosen to reintroduce
specific mention of Eno, egging on another futile combative debate.  Sorry.

My pick for you is "draw indecisive mark", for obvious reasons.

Rob ("bolster zen art")
-------