Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hpesoc1!hpindda!seshadri
From: seshadri@hpindda.HP.COM (Raghu Seshadri)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: The nature of communication
Message-ID: <4750001@hpindda.HP.COM>
Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 18:54:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: hpindda.4750001
Posted: Mon Sep 21 18:54:46 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Sep-87 06:27:12 EDT
References: <2374@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Lines: 20

>/ hpindda:sci.philosophy.tech / myers@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bob Myers) / 12:18 am  Sep 21, 1987 /

>I think music is, in some sense, made up of symbols, which are musical
>structures. If you ask me just what they symbolize, I'm going to have
>a really hard time answering that, though. I think the problem arises
>because music symbolizes feelings, states of mind, etc., things which
>are not readily translatable into written language, and in ways that
>written language just cannot. Which is why they are expressed in
>music to begin with.

It seems to me that if music were made up of symbols (which,by definition
merely stand for something else ) , we should be able to redefine the
symbology and arrive at the same psychological reactions through
any set of combinations of these symbols. But , in practice , this hardly
happens. " The language of music knows no boundaries". In other words,
these sound - sets already seem to have a predefined meaning in our
minds and are capable of evoking precise moods.  Without overstating
this, in some sense, it must be hardwired in our mental make-up.

					       RS