Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shelby!bloom-beacon!UCSCC.UCSC.EDU!stewarte
From: stewarte@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Kruel irony: ied shoT down by own pop idol
Message-ID: <8912150320.AA20293@ucscc.UCSC.EDU>
Date: 15 Dec 89 03:20:42 GMT
References: <8912122118.AA06054@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Sender: root@athena.mit.edu (Wizard A. Root)
Reply-To: stewarte@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (little electric god)
Organization: Burst Continuous Forms -- We're not small, we're just far away
Lines: 23
Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu

IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU will no doubt deny ever having said:

>   As though she had been listening in on the recent argument
>in Love-Hounds, Kate Bush said in the new VH-1 interview: "_Nature_
>is perfect. Anything we human beings do can never really be perfect."
>   Hmm...IED will need a little time to find a way out of this mess...

Clearly, Kate must be operating under a different definition of 
perfection than that recently proposed here by Julian.  While that
definition was interesting, I found it quite different from what I
think of as perfection.  With the "local maximum" rule, assuming that
what is being maximized is some absolute, quantifiable measure called
"quality", a work can be perfect but still be of very low quality.  This 
I found quite unsatisfying, conceptually speaking.   Perhaps Kate thinks 
of perfection as representing a global, rather than a local, maximum.

Julian's definition does have the advantage of being better for 
stimulating discussion -- since it effectively disallows the suggestion
"throw it away and start over" as a means to improve a song (or whatever).
-- 
"Don't forget this shit."
			 -- James Blood Ulmer
/*  uunet!sco!stewarte  -or-  stewarte@sco.COM  -or-  Stewart Evans  */