Re: Ok, here's a tougher one: What's the function of THIS note

On Jul 30, 10:11 am, "Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am assuming here that the reason we're playing this game is to
illustrate that what one can say about "function" is limited by what one
knows about "context". So just "B" tells us essentially nothing; "B,
in the key of C Major" says a whole lot more, and going on to specify the
context further within the key of C-major will allow more detailed
conclusions about "function". (I am now beginning to see this as an
interesting exercise, akin to a very useful approach in science where one
tries to find the minimal set of assumptions which lead to a given
conclusion. This allows one to work out exactly which assumptions may be
supported by a given observation, and which are not.) :-)

Except in this case it's not science and Steve has not defined his terms
scientifically.

It might work if he could supply his hypothesis and axioms in a clear and
unambiguous way. The fact of the matter is that no context is context. If B
were in a universe all by itself then by default it must be the tonic. (By
the definition of tonic being the most "stable" or the "home")

Does it make sense to say that there is another "home" if your home is the
only one in existance? or that somehow your home is not home because it is
the only one(in some sense that might be true because definitions are
basically equivalences and if there is only one then there is not thing to
equate it too... except possibly the "ideal").

I think the problem is that Steve is trying to prove some point that he
believes to be true... i.e., assuming his conclusion is true and then
finding the facts to support it.

I think he is trying to prove that the overtone series is not at the heart
of function. If thats the case nothing he has done even remotely approaches
proving that. Just cause you done see something doesn't mean its not there
or doesn't exist somewhere else. It's also not true that the trival case
proves anything about any other case(which again, he seems to be trying to
do).

Thank you Jon, that is what I can't seem to get across! If your axioms
are not correct, your logic is flawed, pure and simple. This can be a
mistake by the one creating the logical train of thought or it can be
intentional. I don't know what the case is in this thread, but my
contention all along is that the logical conclusions presented so far
refuting the HS as having a Dominant or Tonic function are all based
on this type of faulty logic.

In the dishonest sense, listen to some of the Radio Talk Show hosts.
Rush for a clear example! He will spin or just plain make up an axiom
in such a way as to shift the resulting logic to fit the conclusion
that he wants to present to his audience. One could think that he is
only misunderstanding the axiom except for the fact that he does it
over and over and over again and he is in fact a much more intelligent
person than repeating this same mistake over and over would indicate
and it seems that he makes a lot of money on his ability to create
these incorrect logic arguments to spin his position. I am in no way
trying to imply that this is the case in this thread. Really, not at
all. I only mention it as an example of how logic can be skewed either
on purpose or inadvertently. The result is still the same. False
conclusions based on false axioms and incompletely defined terms and
contexts.

LJS
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OOP/OOD Philosophy
    ... >>> then we choose new axioms. ... universe otherwise your just writing numbers on a bit of paper. ... > phenomena that we observe to work in our local context. ... >>> Religion is a belief based on faith. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Axiomatic set theory is still contradictory
    ... of formation in order to represent valid predicates in set theory. ... Within the context of discourse a variable can only represent one ... where all the axioms are true. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... >> might be true both within and without the set of axioms, ... theorem will need the explanation we are discusssing, ... use, reliability, intended reader, context, context, and context. ... >> reader is not a logician, but from any of a large variety of fields. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godels proof assumes G is valid
    ... in the context of the axioms. ... therefore NECESSARILY false, in the context of the axioms. ... doctoral dissertation -- of his COMPLETENESS theorem. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • what follows from denying an axiom
    ... to get the axioms of T) and adding a lot of ITS consequences to T_0 ... despite the fact that it is less than clear what the standard model of ... if "true truth" is what you are looking for. ... WE DON'T DO false axioms. ...
    (sci.logic)