Newbie needs help

[Amigos4]

Kudos to Raymott for his perseverance in working with pharmer's questions!

 

[pharmer]

Kudos to Raymott for his perseverance in working with pharmer's questions!

Hear, hear!

 

[pharmer]

I agree with your summary of what we discussed, and your interpretation.
Good luck with writing a comparable paragraph if you still think it's a worthy goal. Possibly you could post it when you think you have achieved a perfectly comparable sentence!

Okay. I think this version of my copy is much better than the "improvisation solo" version. Certainly to me, it seems less ambiguous and seems to communicate in the same manner as the original. What do you think?


Original author "A"

Though it is not a Biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible, it can be seen to underlie the revelation of God, implicit in the Old Testament and explicit in the New Testament. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, yet once the substance of the doctrine has been revealed in the New Testament, we can read back many implications of it in the Old Testament.

Copy of author “A”:

Though it (percussion solo) is not music in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the solo, it can be heard to bring out the essence of music with its rhythmic line, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the rhythmic line at the beginning, once the substance of the rhythm has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.

Thanks for your time, once again.

 

[Raymott]

Original author "A"

Though it 1. (the Trinity) is not a 2. Biblical doctrine in the sense that any 3. formulation of it can be found in the 4. Bible, it can be seen to underlie the 5. revelation of God, implicit in the 6. Old Testament and explicit in the 7.New Testament.
Copy of author “A”:

Though it 1.(percussion solo) is not 2. music in the sense that any 3. melodic line can be found in the 4. solo, it can be heard to bring out the 5. essence of music with its rhythmic line, implicit in the 6. first half of the piece and explicit in the 7. last half.

It’s only a valid comparison if the relation between the parts of the original:
1. Trinity – 2. Biblical doctrine – 3. formulation - 4. Bible – 5. revelation of God – 6 OT – 7. New Testament

is the same as the relation between the parts of the ‘copy’:
1. Percussion solo – 2. music – 3. melodic line – 4. percussion solo - 5. essence of music 6. beginning of piece – 7. end of piece.

It’s quite easy to see that this isn’t the case. One example:
1. Trinity – 4. Bible
1. percussion solo 4. percussion solo

Part of the original argument is whether 1. is in 4.
In your 'copy', there is an identity relation between 1. and 4.

 

[pharmer]

It’s only a valid comparison if the relation between the parts of the original:
1. Trinity – 2. Biblical doctrine – 3. formulation - 4. Bible – 5. revelation of God – 6 OT – 7. New Testament

is the same as the relation between the parts of the ‘copy’:
1. Percussion solo – 2. music – 3. melodic line – 4. percussion solo - 5. essence of music 6. beginning of piece – 7. end of piece.

It’s quite easy to see that this isn’t the case. One example:
1. Trinity – 4. Bible
1. percussion solo 4. percussion solo

Part of the original argument is whether 1. is in 4.
In your 'copy', there is an identity relation between 1. and 4.

Good point. I think I see what I must do to make this better.

 

[pharmer]

Part of the original argument is whether 1. is in 4.
In your 'copy', there is an identity relation between 1. and 4.

I like the way you've numbered the different parts. Maybe that will help me keep things straight.

Using your numbering system, the original author is saying:

#1 is not definded as #2 via #3, because #1's #3 is not found in #4. However, #1 underlies #5 throughout #4. (And in the next sentence the author restates #1's connection to #4 to make his/her point more clear.)


So I think it is not whether 1. is in 4., but rather that #1 is connected to #4 via the "substance" route, but not the #3 route. That author is saying that this "teaching" is connected to this "thing" via the substance, but not via the formulation.

With that in mind, I must connect my subject to its thing via the substance, but not the formulation. The solo must be connected to "music" via substance - ie. essence of music (which is rhythm), but it is not connected via the formulation - ie. melodic line.

I have now made some changes including #2 to "musical" and #4 to "music"

#1-percussion solo (or percussion 'section' might be better)
#2-musical
#3-melodic line
#4-music
#5-essence of the music
#6-beginning of piece
#7-end of piece


Copy of author “A”:
Though it (percussion section) is not musical in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the music, it can be heard to bring out the essence of the music with its rhythmic line, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the rhythmic line at the beginning, once the substance of the rhythm has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.

(Changes have been made since this post...see next post)

 

[pharmer]

It’s only a valid comparison if the relation between the parts of the original:
1. Trinity – 2. Biblical doctrine – 3. formulation - 4. Bible – 5. revelation of God – 6 OT – 7. New Testament

I think I've made some much needed improvements.

I changed "percussion solo" to "percussion".

#1-percussion
#2-musical
#3-melodic line
#4-music
#5-revealing the musical theme
#6-first half of piece
#7-last half of piece

So it reads like this:

Copy of author “A”:
Though it (percussion) is not musical in the sense that any melodic line can be found in the music, it can be heard to be the foundation for revealing the musical theme, implicit in the first half of the piece and explicit in the last half. By this we mean that though we cannot speak confidently of the revelation of the percussion at the beginning, once the substance of the percussion has been revealed in the latter half, we can hear many implications of it in the first half.
Much improved(?)

 

[Raymott]

I'll think about it.

 

[pharmer]

Thank you. I do appreciate it.

 

[Raymott]

There’s an equivocation on 4. ‘music’. You want it to mean music as such, and also this particular piece of music which is a percussion piece.

The 4. ‘Bible’ must be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘Biblical doctrine’.
However, 4. ‘this piece of music’ cannot be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘musical’.

I don’t think you’ll ever write a strictly parallel analogy, because the concepts involved in the original are different and possibly unique.

 

[BillMike]

love to see all of this on one easy page to read! very informative and thorough, this is getting bookmarked. this is certainly a top hub!! thanks for sharing with us.
thanks for that kind info...

 

[pharmer]

There’s an equivocation on 4. ‘music’. You want it to mean music as such, and also this particular piece of music which is a percussion piece.

Sorry for the confusion. My latest example was not meant to be merged with the previous examples. It was meant to stand alone. What I mean is, #4 ‘music’ can simply be thought of as ‘that which the composer wrote’. #1 is now ‘percussion’ or ‘percussion section’ (rhythm section), not percussion piece. So, just as anything found in the Bible is “of the Bible” or ‘Biblical’, anything found in the music is “of the music” or ‘musical’. In this case, the composer included percussion in the piece s/he composed, and even if the percussion section consisted of pots and pans being hit with sticks, they are a part of this music and must be considered ‘musical’. So the author (me) is not being equivocal, but instead just states how the percussion (even if the composer wrote for pots and pans in the parts) is musical even though the composer didn’t write a melodic line for the percussion, in the same way the original author’s point was that the doctrine was Biblical, even if the author(s) of the Bible didn’t write the formula in a single statement.

The 4. ‘Bible’ must be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘Biblical doctrine’.
However, 4. ‘this piece of music’ cannot be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘musical’.

The #4 ‘Bible’ is the determiner of what is ‘Biblical’. Are you sure that #4 ‘Music’ cannot be the determiner of what is ‘musical’? I would think even dynamic markings, tempo markings, and even articulations which the composer indicated in the music, can be considered as being “of the music” and therefore, musical.

I don’t think you’ll ever write a strictly parallel analogy, because the concepts involved in the original are different and possibly unique.

What do you think?

 

[Raymott]

The 4. ‘Bible’ must be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘Biblical doctrine’.
However, 4. ‘this piece of music’ cannot be the ultimate determiner of what is 2. ‘musical’.

The #4 ‘Bible’ is the determiner of what is ‘Biblical’. Are you sure that #4 ‘Music’ cannot be the determiner of what is ‘musical’?
Yes, because 4. means "this piece of music" - the percussion piece.
It can't mean both this particular piece and also music as an abstract concept.

A specific piece of music such as a percussion piece cannot determine what is musical, but the Bible(and only the Bible) can and must determine what is Biblical.

I would think even dynamic markings, tempo markings, and even articulations which the composer indicated in the music, can be considered as being “of the music” and therefore, musical.
Of course these things are musical. But they don't define what "musical" means.
The Bible (4) determines what is Biblical (2).
This piece of music (4) does not determine what is musical (2).

I'd like to say it's close enough for the point of the exercise, but I'm afraid I still don't know what the point of the exercise is.

 

[pharmer]

[/QUOTE]
The #4 ‘Bible’ is the determiner of what is ‘Biblical’. Are you sure that #4 ‘Music’ cannot be the determiner of what is ‘musical’?
Yes, because 4. means "this piece of music" - the percussion piece.
It can't mean both this particular piece and also music as an abstract concept.

A specific piece of music such as a percussion piece cannot determine what is musical, but the Bible(and only the Bible) can and must determine what is Biblical.

I would think even dynamic markings, tempo markings, and even articulations which the composer indicated in the music, can be considered as being “of the music” and therefore, musical.
Of course these things are musical. But they don't define what "musical" means.
The Bible (4) determines what is Biblical (2).
This piece of music (4) does not determine what is musical (2).

I'd like to say it's close enough for the point of the exercise, but I'm afraid I still don't know what the point of the exercise is.
[/QUOTE]


Though I don’t know if it makes a difference, I do want to get some facts straight by reviewing, so as to clear up or avoid some potential confusion. Remember, post #67 contains the critical changes. I changed (1) to ‘percussion’, as in the ‘percussion section of an ensemble’ (not a percussion solo like it used to) and (4) is ‘music’, not a ‘percussion piece’, but just a music composition which happens to have percussion as part of the ensemble. I’m not sure if it could, but I don’t want it to become something it isn’t. (1) Percussion; (4) music.

I apologize for what is to become a lengthy explanation. Although I know you’d like to say my example is close enough, given your explanations, I think it is closer than you realize. I think you, sort of, asked what my point of this exercise was. I want to come up with an example of the original, using a different, non-religious topic, which communicates in the same manner as the original. Does that answer your question, or are you asking to find out my motives for having such a goal?

Using (4) ‘music’ in my example is not an abstract concept. In my example, I use “the music” in the same way as the original author uses “the Bible”. The original author was referring to a specific Bible, the Holy Bible, of which there are many translations. There are, I imagine, other central texts (bibles) from non-Christian religions. The original author would not claim a doctrine from the Holy Bible as a Biblical doctrine from a non-Christian Bible, so when the author claims the doctrine is ‘Biblical’, we know of which s/he is speaking. Technically, a non-Christian religion could claim a doctrine of theirs is Biblical too, if the doctrine is “of their Holy Book”. Of course it would not be a Holy Bible ‘Biblical doctrine’, but I think you can see my point. We are assuming (and rightly so) that this author is speaking of the Holy Bible - Bible, when referring to something as being Biblical.

Now why can’t I speak of a piece of music in the same way? The original author is basically saying, since the substance of the doctrine is rooted in the Bible, it is “of the Bible” and therefore is ‘Biblical’. Yes, this Holy Bible determines what this author is terming ‘Biblical’, and only the Holy Bible, assuming it has been translated correctly from the original texts, can determine what is ‘Biblical’ from that perspective. I am saying that same thing in my example with something being musical. It is not an abstract concept. I would not use a piece of ‘classical music’ to determine what is musical in a piece of ‘rock music’ (although there are going to be similar components in both), or vice versa. Yet, someone might incorrectly say that the vocals in a specific piece of ‘rock music’ is not musical and is instead just a bunch of ‘noise’. Technically speaking, regardless of how it sounds, it belongs to that music and is by default, muiscal. I’ll explore that idea a bit more. If we take a look at the way I use the term ‘musical’ (which is in the same way that the original author uses ‘Biblical’), we can see it means “of or relating to music” (or in the original, “of or relating to the Bible” – whichever Bible is being referred to as the source). For example, in the middle of a traditional performance of the Haydn Cello Concerto in C-major, inserting vocalizations from a specific piece of rock music would not be musical, because those vocalizations are not “of the music” from Haydn. But in the performance of Dave Matthews’ & Tim Reynolds’ song, entitled “EH HEE”, the vocalizations are an essential part and are now musical. It is the piece of music that determines if those ‘vocalizations’ are musical, in the same way a specific Bible determines if something is Biblical in that piece of religious literature.

This is why I changed (2) in my example to say ‘musical’. I think, had I left (2) as ‘music’, I would have run into that exact abstract concept you mention.

I’m glad you agree that the dynamic markings, etc. are all musical. But I hope you can see why they are musical. Pieces of music do define what is musical. Certainly, hitting pots and pans in the sink while cleaning them doesn’t make them musical, but when a music composer/arranger sticks them in a composition of music, they transform from being cooking instruments into musical instruments.

In my example of the original, the percussion is a part of the ensemble performing a musical composition. The percussion section is not musical based on any melodic line in the piece, and I’ve also shown how the material makeup of the instrument(s) doesn’t even determine whether or not it is musical. Instead, it is musical because it is “of or relating to” a composition of music. In the original and my example of the original, the author states that main point: (4) possesses the substance of (1) and therefore, (1) is (2). You can see, (4) determines what is (2) in both cases.
Let me know if I need to clarify more.

Thanks.

 

[Raymott]

I want to come up with an example of the original, using a different, non-religious topic, which communicates in the same manner as the original. Does that answer your question, or are you asking to find out my motives for having such a goal?

I'm asking about your motive. That's been my question all along when I've been asking you about the point of this. I find it much easier to engage with a topic if I can see some point to it and, for me, that's lacking here.

 

[pharmer]

I'm asking about your motive. That's been my question all along when I've been asking you about the point of this. I find it much easier to engage with a topic if I can see some point to it and, for me, that's lacking here.

I didn’t realize that that was your question all along. Of your 26 posts on this thread, I could only find one (post #34) in which you actually asked me what my point was. The content surrounding that time consisted of multiple points, and they were being addressed in each of my questions. That is why I answered the way I did back then. You accused me of ignoring your questions and I offered to clarify more if needed. You did not request further clarification.

Although the initial topic became somewhat progressive, some of my posts (including #1, #5, and #11) pointed out a fact that I wanted to come up with a copy of the original. I apologize if you were still unclear on that, because that became one of my main points/goals.

Once we finished analyzing the original sentences, you seemed to understand and acknowledge that goal in your post #59 when you said, “Good luck with writing a comparable paragraph if you still think it's a worthy goal.”

Just when I thought all that was behind us and I could focus on that one remaining goal, you tell me what you really wanted to know was my motive(s). You indicated that it would be easier for you to engage in this topic if you knew my motives behind these goals. I’m not sure why you are bringing this up now, when you had already decided I maybe could post my example when I thought it was perfectly comparable.

I’m not even sure how you can say “I'd like to say it's close enough for the point of the exercise, but I'm afraid I still don't know what the point of the exercise is.” It doesn’t matter what the point is beyond the fact that I wanted to get my example as close as possible to the original. The goal was not to get “close enough” depending on what my motives were, but instead, to get as close as possibleindependent of anything else. It is either as close as possible, or it isn’t as close as possible. There is no in-between.

I’m sorry if it was difficult for you to engage in this discussion under these conditions. We know the content of your response should not be dependent on my motives, so I would rather not start trying to list my motives for my goals. I’m not even sure where that would lead. Perhaps it would lead to you wanting to know my motives for having those motives, and so on. I also don’t like the idea of anyone critiquing the “worthiness” of my motives. If you feel you cannot engage in what seems to be the conclusion, I will understand. I am sure you did your best to help, and I appreciate you taking the time you did.

 

[Raymott]

If you feel you cannot engage in what seems to be the conclusion, I will understand. I am sure you did your best to help, and I appreciate you taking the time you did.

That's fine. Perhaps it's time for someone else to give an opinion anyway. I've come to the conclusion that finding an exact analogy is improbable because of the unique nature of relations between the concepts Bible, Biblical, Trinity and God.

 

[pharmer]

Just so everyone knows where I am on this, I am simply looking at writing comparable sentences that will communicate in the same way as the original author. I would like it to be as close as possible to the original sentences, but using a different subject. I think I am very close to having accomplished this goal. I do appreciate the comments I have received so far, as they have definitely helped to make improvements. I am sorry Raymott couldn’t seem to get past wanting to know my motives, but I would like to say again, thank you. Although I do appreciate all comments, it is easier to substantiate factual information. Just a reminder, even though the Trinity is a unique topic in itself, the issue at hand has nothing to do with that topic or its uniqueness. The issue now is simply looking at the relationship between two words (Bible, Biblical) and comparing that relationship to other words (music, musical). I don’t think this relationship is as complex as some might think. Post #74 goes into more detail about this, but it is simply a matter of something having a connection to something else. I am sure people could come up with other examples of this idea using words like: medical/medicine, surgical/surgery, pharmaceutical/pharmacy. These words have a simple relationship, and I think that relationship should be able to be shown to be interchangeable in that way, allowing for me to come up with a copy of the original, using a different topic. If anyone has anything to add to some of these facts I have presented (including in post #74), please feel free to do so, otherwise I might have to conclude my copy is as close as possible.
Thanks again!