Skip to main content

poietic and esthetic processes

Here are a couple of figures from the introduction by Craig Ayrey to "Musical fact and the semiology of music" by Jean Molino:


The footnote "6" (in "Fig 26") points to Jean-Jacques Nattiez, Musicologie générale et sémiologie, Paris: Christian Bourgois, 1987, page 38.  There's an English translation, Music and Discourse: Toward a Semiology of Music. Translated by Carolyn Abbate (1990). Princeton University Press. 

Reversing the second arrow (in the move from Fig 1 to Fig 2) seems like an interesting move, insofar as it seems to make the musical "trace" into something like a shared space.  Maybe this Nattiez-ian way of thinking is something we can use for thinking about phatics?

Comments

  1. The situation that approached from a semiotic perspective by Nattiez seems related to the broader notion of "Externalism" in philosophy, e.g. see Riccardo Manzotti, who "questions the separation between subject and object, seeing these as only two incomplete perspectives and descriptions of the same physical process." -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalism

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Metacommunicative cues

In the previous post on Extra channels I finished with a distinction between diachronic and synchronic metacommunication. In this post I'd like to respond to some comments by the co-author of this blog, Joe, in some of his previous posts, by invoking Jurgen Ruesch's concept of metacommunication . Gregory Bateson was interested in thinking about cybernetics, but didn't seem to feel constrained to think about it using a strictly computational or information-theoretic paradigm, while still being informed by the ideas. This gave him the freedom to talk about ideas like "context", "relationship", "learning", and "communication" without needing to define them in precise computational terms. Nevertheless, he handles the ideas fairly rigorously. (Joe, Phatic Workshop: towards a μ-calculus ) Gregory Bateson and Jurgen Ruesch, among many other notable thinkers, were part of the Palo Alto Group of researchers tasked to apply new methods (a

Extra channels

In the following, I would like to clarify the connection between channel and context and concomitantly the difference between metachannel and parachannel . Paul Kockelman urges us "to notice the fundamental similarity between codes and channels" (2011: 725) but instead of that purported fundamental similarity points out the contrast between them. I argue that context , or objects and states of affairs (Bühler 2011[1934]: 35), demonstrate a closer relationship to channel than to code. This is largely because the first three fundamental relations, sender or subject , context or object , and receiver or addressee , belong to Bühler's original organon model while code , contact and message , which were previously implicit in the organon model, are made explicit as additions to the model by Jakobson (1985[1976c]). Thus the most productive approach would be to pair a component from the original organon model with an additional component in the language functions model.