Political Matrix

[Josquin des Prez]

From the 1998 statement on "Race" by AAA (the American Anthropological Association, not the auto club):
[quote ]With the vast expansion of scientific knowledge in this century...it has become clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation, about 94%, lies within so-called racial groups. Conventional geographic "racial" groupings differ from one another only in about 6% of their genes. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them. In neighboring populations there is much overlapping of genes and their phenotypic (physical) expressions. Throughout history whenever different groups have come into contact, they have interbred. The continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

"Race" [is] an ideology...a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories. The myths fused behavior and physical features together in the public mind, impeding our comprehension of both biological variations and cultural behavior, implying that both are genetically determined. Racial myths bear no relationship to the reality of human capabilities or behavior. Scientists today find that reliance on such folk beliefs about human differences in research has led to countless errors.

Those statements are of course politically motivated and are based once again on the fallacy. Racial grouping is based not on differences, but commonalities. Race is not an ideology but is in fact based on concrete genetic similarities between specific groups which are perfectly measurable, and have been measured many times already. Just observe the language used in the above statement. The implication of racial classification being based on "myths", the idea the entire history of racial science is nothing but a collection of "folk believes". All this condescending reductionism is based entirely on political preference and has nothing to do with real science whatsoever.

[Saul]

One end has met all ancient empires and shows signs of doing away with all the modern ones. It is the cycle of history, rise and fall, then occasionally rise again. And we can do without you restating why you imagine this has happened.

Mike

No one would have been erased from earth if they were moral and righteous kingdoms.
Their fall is not a natural cycle, there is a ruler in the universe, dear Knight.

[knight66]

And that is as far as you need to wade into that subtext.

Knight

[Josquin des Prez]

The Greeks and the Romans did the same, in fact, in Sparta homosexuality was actually encouraged.

Actually, that is not true. Liberals have been revising history in an effort to "normalize" homosexual behavior, which includes the distorted notion that somehow homosexuality was not only accepted, but even promoted in ancient civilizations, particularly Rome and Greece, which due their relative prestige would give even more weight to the homosexual agenda. Of course, it may not come as a surprise that many of the people associated with this trend (Walter Pater, Micheal Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler, David Halperin) happened to be homosexuals themselves.

[Saul]

Actually, that is not true. Liberals have been revising history in an effort to "normalize" homosexual behavior, which includes the distorted notion that somehow homosexuality was not only accepted, but even promoted in ancient civilizations, particularly Rome and Greece, which due their relative prestige would give even more weight to the homosexual agenda. Of course, it may not come as a surprise that many of the people associated with this trend (Walter Pater, Micheal Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler, David Halperin) happened to be homosexuals themselves.

I have learned this, and read this while studying history. I don't go around and 'invent' things.
Please purchase the book :" Lost Civilizations" and go to page 101 that talks about Greece and Sparta, it says  :"Homosexual relationships were encouraged".

[DavidRoss]

Those statements are of course politically motivated and are based once again on the fallacy. Racial grouping is based not on differences, but commonalities. Race is not an ideology but is in fact based on concrete genetic similarities between specific groups which are perfectly measurable, and have been measured many times already. Just observe the language used in the above statement. The implication of racial classification being based on "myths", the idea the entire history of racial science is nothing but a collection of "folk believes". All this condescending reductionism is based entirely on political preference and has nothing to do with real science whatsoever.

Your denial of facts (and the logical implications of facts) that belie your prejudices demonstrates that you are just as bigoted and no more rational than the liberal wackos you despise whose beliefs are likewise conditioned by ideology in denial of reality.

[jowcol]

There IS a quantitative measure for stylistic distances which allows us to say that Berlioz IS in fact closer to Chopin then Haydn (hence, why the first two are Romantics while the latter is a Classicist). You would never be able to make a musicological analysis of stylistic differences if that wasn't the case. 

Dividing lines between different musical styles is not dependent on cultural traditions at all. Its based on concrete, stylistic differences which are perfectly measurable. Thus, to say Berlioz and Chopin both belong to the Romantic style implies that their music WILL be similar in several specific ways. That is once again the nature of the fallacy, for any type of classification or grouping is based on commonalities, not differences. It doesn't matter one bit whether Berlioz is as different from Chopin as he is from Haydn, what matters is the stylistic elements which his music shares with Chopin which cannot be found in Haydn.

Quantitative by definition means measurable and able to represent as a number. Can you  provide the exact percentage of how Romantic  Berlioz, Haydn, and Chopin are, as well as the specific measures and observed values used to derive them?  If you can do that in such a way that anyone else can come up with the exact same results, than I would believe the quantitative argument. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Your denial of facts (and the logical implications of facts)

The logical implications of these facts is based on a fallacy. Is this really that difficult to understand? The people behind those statements are 100% politically motivated. They are distorting logic in an effort to perpetrate a Marxist interpretation of scientific fact. Even the language they use is woven in newspeak tactics.

[knight66]

You usually claim history as your reference point; but certainly as far as Sparta is concerned, you prefer to ignore the traces of history.

Rome generally was more ambivalent towards the issue.

Mike

[DavidRoss]

I'm getting a kick out of this thread.  It's like what the pop music folks call a "mash up."

So are Detroit muscle cars from the '60s better than classic European sports cars of the same vintage?  Please quantify your answers.

[knight66]

Some people here won't be able to do that; because the Bible and Ancient History are silent on the topic.

Mike

[Josquin des Prez]

So are Detroit muscle cars from the '60s better than classic European sports cars of the same vintage?

Another fallacy. How cute. The correct answer of course is that the distinction between Detroit muscle cars and their European counterpart is a social construct, and is therefore meaningless.

[DavidRoss]

Some people here won't be able to do that; because the Bible and Ancient History are silent on the topic.

But what about Jim-Bob's Bible of Automotive History?

And whose "progressive" state best exemplified the Teresan ideal:  Stalin, Tito, Mao, Castro, or Pol Pot?

[Josquin des Prez]

Quantitative by definition means measurable and able to represent as a number. Can you  provide the exact percentage of how Romantic  Berlioz, Haydn, and Chopin are, as well as the specific measures and observed values used to derive them?  If you can do that in such a way that anyone else can come up with the exact same results, than I would believe the quantitative argument.

Pfff. So now you are saying there is no reliable way to make a stylistic distinction between a classicist and a romantic composer because their stylistic differences are not quantifiable in a mathematical sense, or so you assume. The implication is laughable in itself, but if you want a numerical distinction, lets start with a definition of the musical language of the Romantic era:

Composers of the Romantic period sought to fuse the large structural harmonic planning demonstrated by earlier masters such as Haydn, and Mozart with further chromatic innovations, in order to achieve greater fluidity and contrast, and to meet the needs of longer works. Chromaticism grew more varied, as did dissonances and their resolution. Composers modulated  to increasingly remote keys, and their music often prepared the listener less for these modulations than the music of the classical era. The properties of the diminished seventh and related chords, which facilitate modulation to many keys, were also extensively exploited. Composers such as Beethoven, and later Richard Wagner, expanded the harmonic language with previously-unused chords, or innovative chord progressions.

Some composers analogized music to poetry and its rhapsodic and narrative structures, while creating a more systematic basis for the composing and performing of concert music. Previous practices, such as the sonata form, continued in use, and composers extended them.[vague] There was an increasing focus on melodies and themes, as well as an explosion in the composition of songs.

The greater harmonic elusiveness and fluidity, the longer melodies, poesis as the basis of expression, and the use of literary inspirations were all present prior to this period. However, some composers of the Romantic period adopted them as the central pursuit of music itself. Composers were also influenced by technological advances, including an increase in the range and power of the piano and the improved chromatic abilities and greater projection of the instruments of the symphony orchestra.

Ok, so we have chromaticism, unusual chord progressions, increased modulation, a greater emphasis on musical structures based on underlying narratives, often based on direct literary sources, and so forth. Using those parameters, we can formulate that Berlioz was 100% romantic, Chopin only 80% romantic while Haydn was perhaps 10% Romantic. Here's your precious numerical quantification.

[knight66]

But what about Jim-Bob's Bible of Automotive History?

I also forgot about 'Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. But JDP has rulled you topic out; so that's that. 

Mike

[jowcol]

Pfff. So now you are saying there is no reliable way to make a stylistic distinction between a classicist and a romantic composer because their stylistic differences are not quantifiable in a mathematical sense, or so you assume. The implication is laughable in itself, but if you want a numerical distinction, lets start with a definition of the musical language of the Romantic era:

Ok, so we have chromaticism, unusual chord progressions, increased modulation, a greater emphasis on musical structures based on underlying narratives, often based on direct literary sources, and so forth. Using those parameters, we can formulate that Berlioz was 100% romantic, Chopin only 80% romantic while Haydn was perhaps 10% Romantic. Here's your precious numerical quantification.

Thanks for the  answer-- it certainly was 'precious'!

"Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician's finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess  gambit: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game"

G. H. Hardy

Actually, I wish to thank your for confirming my point, and I apologize for the backhanded approach I used to draw it out.   That yes, there are some objective nameable aspects of music that can be used to support classifications of music by style, and we would all be better off if, in our discussions, we took more pains provide the types of information that you had provided in your response.   

The fact remains, however, that there will remain a deal of interpretation beyond that, which is why we are entertained be debates over who was the "first romantic" or "first modern" composer.  Your well written and well -reasoned reply shows that a purely objective, measurable, deterministic method is not possible, and that the degree of "Romanticness" is not objectively quantifiable, but thar there are some major, objectively verifiable characteristics that we associate with the "Romantic Period" 

Unless, of course,  like a good match student, you can show me how your derived the numbers...









There are certainly tools and approaches to classifying styles of music, I fully agree, but

[Josquin des Prez]

One thing we might agree on then is that the classification of racial characteristics is by far more accurate then the classification of musical styles. This fact of course does not in anyway negate my analogy since accuracy in differentiation is irrelevant to the possibility of classification.

[DavidRoss]

I also forgot about 'Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance'. But JDP has rulled you topic out; so that's that. 

Ahhhh...but since Pirsig's book is accurately subtitled An Inquiry into Values, it actually addresses the heart of the matter raised by Teresa in starting this thread.  Inquiring into the values we actually hold and those we wish to hold, and into the rationality (such as it is) of their consistency with the hard facts of nature and the hard lessons of history, is the critical starting point for both political and aesthetic inquiry...which is nearly always overlooked in our haste to rationalize our own prejudices and beat others into submission with them!

[jowcol]

One thing we might agree on then is that the classification of racial characteristics is by far more accurate then the classification of musical styles. This fact of course does not in anyway negate my analogy since accuracy in differentiation is irrelevant to the possibility of classification.

Or we might not.  I'm 1/2 Scottish, 3/8 English, 1/16th German and 1/16th Cherokee.  How white am I?
Given my continual cultural cross-pollenation of other cultures I show on this forum, how white do I act?  What is the mathematical correlation between my degree of whiteness in terms of phenotype and behavior?

How well does a Caucasian tobacco farmer who only listens to popular C&W and doesn't read anything more challenging than USA today represent the values and arts of Western Civilization, as opposed to an Asian-American, Indian American, Hispanic American, or  African American who performs in a widely respected symphony orchestra, or is writing a PhD thesis on Aristotle?  Are these also quantifiable?   Who is the most white, and who is doing the best job to preserve western culture? 

[Todd]

Yes.  But it was made worse by government intervention (for clarity's sake, I'm referring to the Hoover administration, not Roosevelt).

Please provide the government intervention that the Hoover Administration undertook that made it worse.  Not the Fed, mind you, but the Hoover Administration.

But there were actually a lot of people who did not lose their jobs, and were not left with nothing.  Not every bank in the country failed, and plenty of businesses stayed open.  Why should we protect them?

Are you still referring to the Great Depression, or now?

What I am saying is that the results of taking a risk should remain with the people who took the risk.

That's great, but what if it doesn't?   What if institutions collapse and freeze the entire credit market?  Then everyone is impacted.  Ideally this would never happen, but it does.  What should be done then?

Also, as it pertains to your earlier assertions, can you please let everyone here know how long it takes for markets to clear "all at once" (your phrase)?  And can your provide historical examples of this occurring during a financial crisis?

To which I will only respond with a couple of questions:  how would we determine what the correct amount is (or even if there was a correct amount), and who makes the decision.  And why should we only give a partial bailout?  If I'm bailing out to the tune of sixty cents on the dollar or whatever, why shouldn't I do it at a hundred cents to the dollar?

The recent bailout ended up more as capital infusions, did it not, that reestablished the financial soundness of the institutions according to standard accounting practices.  There was a lot of talk of pricing the underlying assets, but that was abandoned to a large extent.  Generally speaking, though, pricing would be established based on market rates, which in the case of real estate would be set at either the projected liquidation amount of the appraised collateral value with disposition timelines factored in, or a percentage of UPB with disposition timelines factored in, would it not?  That's how the players in this space are pricing the assets now.  Different assets would require different pricing models. 

how do you feel about Elizabeth Warren then?

That's like asking how I feel about Neel Kashkari.  I don't know a great deal about her.  Maybe I'll be able to form a better opinion if there are hearings about her possible appointment to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  Generally speaking, I don't follow the actions of every government functionary.