KVR Audio

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:12 pm

pHz wrote:neither is positing that it is 'better' if that subset goes off and hides in its own little hole somewhere (i couldve used the word BOX i guess there) ...

Who posited that it was 'better', or that people would have 'hidden' there. I read the propisition as being a convenient 'rallying point' that allowed people certain conveniences, such as a focal point for relevant discussion. Despite the outraged rhetoric of certain people, thats not quite ghettoisation.

whyterabbyt wrote:nah ... just a slight shift in use of language that only a few people would be bothered to pick up on and pretend it fundamentally (sorry ... slightly) changed what i said ...

Well, really it does change it. From an articulation of intent, to the capacity to rationalise and contextualise that intent. Big jump.

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:20 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:Who posited that it was 'better', or that people would have 'hidden' there. I read the propisition as being a convenient 'rallying point' that allowed people certain conveniences, such as a focal point for relevant discussion. Despite the outraged rhetoric of certain people, thats not quite ghettoisation.

assuming that for the sake of this debate im allowed to make the same unqualified assumptions about intent that you do then surely the very suggestion of such a place implies that the current situation is somehow unsatisfying and that the idea proposed would be better (if not - as you said - why bother ??? ) ???

BTW ... you DO know im not actually opposed to this ???

whyterabbyt wrote:Well, really it does change it. From an articulation of intent, to the capacity to rationalise and contextualise that intent. Big jump.

only if you assume that i actually worry about how each individual reader might interpret the SPECIFIC meanings of the words i use ... you prefer audience-based theory to intentionalism ???

slainte

rob

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:28 pm

pHz wrote:assuming that for the sake of this debate im allowed to make the same unqualified assumptions about intent that you do

What would they be then?

then surely the very suggestion of such a place implies that the current situation is somehow unsatisfying

Nope. Perhaps 'not as satisfying as it could be'.

and that the idea proposed would be better (if not - as you said - why bother ??? )

Its my belief that it would be, for some things, yes.

BTW ... you DO know im not actually opposed to this ???

I do now.

whyterabbyt wrote:only if you assume that i actually worry about how each individual reader might interpret the SPECIFIC meanings of the words i use ...

Each 'individual reader'? Sorry, I was actually trying to understand what you meant by specifically communicating with you. I didnt realise you were effectively playing to the gallery.

you prefer audience-based theory to intentionalism ???

I have no idea. Please explain both terms.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:30 pm

pHz wrote:assuming that for the sake of this debate im allowed to make the same unqualified assumptions about intent that you do then surely the very suggestion of such a place implies that the current situation is somehow unsatisfying and that the idea proposed would be better

That was a nice little knot!

experimental.crow · Post by **experimental.crow** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:38 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:blah blah blah

pHz wrote:blah blah blah

two scots shredding minutae , as your curling team lies in ruins ...

priorities ...

ross g · Post by **ross g** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:38 pm

Ildon wrote:I tend to move between pop and avantgarde, so I'd welcome it for sure. Experimental music fascinates the crap out of me.

let us (me) know when the paths cross....

runagate · Post by **runagate** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:45 pm

ross g wrote:
Ildon wrote:I tend to move between pop and avantgarde, so I'd welcome it for sure. Experimental music fascinates the crap out of me.
let us (me) know when the paths cross....

*edit* woops those url don't work

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:47 pm

normal wrote: two scots shredding minutae , as your curling team lies in ruins ...

priorities ...

Compared to curling, filing my eyeballs into Klein bottles is a priority....

aMUSEd · Post by **aMUSEd** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:52 pm

Where is this auditorium that keeps getting mentioned?

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 6:53 pm

http://the-auditorium.net/

experimental.crow · Post by **experimental.crow** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:16 pm

whyterabbyt wrote:
normal wrote: two scots shredding minutae , as your curling team lies in ruins ...

priorities ...

Compared to curling, filing my eyeballs into Klein bottles is a priority....

had to look up klein bottle ...

cptgone · Post by **cptgone** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:29 pm

xoxos wrote:
Sickle wrote:the genre diversity's that wide.
the government and service providers must comply - people demand BOX. now! new BOX! with 5% more BOX! hey, you can't argue with that!

how much is it?

pHz · Post by **pHz** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:31 pm

OK ... im game ... ONE more round ...

whyterabbyt wrote:What would they be then?

that i am allowed to interpret any post in any way i want and it be accepted that such interpretation is definitive ...

whyterabbyt wrote:Nope. Perhaps 'not as satisfying as it could be'.

which could EASILY be interpreted as unsatisfying (its all a question of degree) ...

whyterabbyt wrote:Its my belief that it would be, for some things, yes.

the unwavering certainty wavers ... slightly ...

whyterabbyt wrote:I do now.

then - heehee - weve made some progress at last ...

whyterabbyt wrote:Each 'individual reader'? Sorry, I was actually trying to understand what you meant by specifically communicating with you. I didnt realise you were effectively playing to the gallery.

not 'effectively' but 'unavoidably' ... these arent PMs ... there IS an audience (however bored and dismissive by now) and you know as well as i do that youre equally as guilty of playing to the gallery (not necessarily now - but generally) ... and as for trying to understand what i mean - that isnt the same as looking for perceived inconsistencies in the specifics of my use of language and pointing them out (if that WAS what human communication was all about we would all still be standing in a circle around a rotting mammoth corpse grunting at each other)

whyterabbyt wrote:I have no idea. Please explain both terms.

hmmmnnn ... i rise to this ... VERY simply (and applying what i know about this from a visual art POV - and my laymans interest in linguistics - to language) intentionalists believe the only TRUE meaning of a text (in the broad critical theory sense of cultural / social artifact) is the one the creator meant it to have ... audience-based theories suggest the opposite - that regardless of the creators original intent the only TRUE meaning(s) of a text is / are the ones perceived in it by its audience(s) ... personally i dont side with either of those (theyre both a bit too cut-n-dried) and quite like a structuralist / post-structuralist approach myself ...

slainte

rob

(edited to tidy up quoting)

Sickle · Post by **Sickle** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:35 pm

You see what you started, Rick?

I hope you're happy.

intel · Post by **intel** » Sat Feb 25, 2006 7:38 pm

pHz wrote:there IS an audience (however bored and dismissive by now)

hear hear.

experimental wing of kvr?