"Tim Rhodes" <proftim@speakeasy.org> wrote:
> Hofstadter (as I remember it) uses the example of an alien finding
> recordings of both Bach and Cage. The Bach record the alien could
> recognize as having meaning from its patterns (even if it did not
> share our aesthetic), but it could not find the same meaning in the
> Cage recording without sharing our cultural framework
Hofstadter uses this example in an attempt to decide whether the meaning of
a message is an inherent property of the message -- in short, does the
meaning reside in the text, or in an interpreter? (or some combination)
Hofstadter concludes overwhelmingly in favour of the former. As he says,
"meaning is intrinsic if intelligence is natural" (pg 171). (of course,
this gets him into the tangely earth chauvinism, human-centered,
politically correct crap...)
As to the relation of this thought experiment to meaning as isomorphism, he
doesn't seem to mention it (it's handy having the book on hand, eh?). I
suspect, however, that it applies in full -- it's just that a CAGE piece by
itself is insufficient to transmit the isomorphism to the listener; for
that one needs to be informed about trends in western music in the last 30
or so years... (paraphrase pg 174). As opposed to the BACH peice, which
carries within itself enough strucure (information) that the meaning can be
rebuilt (via the strong isomorphism to pattern).
> The Bach has isomorphic meaning, there is a one-to-one relationship
> between the piece and its meaning. The Cage has a contextual
> meaning, it must be seen with its culture for the meaning to be
> realized. Math has isomorphic meaning, Art has contexual meaning
> (increasingly so since the 19th century).
Hofstadter did not make that point. The point he did make was that Cage
has a much larger outer message -- "to understand the outer message is to
build, or know how to build, the correct decoding mechanism for the inner
message" (pg 166), and in this sense the meaning of a Cage is an
isomorphism with the culture ("let it be"!) rather than with specific
patterns or "dimensions of structure (melody, harmony, rhythm)" (pg 175)
"In that sense, Bach's music is more self-contained than Cage's music" (pg
175)
> I suspect many of our arguments here stem from conflicts between
> those who (implicitly) believe "meaning" must be isomorphic and
> those who (implicitly) see "meaning" as including the contextual.
In a certain sense, maybe yes. On the other hand, it's easy to say that
context modifies the isomorphism -- that the first position implies the
second.
ERiC