[lbo-talk] For LBO's music theory crowd

[Chuck Grimes]

Okay, for Miles, Shane, Michael Smith and other skeptics, I located the
original article that Kenneally cites in the brief description I
gave---which seems to have created some apparently universal assurances
that this idea was all hogwash. Here is the article:

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/23/18/7160

So read it and please argue with the authors Schwartz, Howe, and Purves.
It would be nice if you pulled some highly suspicious quotes and then
sliced and dice'm proper so I can understand your objections.

I have no dog to wash in this. I would have picked utterly different
ways to approach the idea that human symbolic systems tend to have their
own maybe not translatable relationships to language. Two points here.
Language might be the primary carrier of culture, but it isn't alone and
in many ways has been found by most people to be too limited. Also
language is not synonymous with thought, only a certain kind of thought.
Finally since linguistics studies language, they want to make over
reaching claims for its carry capacity that I don't think are there....

But carry on with your own objections with Howe et al. Please. And post
what you find.

CG