[Dixielandjazz] Re: reality/truth cum genius/jazz

Charlie Hooks charliehooks@earthlink.net
Thu, 01 Aug 2002 13:51:02 -0500

on 8/1/02 11:29 AM, Don Ingle at dingle@baldwin-net.com wrote:

> Whoa, Charlie. Re-read my post. Nowhere did I say what you just quoted me as
> saying. I would prefer to be hung for what I did -- not what someone else
> did.
> Don Ingle
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie Hooks" <charliehooks@earthlink.net>
> To: "Don Ingle" <dingle@baldwin-net.com>; "Bill Gunter"
> <jazzboard@hotmail.com>; <dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Re: reality/truth cum genius/jazz
>> on 8/1/02 7:21 AM, Don Ingle at dingle@baldwin-net.com wrote:
>>> The idea of music not being
>>>> physical is like saying a beautiful rainbow and or sunset is not
> physical
>> No.  The "Idea" of music not being physical is like the "Idea" of
> beauty
>> connected with the sunset or with anything else.  You are not following me
>> here, people!  Of course the physical material motions by which music is
>> conveyed are all physical, like the vibrating waves of color in a sunset.
>> That was not the question.
>> Notice this curiousity: we have so far abandoned the Universals that
> the
>> "Idea" of a thing is now confused with the nominal manifestation of the
>> thing in physical terms.  In other words, use the term "Idea" in the sense
>> I'm using it, and people don't know what the hell I'm talking about.  This
>> has nothing to do with intelligence and everything to do with the last few
>> hundred years of Nominalism.  Realism (in the mediaeval sense) has so far
>> fallen from fashion as to be unintelligible.
>> Charlie (with all the good advice, which La Rouchefoucualt said was
> what
>> a man gives when he's too old to set a bad example) Hooks
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dixielandjazz mailing list
>> Dixielandjazz@ml.islandnet.com
>> http://ml.islandnet.com/mailman/listinfo/dixielandjazz

You are right, you said no such thing.  It was Gunter, I believe--he's the
one I remember.  I think that some of his post had appeared on your message
and must have seemed to come from you.  I apologise to all.

I don't doubt that Ingle says dumb things now and again; but he sure did not
say that one!  (Now Gunter will yell at me!)