<div dir="ltr"><div>Dear Nicolas,</div><div><br></div><div>thank you for the quotations from Husserl. The two short fragments are, unfortunately, not enough to make a picture of the philosophical concept. </div><div>The point that Husserl is making in this text is the same as he and Heidegger never tired to promote. They fought against onto-teleology. Why? The format of a blog will not allow to engage in this discussion. This is the history of the so-called continental philosophy.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, in a nut shell, phenomenology denies goal-setting (teleology) that comes from outside of the phenomenon. These things must be eradicated (reduced, deconstructed). In the text that you quoted Husserl argues against Meinong's understanding of melody as a process that is oriented toward its end (typical, unfortunately, for most of music theory until nowadays). </div>
<div><br></div><div>Transformation in Lewin's terms--a pure mathematical procedure--is onto-teleological in essence. A set A is transformed into set B by means of preestablished operation. B predetermines the A (just as your I predetermines the V). Such transformation requires an external point of reference, the eye of the viewer, the point of view, the control tower. This process does not describe inner time perception, it reproduces it (makes a copy of it). A complete misunderstanding of phenomenology, if there has been an attempt to adopt it! That is why, I believe, Brian Kane places Lewin's "phenomenology" in brackets. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Mathematical model of transformation should be placed in brackets (epoche, in Husserlian terms). Only then the intuitive grasp of inner time as a continuity of a flux will be possible.</div><div><br></div>
<div>Sorry for a plug, but there is a discussion of this fragment in my chapter in recently published book Sounding the Virtual: Gilles Deleuze and the Theory and Philosophy of Music. I would be honored to know your opinion.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>As for structuralism, this question is not for me to clarify. I can only say that it is not Saussure's invention at all. Common knowledge suggests that major structuralists were Roman Jakobson and Claude Levi-Strauss. And, yes, as Michael mentioned, Anglo-Saxon formalism and Continental semiotics are not the same.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Ildar Khannanov</div><div>Peabody Institute</div><div><a href="mailto:etudetableau@gmail.com">etudetableau@gmail.com</a></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-07-10 13:53 GMT-04:00 Nicolas Meeùs <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nicolas.meeus@scarlet.be" target="_blank">nicolas.meeus@scarlet.be</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">Ildar, Murray,<br>
<br>
Could you make more explicit what you understand by
"phenomenology" or "structuralism", or in what sense you think
that your understanding can substantiate your claims?<br>
<br>
As to Husserl's <i>Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des inneren
Zeitbewußtseins</i>, it seems to me that on the contrary in
might be shown to support a transformational view, as for instance
when he writes:<br>
</font>
<div>
<blockquote>Erst dadurch, daß jene eigentümliche Modifikation
eintritt, daß jede Tonempfindung, nachdem der erzeugende Reiz
verschwunden ist, aus sich selbst heraus eine ähnliche und mit
einer Zeitbestimmtheit versehene Vorstellung erweckt, und daß
diese zeitliche Bestimmtheit sich fortgesetzt ändert, kann es
zur Vorstellung einer Melodie kommen, in welcher die einzelnen
Töne ihre bestimmten Pläne und ihre bestimmten Zeitmaße haben.<br>
It is only because a specific modification occurs, because the
sensation of the tone, after the generating excitement faded
away, awakens a similar representation provided with a temporal
determination, and because this temporal determination is
continually changing, that the representation of a melody is
made possible, in which the isolated tones now have their
determined plans and their determined temporal measure.<br>
</blockquote>
This I understand to mean that a melody can only be perceived as a
melody (instead of a succession of isolated tones) because the
representation one can form of each tone changes (is transformed)
as new tones appear.<br>
<br>
And later:<br>
<blockquote>Wir glauben eine Melodie zu hören, also auch eben
Vergangenes noch zu hören, indessen ist dies nur Schein, der von
der Lebhaftigkeit der ursprünglichen Assoziation herrührt.<br>
We think to hear a melody, that is, still to hear what is just
past, while this is but an appearance that arises from the
vividness of the initial association.<br>
</blockquote>
That is to say, it is the association of tones between themselves,
not their mere succession, that allows to hear a melody [as
melody].<br>
<br>
I don't think that transformational grammars developed from group
theory (even if Lewin might have been influenced by it, I don't
know). They may have an indirect origin in the linguistic notion
of transitivity, i.e. the idea that one element (e.g. a word) acts
on another. I am of the ones who believe that, in a perfect
cadence V–I, it is the dominant that determines I to be the tonic,
and the tonic that determines V to be the dominant. Without this
transitive relation, the same movement between the roots remains
possible, but does not produce the tonal effect (as may be the
case, say, in Renaissance polyphony). You are right, though,
because the transitive relation is possible only because V is a
dominant and I a tonic: it is the paradox of the whole affair. We
are dealing here with explanations, which of necessity stress one
or another aspect. But I don't think that any of them is
incompatible with phenomenology.<div><br>
<br>
Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Professeur émérite<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></div>
Le 10/07/2014 17:23, Ildar Khannanov a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">[...]
<div>A major point of Lewin's "phenomenology" (I put it in
brackets the way Brian does) is to prove that a chord (a note)
does not have its unique meaning outside of context. This is
an old Schenkerian view. It is also an old scientific systemic
and organic understanding. However, it is incompatible with
phenomenology. [...]<br>
</div><div>
<div>The conceptual background of transformational theory is
well-known. It is group theory, which is applied, among other
fields, to crystallography.</div>
</div></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>