[lit-ideas] Re: The Devil's Chord

  • From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 06:28:01 +0000

Yes, there is an issue of image, two (in psychology) find evidence to have the
model of the two bodies (that is, each psychology has two models, ~ one of my
body as seen [by anyone, myself included, else] and one of my body as a pure
system of awareness)
If you are interested I can drag the ref

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: 20 May 2015 13:06
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Devil's Chord

Hm, yes, in Serbian you also have a word 'ruka' for the whole arm including the
hand. (And I suppose in Russian too ?) But that seems a minor quibble.

Where the claim might go beyond the strictly empirical is in the stipulation
that the hand is mine; I can see a hand but to claim that it is mine I would
need to use some introspection seemingly.


On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Adriano Palma
<Palma@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
So what?

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Behalf Of John McCreery
Sent: 20 May 2015 01:10
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Devil's Chord

A related but similar case: A language teacher says, "This is my hand" to
someone who is not a native speaker of English. A Japanese for whom the
character 手, commonly translated as "hand," refers to the whole arm, including
the hand, could reasonably wish to verify the teacher's intended meaning.


Sent from my iPad

On 2015/05/20, at 3:12, Walter C. Okshevsky
<wokshevs@xxxxxx<mailto:wokshevs@xxxxxx>> wrote:

If you stare at your hand and say "This is my hand" (or "I know that
this is my
hand") aren't you just reporting on a test of your eyesight? W
maintained that if the distinction between the verified and the
verifying isn't clear, you're not dealing with a knowledge claim.

But in certain circumstances, W went on to say, "This is my hand" or
"Here is my hand" IS a verifiable belief, hence a knowledge-claim. I
can be mistaken;I can doubt whether it is indeed mine. As in, after a
terrible plane accident I search for my severed hand and claim to have found

Actually, now that I think about it, I only believe he came up with
that example. It may be my own or I read or heard it somewhere.

Walter O

Quoting Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>>:

I am not sure why "Here is a hand" is supposed to be essentially
different from any other empirical proposition. It just happens to be
one that is easily verifiable; I cannot easily verify the location of
Salzburg from where I am sitting but I can always stare at my hand,
touch it etc. So the issue is whether (verified) empirical propositions can
supply knowledge.


On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Adriano Palma
<Palma@xxxxxxxxxx<mailto:Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Did Wittgenstein do anything wrong?
Yes, he did not be grice

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] On
Behalf Of Walter C. Okshevsky
Sent: 19 May 2015 15:09
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Devil's Chord

As is so often the case, I'm not quite sure what Speranza is saying
(or why).
But in this case I find myself having to support his (?) claim that
there is nothing dogmatic about W's bedrock or riverbed as we have
it in *On

While a dogmatic belief is one that refuses to learn, riverbed
"propositions" - i.e., "This is my hand" - constitute a form of
that is not verifiable/falsifiable precisely because certainty is
not epistemic. It is not open to doubt and
verification/falsification in the way that, say, the belief that
Salzburg is between Vienna and Munich is open to question. That is why W
exclaimed "Moore doesn't know anything"
response to Moore's hand waving while delivering a lecture at Mutton
College on a proof of an external world.

Believe it or not.

Walter O

Quoting dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

In a message dated 5/15/2015 11:37:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"I do not accept that W thinks such "rules" would be "arbitrary".
Nor do I guess the word "dogmatic" is one we will find in W in the
context of this issue or is one which he would find appropriate (to
adapt W's metaphor:
when our "spade is turned" because it has "hit bedrock" it is not
because it

is a "dogmatic" spade but because it is a tool with limits to what
it can do

[yes - it is the "limits of language" that underlie W's "Remarks
on Colour" as they underlie nearly all his philosophising]) . But
of course I may be mistaken in all this (and in my general view of
W as engaged in examining philosophical problems given the "limits
language"): perhaps [it] can [be] show[n] that W indeed uses the
word "arbitrary" or "dogmatic" in this context - more than this,
perhaps W does somewhere say "that whatever "rules"

we might teach, as to what is "jarring"or "non-jarring", these
rules will be "arbitrary, dogmatic.."" But I doubt it. If W does
say such things, I would like the actual words quoted. ... I do
not think we can infer any such thing from what [is quoted]."

I'm not sure about Goethe, but I would think Witters was familiar
with the so-called "Devil's Chord", and so, we may also want to

(i) to what extent Goethe merely SHOWED (or shew as Anscombe
prefers) things, rather than said them.
(ii) to what extent Witters SHOWED (or shew as Anscombe prefers)
things, rather than said them.

The Devil's Chord seems like a good candidate for what others (not
the Devil I expect) may call jarring.

Although this ratio [45/32] is composed of numbers which are
multiples of
5 or under, they are excessively large for a 5-limit scale, and are
sufficient justification, either in this form or as the tempered
the epithet "diabolic," which has been used to characterize the

This is a case where, because of the largeness of the numbers, none
but a temperament-perverted ear could possibly prefer 45/32 to a
small-number interval of about the same width.

In the Pythagorean ratio 81/64 both numbers are multiples of 3 or
under, yet because of their excessive largeness the ear certainly
prefers 5/4 for this approximate degree, even though it involves a
prime number higher than

3. In the case of the 45/32, 'tritone' our theorists have gone
around their

elbows to reach their thumbs, which could have been reached simply
and directly and non-'diabolically' via number 7.

The name diabolus in musica ("the Devil in music") has been applied
to the interval from at least the early 18th century, though its
use is not restricted to the tritone.

Andreas Werckmeister cites this term in 1702 as being used by "the
old authorities" for both the tritone and for the clash between
chromatically related tones such as F and F♯, and five years
later likewise calls "diabolus in musica" the opposition of
"square" and "round" B (Bâ™® and Bâ™­,
respectively) because these notes represent the juxtaposition of
"mi contra fa".

Johann Joseph Fux cites the phrase in his seminal 1725 work Gradus
ad Parnassum, Georg Philipp Telemann in 1733 describes, "mi against
fa", which the ancients called "Satan in music", and Johann
Mattheson in
1739 writes that the "older singers with solmization called this
pleasant interval 'mi contra fa' or 'the devil in music'".

Although the latter two of these authors cite the association with
the devil as from the past, there are no known citations of this
term from the Middle Ages, as is commonly asserted.

However Denis Arnold, in the New Oxford Companion to Music,
suggests that the nickname was already applied early in the
medieval music

It seems first to have been designated as a "dangerous" interval
when Guido of Arezzo developed his system of hexachords and with
the introduction of B flat as a diatonic note, at much the same
time acquiring its nickname of "Diabolus in Musica" ("the devil in

Because of that original symbolic association with the devil and
its avoidance, this interval came to be heard in Western cultural
convention as

suggesting an "evil" connotative meaning in music.

However, suggestions that singers were excommunicated or otherwise
punished by the Church for invoking this interval are likely fanciful.

At any rate, avoidance of the interval for musical reasons has a
long history, stretching back to the parallel organum of the Musica

In all these expressions, including the commonly cited "mi contra
fa est diabolus in musica", the "mi" and "fa" refer to notes from
two adjacent hexachords.

For instance, in the tritone B–F, B would be "mi", that is the

degree in the "hard" hexachord beginning on G, while F would be
"fa", that is the fourth scale degree in the "natural" hexachord
beginning on

So one can imagine a 'Lehre' that is composed of rules that 'forbid'
the 'diabolus in music' without having to SAY it but 'show' it.



--- Witters, Remarks on Colour: 91. "If there were a HARMONY theory
of colors, it would probably begin with a division of the colors
into different

groups and would FORBID certain MIXTURES or combinations, would
allow others; and it would, like HARMONY theory, not JUSTIFY its rules."
"Can that not shed us some light on the nature [Art] of those
differences between the

colors?" 93. "[We do not say A knows something, B knows the opposite.
But if one replaces "knows" by "BELIEVES," then it is a proposition.]".
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation
on/off, digest on/off), visit

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest
on/off), visit

Other related posts: