Jon S, List, Jon, I think I'm quasi-surprising myself and finding that I more or less agree with your somewhat "different approach." You wrote:
Rather than Rule/Result/Case, I see it as abduction/deduction/induction in the sense that I have identified as the logic of ingenuity. The abductive aspect is the initial idea, or series of ideas; the deductive aspect is setting down the notes as ins tructions for the player(s); and the inductive aspect is the actual performance, or perhaps the series of rehearsals that culminates with it. So, I would tend to agree with you that as *process* (rather than mere inference pattern in critical logic) that artistic creation is much more like scientific inquiry--abduction -> dedution -> induction--than it is like rule/result/case, the latter being a mere abstraction of abductive inference having a decidedly limited purpose, in fact a 'purely logical' one (and, as I've remarked, precisely in critical logic, not in philosophical rhetoric). On the other hand, while I agree with you that 'the abductive aspect" is the initial musical idea, and that "the deductive aspect" is the setting down of notes on manuscript paper, I'm less certain about "the inductive aspect" being only rehearsals or performances. In inquiry one takes the deductive implications of the hypothesis to form an experimental test and *then* one makes the inductive test. So as I see it for musical creation, either between deduction and induction, or as a facet of one or the other (perhaps as an engineer you could help clarify this for me), one completes (at least produces a draft of) the creative work (similar to deducing the implications of the hypothesis for testing), and then, as another step, one rehearses and performs the composition (like refining then making the actual inductive test). But that's a relatively minor caveat to your analysis of which I generally approve. Perhaps you were suggesting something similar regarding the complexity of the process by writing: And as in engineering, I see a second cycle nested within this one--taking place mostly in the mind of the composer, but sometimes manifested in his/her tinkering at a keyboard or (these days) a computer, working things out privately before presenting them publicly. You concludedg: Continuing with the example of Mozart, this brings to mind his reputation--whether true-to-life or at least semi-mythical--of finishing entire pieces in his head before writing anything down. Hm. As a sometimes composer myself--but certainly no Mozart!--I would say that it is possible to imagine an entire composition "in your head" before putting it down on music manuscript paper. Now, not all composers work that way so, for example, you see Beethoven do a helluva a lot of working and reworking, crossing out passages, sometimes whole pages, correcting his initial ideas in marginalia, etc. His manuscripts are a visual mess in many cases. On the other hand you do not see this in Mozart whose manuscripts are almost completely free of such "reworkings" (one could cite such examples of difference in compositional approach in many arts I think). However, none of this diminishes the power of your initial insight whereas artistic creation parallels scientific investigation as process. Best, Gary R [image: Gary Richmond] *Gary Richmond* *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* *Communication Studies* *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* *C 745* *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:00 PM, Jon Alan Schmidt <jonalanschm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gary R., List: > > GR: My point is that his is a case of artistic abduction, yet the rule > (the composition) is quite complete, although the (result/characters--the > notes) will have to be set down; when they are there will exist a completed > of music (the case) conceived, however, all-at-once-together. > > > After letting this simmer for a few days, I think that I would take a > little different approach to characterizing artistic creation in > general--and musical composition in particular--in Peircean terms. Rather > than Rule/Result/Case, I see it as abduction/deduction/induction in the > sense that I have identified as the logic of ingenuity. The abductive > aspect is the initial idea, or series of ideas; the deductive aspect is > setting down the notes as instructions for the player(s); and the inductive > aspect is the actual performance, or perhaps the series of rehearsals that > culminates with it. > > And as in engineering, I see a second cycle nested within this one--taking > place mostly in the mind of the composer, but sometimes manifested in > his/her tinkering at a keyboard or (these days) a computer, working things > out privately before presenting them publicly. Continuing with the example > of Mozart, this brings to mind his reputation--whether true-to-life or at > least semi-mythical--of finishing entire pieces in his head before writing > anything down. > > Regards, > > Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA > Professional Engineer, Amateur Philosopher, Lutheran Layman > www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt - twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
