Interpretation as a One-to-One Function (Simon, 4/28)

Mike, thank you for explaining what semiotic means. I was confused.

Korsyn's metaphor of nesting dolls that encapsulate each other reminded me of a very similar concept in real number analysis: that of boundedness. If some set, whether finite or infinite, is bounded, then there exists a disc that has all the points of the set interior to it. No matter how large one makes the disc, the infinite nature of human thought means that there is still more “stuff” outside of the disc than inside. This means, among other things, that no matter how broad a piece of music is, there exists some element outside the boundary, some idea that cannot be derived from the music. Is this a problem? Furthermore, if the set of possible interpretations is bounded, then no amount of patching or adding interpretations to the piece will ever encompass all ideas and feelings the human mind can evoke. Is this a problem?

Lowe throws around a few words that attempt to explain how music is distributed and processed. Expression, imitation, and suggestion are all used by 18th century thinkers to describe the role music plays in regard to nature. Are these simply gradients of relation? Or does each different term have some correspondence with a particular way music is processed by a listener?

Despite a disassociation with both the subject and musical content of “With Horns and With Hounds,” the merchant draws a quick connection between this folk melody and the Haydn's first movement. This, and the similar connection made by the noble, indicate that there may be stronger correlation between content and interpretation than previously argued. Certainly, the two attentive listeners feel different emotions towards the hunt, but it is the hunt that they both immediately focus on. Does this indicate a circumscribing or limitation of interpretation?