*”The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846–893, is a collection of two series
of Preludes and Fugues in all 24 major and minor keys, composed for solo
keyboard by Johann Sebastian Bach.”
For this piece, the term ‘argument’ will sometimes be used
interchangeably with other types of (potentially) adversarial exchanges. However,
because there are occasionally, valid and viable differences, those other types
will be defined here:
a. Argument: An argument is an unstructured adversarial confrontation, which
usually involves uncontrolled emotional responses, anger, and eventually, a
deviation from pure fact for the sole purpose of making one’s point or
‘winning’. (In math, an ‘argument’ is an
input to a function normally as a subscript: In a(b), ‘b’ is the subscript or
‘argument’ of a.)
b. Debate: A debate is a ‘formal’ and structured form of confrontation between
two or more opponents that is an exchange of opposing views and ideas, with
adherence to fact being paramount, at least in theory.
c. Discourse:
A discourse can either be a form
of highly formalized type of debate, or an authoritative postulation (or
expounding) on a scholarly (theological or political) subject.
d. Disagreement: Similar to an argument, a
disagreement is any type of dispute
that connotes a lack of agreement, which can manifest as an argument, a debate,
or a discourse, sometimes with varying degrees of civility.
e. Theory/Hypothesis: If radical or new, often becomes as
hotly defended and debated as any argument or other form of adversarial
discourse.
******************************************
Posting any type of content on the Internet is opening oneself to a
relatively new type of discourse with potentially negative results, especially
if the material is scholarly, or ‘semi-scholarly’, controversial, or natively
inflammatory, such as subjects concerning radical
new theories, politics or religion. When allowed to go unchecked, the
debates could conceivably grow to same level of vitriol as the Brooks-Sumner
Affair, or other examples of legislative violence.
These confrontations, begun online, can and have, in extreme cases, spilled out
into the real world, with dire results, especially on less regulated social
forums and websites used mostly by non-professionals.
The semi-real-time environment of the Internet, where posts can fly
around the world in a matter of seconds, has made online posting as potentially
volatile and confrontational as its verbal counterpart, with practically the
same level of spontaneity of emotions and responses.
However, the written
format of the Internet does allow a bit more consideration of words and ideas
before putting them forth. That difference should be used to full advantage if
an idea is to receive maximum coverage and consideration, even from those who disagree.
(For comparison, the closest counterpart
in real-time argument and confrontation where similar rules apply is the strictly
regulated adversarial approach of the legal system.)
The Internet, by its very (open, unregulated) nature, has created an open
forum that, in extreme cases, is more like a gladiatorial arena and less like
the venerable old town hall meetings, or the hallowed lecture halls and auditoriums
of old movies. A poster (or debater) can take one of two courses, one that,
like the arena, is savagely adversarial, or, he or she can choose to maintain
an almost unheard of format of civil decorum, letting the words defend
themselves. To do that, an argument (posted, published, or otherwise) must be
self-sustaining, self-defending, and well-tempered.
The post can be considered ‘tempered’ in that the work always maintains a
civil, non-abrasive tone, is scrupulously researched from diverse sources (not
just the Internet), is scholarly and keeps to the facts. It should also flexible
enough in its presentation to allow other, opinions, including divergent ones,
and above all, should ask more than
it answers, to better and more fully engage the reader. Such arguments, thus constructed and presented,
could also be considered ‘harmonious’. If anything, civility combined with
scrupulous research (and a dash of humility) increases the chance of acceptance
of the post, or at least equally
civil disagreement, if it should arise, keeping in mind that the forum is still the Internet, and as such, does
not guarantee any degree of civility.
Once an exchange becomes unnecessarily
disrespectful, rude, or devolves to insults, slurs, or name-calling, it would
be best to end the correspondence as soon as possible. Failing to do so could
result in being dragged into an argument which will more
than likely not, in the end, not be as demeaning to the detractor (who may well
engage in such behavior all the time), than it is to the original author.
 |
| Monty-Python Argument Clinic |
The various types of temperament tuning systems (such as well-tempered, equal-tempered, dynamic tonality, regular temperament, and Kirnberger temperament), all attempt to resolve a problem of Pythagorean
tuning (and physics) where correctly sized intervals eventually result in a
tonal dissonance called a wolf interval. The distance between
note intervals (measured in money-like units called cents) in any given
key (particularly in Western music) and what is generally perceived to be
pleasant (to the human ear in general) creates a problem that occurs when the circle of fifths is
imposed on the twelve tones of the chromatic scale (while trying to make an
‘exact’ octave). This imposition always resulting in the previously mentioned ‘wolf
interval’ or sometimes a wolf chord, the
avoidance of which (called temperament tuning) makes
it impossible to play all keys in precise
intonation, that is without
adjusting/resizing their natural intervals to some degree, a process called ‘tempering’ for better overall tonality.
The temperament tuning systems (see
above) constitute a compromise between adhering to strict musical written notation
in regard to interval ratios and ‘perfect’ intonation, and what is actually
heard (and considered pleasant or consonant)
by the human ear (again, mostly in Western music). The technique has changed
throughout the development of music, with the most common system in use today
being equal temperament.
******************************************
This type of ideological flexibility and compromise in music can serve
the same purpose in a ‘well-tempered’ argument, dissertation, debate, or discourse
that is more or less ‘fixed’, once it enters cyberspace, just as the strings of
‘fixed pitch’ (non-digital) keyboard instruments are irrevocably set. If a
piece is ‘well-tempered’, adhering as closely to the facts as possible, while
allowing some ‘leeway’, for other opinions, potential inaccuracies, is flexible
and not too pedantic (or dictatorial), it should be able to stand on its own,
indefinitely, with little or no defense or tinkering.
Such a post, argument,
(or even theory)
well written and well-tempered (or even-tempered,
to take the musical analogy further), once posted, should never have to be
defended, but merely supplemented, and then only
rarely.
