re: tuna fish

[benjamin bracken <bbracken@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

someone wrote: 
> I think Kim means you can enjoy lightning or even a tuna fish sandwich
> without knowing how they work, or what
> went into making them.  However once you understand the *phenomenon* of
> lightning or the *recipe* of the tuna sandwich
> you can come to a greater understanding of said lightning bolts and tuna
> fish sandwiches.

It should be pointed out that this does not necessarily hold true.
sometimes, though it is nigh blasphemous in this day and age, "understanding
the recipe" does not always give someone a better appreciation of whatever
it is they are trying to "encounter".  case in point: i knew a fellow who
was a masterful student and lover of music, something that he worked very
hard on.  He became a composer and did quite well initially.  But he was
unhappy, and i asked him why.  He told me that music was ruined for him
because whenever he looked at the music, or listened to a composition, or
even flicked on the radio dial, he understood every little harmonic theory,
and it flooded his mind like a parasite.  it was so distracting that he
could no longer hear the music above the din of his "understanding".  he
quit his career in music to save music for himself.  perhaps he is the
exception, but it seems i know alot of people who could use a little more
innocence and a little less analysis.

i should also point out that i love music theory, fascinated by technology
and always up for gaining insights into what makes all that out there tick.
but i hope i can always incorporate into my experience what it is like to
just bite in, not worried about what is in the sandwich.

the two kinds of experiences can be very different, but dont have to be
mutually exclusive or held over one another.  i just dont think that you
always have a better appreciation of whatever it is you are looking at.

b