Uranus cites influence of Neptune

[koganbot]

"In 18xx, Alexis Bouvard hypothesized that deviations in the expected orbit of Uranus could be due to the influence of an as yet unseen planet orbiting farther out."

That's an unproblematic use of the word "influence," one that Mark wouldn't object to. But I'm wondering how we should assign influence when the ideas of the influencing agent are misunderstood.

E.g., suppose that, upon the actual discovery of Neptune in 1846, Uranus feels a sudden sense of liberation. Up 'til then, reasons for its deviations have been hypothesized but never proven. Now the reasons are confirmed as good ones, the deviations given a definitive rationale. Uranus decides to take things further. It reasons that, owing to Neptune's having already knocked it off its expected path, the very existence of Neptune must authorize Uranus to deviate as far as it wants to from any path. Now, this is a total misunderstanding of the significance of Neptune, but Uranus isn't a rigorous thinker. In fact, Uranus had never deviated at all. Its path was set by the constraints of gravitational forces, including Neptune's. The "expected path" had been what was off, not Uranus's actual motion. But Uranus can't see this, no matter how much we try to explain. Uranus takes the existence of Neptune as a license to deviate, and deviate it does.

I think the "influence" of Thomas Kuhn is much like the "influence" of Neptune, an influence that's based on a misunderstanding. If I am to have much influence myself, I fear that my influence will be similarly ill-derived.

But can Neptune contend - as it has - that it doesn't have anything to do with Uranus's further deviations? It argues quite correctly that Uranus is simply projecting liberating powers onto Neptune that Neptune neither has nor wants, that it isn't Neptune that causes the deviations but simply Uranus being moved by ideas it has fantasized, these fantasies encouraged by the culture of the solar system, which valorizes deviance. "Blame the culture, blame Uranus's vivid imagination, but don't blame me," says Neptune. This is certainly justified. But nevertheless, without Neptune, would Uranus have acted as it did? One can say, "Oh, Uranus would have found some other excuse," but we don't know this. Would any other excuse have been sufficient? With a sneer, Neptune calls Uranus "conventionally unconventional," and accuses Uranus of evading the true import of Neptune. While this is all true, it doesn't prompt me to retire the question: Could Uranus have done what it did had there had been no discovery of Neptune?

Comments

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

perp: "she made me do it"
judge: "you're goin down"

people and planets should take responsibility for their own actions and impulses!

[koganbot]

Yes indeed. But my taking responsibility for my actions and impulses doesn't necessarily tell us where the actions and impulses come from. That is, I can assert ownership over my taste - it is my taste, and I'm going to flaunt it - while still asking, as I do in Rules Of The Game #1: Joining In, where my taste comes from. Asserting responsibility as an individual and asserting that I'm a product of my environment (which I do on the first page of the Preface to Real Punks) are not contradictory endeavors: in fact, to take responsibility for oneself and to differentiate oneself from others are practices that are encouraged and insisted upon by my culture.

And in regard to bands XYZ in your "i opened the window and INFLUENZA," they believe - more than they should - that they choose their influences. They don't believe that they are drafted as emissaries of the Emperor; they believe that they have chosen this role, this master, to wield his power on his and their own behalf.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

see i would way prefer -- as a metaphor for exchange of energies -- something more like "chemistry": x induces changes in y (and vice versa) by "chemical reaction"

i just find this crossply of will and pull an incredibly confusing and unhelpful description of the interraction of a reader with a book or a listener with a record; of course viewing or hearing something causes changes in you -- but how you respond to these changes, at the time and after... the "influence" metaphor pulls a blanket over all of this, and (empirical enquiry tells us), induces us to pass on, as if all is explored and explained when nothing is!

[koganbot]

Wait, divorce this for a second from the word "influence." Why shouldn't we talk of the interplay of will and pull? Are you saying that there's no crossply (crossplay?) of will and pull? What does "chemistry" explain here? If "chemistry" ignores the crossplay, then it does us no good when we're positing entities (e.g., bands) as agents. Uranus is not an agent, but the government of Uranus, if there were one, would be. A band is an agent, presumed to have collective power of action and thought.

But anyway, say that most of the people Dylan had an impact on don't understand him and only superficially resemble him. Nonetheless, he inspires them to do what they would not have otherwise.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

yes by all means let's talk about the crossply of will and pull! i am quite happy with that! chemistry as a metaphor doesn't (necessarily) ignore the crossply -- influence as a metaphor precisely refuses to distinguish will from pull; it shuts down discussion of same, because it endlessly confuses one with the other (obviously people often do this too, that's why they need a word which DOESN'T do it...)

i am totally happy to divorce this discussion from the word influence, for more than a second: it is totally unnecessary and unhelpful

[koganbot]

Not to mention the crosspost of will and pull.

Both of us broken, caught in a moment

[koganbot]

Of course, "chemistry" doesn't ignore the interplay of will and pull. Cf. Aly & AJ "Chemicals React" (A+A evangelical Christians who may or may not be committed to premarital abstinence, in any event sexual desire is problematic for them in a way that's different from how it's problematic for Rihanna, for instance)(or at least some of the problem are different for them):

[martinskidmore.livejournal.com]

I think in the arts in particular the history of influence is almost all about either partial understandings, misunderstandings or reactions against things. I've seen it claimed, very plausibly, that the biggest influence on the underground comix of the '60s was the very childish Superman-family comics (including Superboy, Supergirl, Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen) of the era.

[koganbot]

Mark (or anyone else), to follow on this weekend's and 2007's convo, do you have thoughts on the use of the word "influence" in this Wikipedia piece on Neue Deutsche Welle?

it quickly developed into an original and distinct style, influenced in no small part by the different sound and rhythm of the German language which many of the bands had adapted from early on.

. . .

From about 1980 on, the music industry began noticing the Neue Deutsche Welle; however, due to the idiosyncratic nature of the music, the focus shifted to creating new bands more compatible with the mainstream, rather than promoting existing bands. Many one-hit wonders and short-lived bands appeared and were forgotten again in rapid succession, and the overly broad application of the "NDW" label to these bands as well as to almost any German musicians not using English lyrics, even if their music was apparently not influenced at all by the 'original' NDW (including pure Rock bands like BAP or even Udo Lindenberg) quickly led to the decay of the entire genre when many of the original musicians turned their backs in frustration.

(Surely they mean "adopted," not "adapted." Or, if the latter, this would be a REALLY interesting phenomenon, the language changing as it is assimilated into a style of music.)(Also, an editor should delete the "from" in "adapted from early on.")

The "envoy" role could be said to be a factor in both uses (e.g., bands as representatives of their language), but the second much more than the first. In the second, bands are failing to represent the masters, failing both to resemble them and to act on their behalf. But in neither instance is being an envoy the only phenomenon at play - resembling is not the same thing as being an envoy, even if most bands and critics don't understand this. And "resemblance" can take different forms; e.g., mimicking the look and sound of a model, on the one hand, and accomplishing in one's own circumstances what the model had accomplished in its original circumstances, on the other.

(h/t Tom for introducing me to the term "Neue Deutsche Welle" several minutes ago)

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

i don't have the slightest idea what i'm being told! even the apparent basic idea -- that this group of people must have been listening admiringly to that strand of music -- is in the final section retreated from...