A weedy florilegium

First Act

Primitive Man

(Points ostensibly to a mundane stone situated before him.) One!

Primitive Man

(Again.) One!

Primitive Man

(Again; followed by extended sigh.) One! …

Primitive Man

He begins to sulk and wail as if the act were a kind of superstitious ritual. He begins to dance, cajoled by the stone’s physical presence.

Primitive Man

One! One! One! One! …

Primitive Man

He stands dejected and immoral by his unsuccessful attempts. Rain shall not fall this season.

Our Primitive Man undertook a rain dance, say, so as to fruitfully introduce a new term into his language. His attempt, as given our scene, was a failure. But as he begins to stomp away from his alter, fire, what have you, he murmurs to himself as he paces. “One… One… One…”; he is “counting” his feet, as is clear, but he continuously, consistently fails (as he did before; he might now say: the set of his walking consisted in) — though the point here is that he is not celebrating in this act. It is a mere transition to another game. (Imagine, if you can, pacing as a game we play. And why is it not? Indeed, what makes this behavior not counting? — Do not say: “Well, obviously!” That is to say, I have generated a question, and if understood by any intellect, an answer must be given (we seek to, or rather are compelled to (theorem: psychologically), extend our epistemic rights.)

Second Act

Musical Man

Dun. Dun. Dun. Dun. Dun.

Musical Man

(Notice of a rhythm to his counting.)

Theory on correspondence theory of truth:

Music as a Representation of the World.

Consider the score a picture of reality in the “literal,” physical sense; music as a description of the empirical world, — now the mathematical world. Do not consider

Music as a Creation of the World.

We imagine music as a complexity, but is it, like with mathematics, necessarily not about the world? Would we say that music is an application of mathematics? Perhaps even founded on mathematics?

Devil’s enquiry: “The world created by a musical piece. What sense of world do we use here? Must it map to our understanding of world in the physical sense, world in the mathematical sense? Can we make sense of the question? Can we make sense of the use in ordinary language? (Will we resort to a psycho-causal theory to explain this phenomenon in ordinary language? Thus!: the sense of the question is best understood under the frame of the physical. But is the musical world created an approximation to our empirical world, or is it the Unto Itself, like how we view the world of the physical (the Natural world) or the mathematical (the world of Necessity)?

Third Act

(Rain fails — the man enjoys the Real-ality: observation of real numbers through a waterfall. Quickly: might one continue to bellow out: “One!”?)

Fourth Act

We are those caught in the rain,
Unable to embrace its insanity,
For our lack of language:
Language as a Necessity
To the Possibility of Sensation;
Of Seers See No Truth