it seems to me the five principles - responsibility, perseverance, excellence, creativity, courage - are actually surface terms describing deeper motivation, which is our constant drive to improve our "mental model".
in our brain, we have a "mental model" of the world. it is imperfect, yet allows us to make predictions. Our goal is to improve this model (aka simulator, prediction engine) over the time. We seek for indicators which tell us if our mental model is improving or not. One of the indicators is money one our bank account, our praise of some master.
I'd be grateful if anyone of you can point me to some literature which describes the approach I outlined above. I use the expression "improve my mental model", but I guess philosophy is using some other (more established) term.
---
I am not trying to deal with the question why we actually strive to improve our "mental model" :) though I like the idea that it leads to "less suffering".
my guess is, the world of music theory seems like an epic mess to a novice due to the fact that it maintains full backward compatility and is instrument agnostic. e.g. there is a concept named "octave", but it actually consists if 12 intervals (on chromatic scale), and "mysteriously" there is no B# between B and C, and so on. it is like leaving types and pointers in every programming language, even if the lang is Ruby which is "typeless" and has garbage collector.
I think that the problem is you're not learning in order -- like, if you learn functions before variables or data types, you're gonna be confused.
Those things you mentioned actually make perfect sense when you arrive at them with the following assumptions/understandings:
-Western music is founded (not limited to, but founded) on the concept of a "tonal center."
-Western music is founded (again, not limited to, but certainly founded on) limiting the number of available pitches to those available in the equal temperament system, which is to say that the distance between the smallest internal, a half-step, is equal. This means that no tonal centers, or "keys," are favored by the tuning system. In the past certain keyboards might have been tuned to favor pieces written in G, for example. On a "G keyboard," a 5th from G to D would actually be a different number of cents than a 5th from, say, D to A (more on that in a moment).
-Western music also tends to like returning to said tonal centers. Going away from it -- tension, and returning -- release. It's emotionally satisfying and, while I'm only really barely scratching the surface, this concept can explain a lot.
With all this in mind, the "octave" thing makes sense, because for whatever reason, humans like to resolve to tonal centers in a similar fashion -- the basic culmination of all of this is a major key, which no matter what your tonal center is, can be created by starting at a note (let's say C for simplicity), and then counting up the following interval pattern: WWHWWWH, where W = whole step, and H = half step. Therefore, the key of C is C D E F G A B (and then C to complete the final half-step at the top, but we already said that tone so it doesn't need to be included -- but, C to C is 8 notes!).
If the tonal center (or "tonic") is C#, then your major scale is spelled C# D# E# F# G# A# B#. This can answer your B/B#/C question: yes, from the "perspective" of a major scale in the key of C, which unfortunately is what most "layman" musicians tend to think of when they think of a scale due to where music education usually starts, then yes, no B# exists, and the "gap" seems in-congruent, inconsistent, a flaw in the system, like something was bolted on to make it work. But from the "perspective" of C#, then not only does a B# exist, but so does an E#! It's actually a very elegant and, I guess you could say, "self-correcting" system. The lack of a B# from the "C major perspective" is actually a fault of our tendency to start there, but is also an inevitable outcome of a system that is designed to treat all keys equally.
If anything, Western music terminology has a "tonality" bias, which is true, and might be what you're running into and what is confusing you. Once you start really stretching the limits (but this stuff really isn't at all pertinent to this discussion, or really what most people would generally like to listen to...it tends to mostly exist in academic circles), the limitations of the terminology become obvious. But mostly, it perfectly reflects what the vast majority of our music is.
The only thing I'm not quite getting from your post is bringing up backwards compatibility. I get the sense that you're trying to express a fuzzy concept and are arriving at the nearest programming terminology, but I'm not sure what that concept is. Backwards compatibility doesn't really make any sense in the context of harmony. If anything, it technically breaks backwards compatibility with music written before equal temperament was fully adopted, since music written using other tuning systems now sound slightly different. Can you try explaining what you mean by it more? Maybe I can help out.
I am freelancing via Toptal, and you have to pass the entrance exams (which are hard and include live coding), but that is the last time you have to do it... at least that is my experience with 5 different contracts in last 3 years there.. after entering, no one asked me to pass some additional quiz. The clients there seem to trust the system -- i.e. once you are in, you passed the bar and there in no need to waste time testing your abilities again.
I like the engineering side of the problem. if I understand it properly, the greatest danger is that even when two professional divers will accompany each boy through the passage, if that child panicks in a narrow underwater section, there is risk both three may get drown. I imagine that they can try to infuse each child with some calm-down preparate to prevent panick, in such a manner that child will be still able to use his own muscles to walk.
here is one project which is trying to solve the welth distribution inequality: https://merit.world/
they claim that root cause of inequality comes from the fact that signalling and exchange value of money is nowadays coupled together (i.e. dollar is used for exchange of goods as well as to signal to the public that you a rich person).
they try to separate this two ingredients, so that there will be sort of two currencies, one for exchange, and the other for signalling (kind of likes in facebook world).
not sure if I miss something, but I haven't figured out how to use the tuning knobs :( I tried mouseover, click, click+drag, in vertical and also in horizontal direction, but the tone didn't moved in any direction.
I agree that using the tuning knobs was not very intuitive. I guess that you're supposed to click on the knob, hold it down, and move up or down to tune -- but there was no feedback (except from the sound, which changed slowly.)
the (semi)automatic annotation never really happened.
there are ontologies, there are amounts of raw data everywhere on the web, but we haven't discovered a way how to reliably turn those data into rdf triplets matching the ontology without doing it by manually hand.
in our brain, we have a "mental model" of the world. it is imperfect, yet allows us to make predictions. Our goal is to improve this model (aka simulator, prediction engine) over the time. We seek for indicators which tell us if our mental model is improving or not. One of the indicators is money one our bank account, our praise of some master.
I'd be grateful if anyone of you can point me to some literature which describes the approach I outlined above. I use the expression "improve my mental model", but I guess philosophy is using some other (more established) term.
---
I am not trying to deal with the question why we actually strive to improve our "mental model" :) though I like the idea that it leads to "less suffering".