I find this line of argument to be self proving. It seems like a variation of begging the question.
If you define a term in such a way that it is completely culturally determined, you can then prove this concept is subjective and culturally determined?
The 4th against the bass changes the perception of the root. This is why it was avoided. Using the word dissonance to refer to this is just confusing.
The definition I use and is used in the work you are rebutting is consistent, has a physics explanation and is largely cross cultural.
At best all that is going on here is a disagreement about the definition of a word.
At worst this discussion is some sort of proxy for a metaphysical disagreement about postmodernism and the subjectivity and cultural framing of all reality.
If you define a term in such a way that it is completely culturally determined, you can then prove this concept is subjective and culturally determined?
The 4th against the bass changes the perception of the root. This is why it was avoided. Using the word dissonance to refer to this is just confusing.
The definition I use and is used in the work you are rebutting is consistent, has a physics explanation and is largely cross cultural.
At best all that is going on here is a disagreement about the definition of a word.
At worst this discussion is some sort of proxy for a metaphysical disagreement about postmodernism and the subjectivity and cultural framing of all reality.