Wow, this has turned into a really lively discussion since last night. I tried to post back early this morning from work, but never got around to finishing my thoughts; but I'll post what I wrote anyway, fwiw...

____________________
Morning (or evening), light and Chris,

I'm not going to quote much, as this prevents me from posting if I do so too much.

First, light, I'm glad you didn't perceive my post as an attack of any kind, as it certainly wasn't my intention to do so- I was just trying to bring to the table what I know (or don't) to hopefully expand on this discussion.

As you pointed out, Chris, a lot of confusion can lie in...I guess you can say semantics to a great degree. To further clarify, I think we should say we're discussing Western/European music theory.

CShlegel:
However, just to be clear, there is no contradiction inherent in music theory.

Depends who you talk to. When I was at Berklee, we had classical music theorists who told us what was "wrong" with jazz/pop theory. I remember when we spent 2 weeks dissecting the Beach Boys' harmonies in "Surfer Girl" and what was "wrong" with it from a classical sense, and what was right with it in a "modern/jazz" sense. Then we would have a jazz guy come in and say, "forget that classical crap, this is jazz."

And since there were students from all over the world, these non-Western students would bring to the table their culture's music theory into the mix. For example, there were a lot of really good Japanese be-boppers there. They brought up the "Japanese scale"- there were...I think 5 tones, the first 4 separated by whole tones, the last being a #5 (to the best of my recollection). Our theory instructor couldn't fit it into any type of Western theory that could make sense. I've been trying to post this since 9 a.m. So I keep losing my train of thought....I had a point here...crap, I've forgotten...

I'm going to try to wrap this up- I think what I was trying to say to light was...now I'm really at a loss for words...instead of relying on a home-base, take the particular scale for what it is. Yes, I understand these modal scales are derived from what Westerners are used to based on what we are used to hearing, which is the major scale. Guess what I was driving at, and I'll try to give an example- say you're playing in C major, and you're playing a G mixolydian scale over it; it will "fit" correct? Because G mix has all the scale notes of C major. It's when you play G mix over, say, G major that you hear the mode (the F natural). I guess to sum up, I was suggesting to light that maybe a different take on looking/hearing a scale without depending on the "anchor", just may make things easier overall.

ANYWAY, this is a good discussion for me personally, in that I've forever been trying to grasp theory, and, admittedly I know I'm very weak in this area. Include the influences and teachers I've had in the mix (mostly the Berklee mix that confused, more than clarified things)- and you may see why I may look at things differently- may be a good thing or bad, I dunno, lol.
_______________________
I guess music theory can be so maddeningly frustrating because there are really no absolutes (to some, maybe so), and that's why it's called theory. Oh, i think I remember another point/idea I was trying to make. In Western music theory, the major scale is the foundation where pretty much everything flows from, and the root of the major scale is the tonal center. I think what I was driving at in my original post to light was, I was looking at light's post, and was thinking....hmmmm....I knew there was something wrong with the explanation, then I thought, how about just looking at the root note of every modal scale and make that the tonal center? I dunno, when I'm wrestling with an idea, I just try to step out of the box and try to look at things from different angles- easy, in this case, 'cause I'm not even *in* the box, really.