From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 25 2005 - 18:45:34 GMT
Platt,
As opposed to your tactic of shifts, I will address your comments:
Since I take it you are pointing these out in rejection, I state the "opposite"
of each as how you feel. Please correct me where this in in err.
> Arloian Assumptions:
>
> . Recognition of good music isn't learned. It just comes naturally.
I agree with Pirsig. "And what is Good, and what is not Good, Phaedrus, need we
ask anyone these things?" Or in the full: "And what is well written, and what
badly -- need we ask Lysias, or ... metre, poet or
prose writer, to teach us this?"
Plattian Assuption: Recognition of good music must be learned. It does not come
naturally.
> . All judgments about what is degenerate are equally valid.
Yes. Are you proposing that "some people" have superior skill in detecting
"degeneracy"? Are you one of them? How lucky for you.
Platterian Assumption: You have superior skill in detecting degeneracy.
> . All judgments about what is sexually provocative are equally valid.
Yes. What turns me on, and what turns you on, are likely different. Why should
what you respond to as "sexually provocative" matter at all to me? Or are you
suggesting, in addition to superior skill in detecting degeneracy, you also
have superior skill in detecting sexual provocativeness?
Platterian Assumption: You have superior skill in detecting sexual
provocativeness.
> . All judgments about what is biological quality are equally valid.
For an individual's life, yes. If you can "prove" intellectually that a certain
"biological" pattern is destructive to social patterns that should
"intellectually" be protected, then I side with the social.
Remember that Pirsig stated that the hippie revolution was a "moral one". It
only broke down when Intellect universally sided with biological. The key is
"universally". Sometimes it should, and sometimes it shouldn't.
But that is what this is all about, isn't it? That you feel the "biological
Quality" of "rock" threatens society's existence? Right? And I am disagreeing.
Platterian Assumption: You have superior skill in determining what biological
Quality is or is not immoral, and it mirrors your preferences.
> .Each person is a musical connoisseur.
Sure. Odd statement, though, from one who normally "rejects" the "academic
pinheads". Are you saying a degree in musicology should make one a respected
"connoisseur", but a degree in politcal science, doesn't afford unquestionable
authority?
Platterian Assumption: You are a musical connoisseur, and I am not.
> .One person's artistic standards are as good as anyone else's.
Sure. I think that one can certainly be exposed and "learn" contexts and
concepts one was unaware of, but I hardly think this predisposes everyone to
think like you and Ham. I enjoyed Bach long before I knew anything about him or
"classical composition".
Platterian Assumption: Your artistic standards are better than anyone else's.
> .No one should judge the free expression of one's biological urges as
> degenerate.
Whether or not you "judge" in your own life is irrelevant to me. But if you
start determining what "free expression of one's biological urges" are moral
and immoral for me, yes, I disagree with that.
Platteral Assumption: Platt should judge the free expression of one's biological
urges as degenerate.
> . If you judge a song is degenerate, then you must be degenerate.
It was Ham who suggested critically dividing the "degeneracy" of reading sex
into music from the music itself. As for "your" obsession with sex, Platt, I
can't say that it makes you a "degenerate", but I can only hope you find
release for it sometime.
Platteral Assumption: Those who obsess about sex aren't degenerate.
> . Art often reflects the ills of society.
Yes. Odd, do you disagree?
Platteral Assumption: Art does not reflect the ills of society.
> . Poverty, homelessness and disenfranchisement are pervasive social ills.
Yes.
Platteral Assumption: Poverty, homelessness and disenfranchisement are not
pervasive social ills.
> .Degenerate songs are evidence of social decay caused by social strife.
> .Punk rock that condemns social ills is good.
> .Art that incites revolution to correct social ills is good.
> .Some (unspecified) status quos need to be overturned.
To all: yes.
I won't even bother reprinting the Platteral Assumptions, they are fairly
self-evident.
> .There is social decay because 1) the idea of a 'commons" has been
> replaced by "everything is private property, 2) the prevailing view that
> we are only responsible for ourselves and everyone else can go to hell, 3)
> there's a lack of concern about labor exploitation and class
> stratification, 4) and lack of concern about racial profiteering, proper
> sex education, and in general, oppression, alienation, and repression.
This was one example, of a multitude, that I pointed out. I'd hardly say it was
the sole cause of social decay.
Platteral Assumption: The disappearing commons, and the prevailing attitude "I
am only responsible for myself, everyone else can go to hell", oppression,
alienation and repression are not responsible for any social decay... only
"rock" is.
> It's abundantly clear that Arlo believes in radical equality (except about his
ideas) and social revolution.
Always back to politics, eh? I believe in the "right" to express social
dissatisfaction, yes through art, and to challenge what Ham has called
"traditional values". If someone wrote a song expression social dissatisfaction
with the treatment of CEO's, I'd say that is their right to do so. There were
songs that came out (mostly country) that bashed war-protesters. I support
their right to voice these feelings.
Platteral Assumption: No one has the right to express social dissatisfaction, or
to challenge traditional values. We must cling to and reify all social patterns
period.
While he thinks I fits Pirsig's
> characterization of Rigel, I think he fits Pirsig's description of a
> Hippie whose "Contempt for rules, for material possessions, for war, for
> police, for science, for technology was standard repertoire." (Lila, 24)
?? Like the hippie movement that Pirsig says started out as a moral revolution,
I side with placing Intellect above society. I have never stated, nor do I
believe, that biological Quality supercedes social patterns. But I do believe
in critically challenging social assumptions, through critical inquiry, as I
have done with yours. As Pirsig also stated, there is nothing wrong with
biolgocial Quality (even if one takes your idiotic assumption that "all rock"
is "biological" and socially destructive and nothing else).
> Oh, I'm sorry. I just committed a sin - a Platteral shift. I'll pray for
> forgiveness from the tolerant, compassionate, concerned, "we're-all-equal"
left.
Platteral Assumption: It's better to be intolerant, incompassionate,
unconcerned, and "some of use are superior" right.
And what is Good, Platt, and what is not Good, thankfully we have you and Ham to
tell us this.
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 19:19:17 GMT