From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Thu Jul 14 2005 - 16:46:57 BST
Hi Platt,
At 08:33 AM 7/12/2005, you wrote:
>Good morning, Arlo,
>
> > Want to make clear that neither myself, nor any inference I've read in
> > Pirsig, supports "censorship". In my criticism of forms of media that seek
> > to preserve old SOM ways of thinking, and reify old SOM materialistic and
> > political patterns (including talk-radio, news media, entertainment and
> > other embedded SOM (I've added that) cultural values, I never once meant to
> > imply they should be "censored". Rather, there needs to be a combative
> > force that confronts, critical examines, makes visible (illuminates) these
> > static patterns and argues aggressively for a paradigm shift based on MOQ
> > type thinking. We'd all certainly agree with that, no?
>
>Agree. But, I blanched at your terms "combative" and "aggressive" in
>describing the technique for opening minds to the MOQ. So I turned to our
>agreed upon (but not exclusive) reliable source Wikipedia and looked up
>"motivation." Low and behold toward the end was a section entitled "Using
>Music as a Source of Primary Motivation." I'm not sure I agree with or
>even understand all the author was claiming, but the overall approach
>appealed highly--lure with honey. If you have a moment sometime, take a
>look. I'd be very interested in your reaction.
Dont blanch, I wasn't talking about "cracking skulls", or as they say
'round here "kicking butt and taking names".
I've read over the music/motivation piece. My personal take is that the
author ascribes too much causality. There must, in my opinion, exist some
internalized pattern recognition on behalf of the listener, to make the
connection to personally meaningful emotive experience. Without this, for
example, it supposes that taking an aboriginal tribesman and playing
Beethoven's 9th will have the same effect as when heard by someone
enculturated in western belief. Music, to me, is dialectical not
unidirectional. And, even within broad cultural descriptors, individuals
have quite different experiential paths, or internalized
cultural-experiential meanings. Johnny Cash can move some people to tears,
while others simply hear boring droning. One of the most common "criticism"
we hear against particular music is "this says nothing to me", meaning "i
have no internalized experiential patterns that make this music meaningful".
This relates directly, in my opinion, to what Pirsig meant when answering
the charge of "why different people can disagree on what Quality is". To
think otherwise is to begin back on the road towards what Ham and yourself
seemed to be arguing months ago in the "punk-nihilism" thread. Namely, that
Quality in Music is absolute and apart from the cultural-experiential lives
of people, who may respond differently to different forms of music based on
how they, as individuals, have internalized their experience, and what
particular forms of music are meaningful in evoking these experiences.
But, short answer, I do agree that music can be a powerful
emotional-evoking force. But what form this music must take for different
people, with differently internalized experience, exists in dialectical
relation to the individual, not as an external absolutist force that
effects (or SHOULD effect) all people equally.
Speaking of Wikipedia, someone should submit a new page for "Quality"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality).
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 : Thu Jul 14 2005 - 17:26:42 BST