From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Thu Feb 12 2004 - 20:01:12 GMT
Hi
Yeah good essay, but who is this Wilber though says man from UK
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Peterson" <peterson.steve@verizon.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: MD Speaking of musical excellence
> Hi Platt, Poot, all,
>
> You might find the following essay on art and criticism by Ken Wilber
> interesting:
>
> http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/tosewo.cfm/
>
> > If Mozart were alive today, what kind of music do you think he'd be
> > making? I doubt he'd be composing in the classical style.
> >
> > -Platt: Disagree. Great art transcends societies.
> >
> > -=*POOT*=- Your answer seems muddled Platt. You seem to be saying
> > that if Mozart were alive today, he would be composing his musics, in
> > the manner in which he composed them hundreds of years in the past.
> > If he lived today, how could he possibly write in that style? This is
> > why no one writes like mozart today. Todays world is not the same as
> > his, and thus his music, which is a reflection upon his world, would
> > not be the same. He would not be trying to express the same emotions
> > that were dominant in his life then, because his life would be totally
> > different now(and this is all assuming he would even choose to write
> > music!).
>
> Steve:
> Thanks, Poot. This is the point I was trying to make.
>
> Steve said:
> >>I agree with you that there is something to the idea of artist as
> >> mystic and "Does it reflect Spirit?" is a good question.
> >>
> >> Yet, in a way, it makes no sense to ask that question since I am sure
> >> we
> >> agree that "The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in
> >> the
> >> circuits of a digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission
> >> as he
> >> does at the top of a mountain or in the petals of a flower. To think
> >> otherwise is to demean the Buddha -which is to demean oneself." In
> >> other
> >> words, how can anything not reflect Spirit? So it is also a bad
> >> question.
> >> Does this art reflect Spirit? "Does a dog have Buddha nature?"
> >>
> >> Perhaps there is some important distinction to be made. Pirsig felt
> >> no need
> >> to make one, calling motorcycle maintenance art and when he was
> >> pressed on
> >> the subject he still found no need to add anything to the definition
> >> of art
> >> as a high quality endeavor.
>
> Platt said:
> > The distinction to be made, like in most things, is a matter of degree.
> > Some cycle transmission gears are better than others.
>
> Steve:
> But can gears really be compared to music based on degree of reflecting
> Spirit? Can the Mona Lisa be compared with Beethoven's Moonlight
> Sonata, or The Grapes of Wrath, or fine crystal stemware, or Einstein's
> Theory of Relativity? I don't think so. (On the other hand within the
> narrowly defined context implied by Relativity we can say that it is
> better than Newtonian physics since it concerns the same context but it
> includes and expands it.)
>
>
> >>>> The importance of an understanding of context in modern music is a
> >>>> part
> >>>> of the postmodern movement which is a logical progression if you
> >>>> can see
> >>>> how static quality goes stale. I think you may be selling short the
> >>>> dynamism of modern music. Despite the beauty of the mathematical
> >>>> sophistication of Bach, that mode ran its course. It lost its
> >>>> dynamism.
> >>>
> >>> To you, perhaps. To others Bach remains forever dynamic in revealing
> >>> ever
> >>> deeper subtleties with each performance.
> >>
> >> I think there is something important about this idea of great art
> >> being
> >> rich enough that it seems to never be exhausted. It can be returned to
> >> again and again and you always seem to find something new. But
> >> suppose you
> >> listened to the same piece of music every single day over several
> >> years--maybe even several times per day. Do you still contend that it
> >> would
> >> never go stale for you? The MOQ suggests that eventually you would
> >> stop
> >> finding something new. It would lose it's dynamic quality.
> >
> > Under the circumstances you proscribe, anything would lose its DQ,
> > including the MOQ. :-)
>
> Steve:
> Sure. Pirsig even says as much. I can't find the quote but remember
> him saying that the MOQ will be replaced by something better.
>
> >
> > There isn't much reason to create "new art." Novelty for novelty's
> > sake is
> > anti-art, like dung pasted to a canvas or a urinal framed. Show me
> > anything being created today that is better than great art created in
> > the
> > past which would indicate "progress."
> >
> >>> Finally, to suggest that Radiohead or any other rock band is
> >>> creatively on
> >>> a par with Beethoven or Mozart is to me ludicrous, like comparing
> >>> jelly
> >>> glasses to fine crystal stemware. Even a child can see the
> >>> difference.
> >>
> >> I can tell the difference but I don't see why the godhead can't
> >> reside as
> >> comfortably in a rock song as it does in a classical song.
> >
> > Again I would appeal to the matter of degree. The godhead is
> > everywhere,
> > in jelly glasses and in fine crystal stemware. The question I would ask
> > is, "Which would you rather drink your champagne from?
> >
>
> You might also ask, "which would you rather store jelly in?" Some
> things are better than others within a specific context. Such
> comparisons can be made, but the postmodern claim that truth is context
> dependent is important.
>
> > In addition to emblazoning "Truth is a species of good" on every page
> > of
> > the MOQ syllabus I'd add "Some things are better than others." In other
> > words, great art is drenched in Spirit while lesser art (like most art
> > being created today) is as Spiritually dry as dust. What's more, I
> > claim
> > all of us can tell the difference! (Recall Pirsig's experiment with his
> > students regarding their ability to discern quality writing.)
> >
>
> What Pirsig concludes in ZAMM in his discussion of building up
> analogues is that if we have similar experiences we will make similar
> judgments. I don't think that Pirsig would agree with you that all will
> experience the same thing when they hear a song or make the same
> comparison when they hear two songs. A child who has never before
> heard music for example is likely to be turned on by sing-songy
> melodies that have long ago gone stale for us and also likely to hear
> more sophisticated music as noise. With enough experience of
> sing-songy melodies a song with a simple harmony may make the hair on
> the back of their neck stand up and cause a shiver down the spine.
> Later, hearing simple harmonies will not be such a dynamic experience.
> It will be a while before the child will have the prior experience that
> would be needed to appreciate one of Bach's fugues.
>
> Regards,
> Steve
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Feb 12 2004 - 20:15:25 GMT