From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 00:53:11 GMT
Hi Platt,
I said:
>> It is wrong to say that the quality of Bach is universal in the way
>> you
>> suggest. You take such ideas as "Quality is the track that directs the
>> train" to mean that we are all headed to the same place. The is your
>> one-dimensional hierarchy of value that I deny. We are on the same
>> track
>> in the sense that we are driven toward Quality, but Quality is not
>> the same
>> for everyone. It *is* universal in that anyone with the same
>> collection of
>> analogues as you would experience music in the same way as you, but
>> since
>> no one has the exact same collection of prior experiences we will all
>> experience quality differently. See below for support in ZAMM.
You replied:
> Yes, we are on the same track and yes Quality is not the same for
> everyone. But those who know about such things place Shakespeare above
> Sidney Sheldon even though Sheldon wins the popularity game hands
> down. If
> you discount or ignore the opinion of experts, you block potential
> personal discoveries that can open up new heights of delight. It helps
> in
> climbing mountains to have an experienced guide don't you think?
>
>
Let's see what Pirsig has to say about such "experts":
(From Pirsig's intro to LC)
"What we see in the following pages is what I would call “real
philosophy” rather than “philosophology.” This term, philosophology, is
one I find myself using all the time to make a point that most academic
philosophers seem unaware of: that when they speak of the ideas of such
famous philosophers as Plato or Hegel they are giving us a history of
philosophy, an “ology” of philosophy, not philosophy itself. Philosophy
itself is opinions of the speaker himself about the general nature of
the world, not just a classification someone else’s opinions. This may
seem a minor point but I remember hearing many years ago how a
professor of art, Jerry Liebling, was outraged when he heard that an
Art Historian told one of his students that he should give up painting
because it was obvious the student would never equal the great masters.
At the time I didn’t see what Liebling was so upset about but as the
years have gone by I understand it better. Liebling loathed this
attitude of Art Historians because, while they thought they were
preserving the standards of art, they were in fact destroying them. Art
is not just the static achievements of the masters of the past. Art is
the creative Dynamic Quality of the artist of the present. Neither is
philosophy just the static achievements of the masters of the past.
Philosophy is the creative Dynamic Quality of the philosopher of the
present."
I think Pirsig's statement that "Art is the creative Dynamic Quality of
the artist of the present" supports modern music's claim to artistic
status and it even supports experiments with trash cans. I wonder
whether in your defense of musical excellence you like the art
historian run the risk of destroying it.
Thanks,
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 00:55:29 GMT