Re: MD Speaking of musical excellence

From: Steve Peterson (
Date: Tue Feb 24 2004 - 00:53:11 GMT

  • Next message: Charles Vanderford: "MD DQ and Degeneracy - Which is which?"

    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

    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.


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 24 2004 - 00:55:29 GMT