[MD] Music as Intellectual?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Jorge Goldfarb <jorgeg34 at yahoo.co.uk>:

> Quotes (in "  ")  from SA's Post of Dec. 30:
>    
>   "Therefore in more modern connotation subjective has become the "them" or the
> "enemy", and objective is the "us" or "righteous".  If one can prove ones'
> perspective belongs in the objective category, then ones' agenda proves more right
> and true."
>    
>        I quite agree with you. Moreover, in children education and in many
> academic debates, being objective means to have both feet firmly on the ground and
> being subjective "to ''have one's head in the clouds". 
>    
>          The way we educate our children (which is pretty well the same way we
> were educated) has much to do with what I said earlier about the S/O distinction
> being ingrained in us (us: clients of the Euroamerican culture) and your question:
> 
>   "Ingrained" says who?"
>    
>      I do, for one. As opposed to other cultures we eat with fork and knife, cover
> most of our bodies and think of "the real world" as objective and "the imagined
> world as subjective". Our educational system (which includes us parents) from
> kindergarten onwards is especially designed to repress imagination and foster the
> importance of facts. The result of  such education is that the S/O becomes
> ingrained and with the addition, as you well say, of objectivity being a most
> cherished value. 
>    
>   You ask:  "What does S/O distinction mean to you?  I just see this S and an O
> with a slash them.  It seems you mean something more than this."
>    
>   Yes, I mean far more than a mere two letters separated by a slash. Not easy to
> put what I think in a few sentences; running the risk of being too schematic : The
> S/O distinction is at the root of how we think the world: We live in a "real"
> world that functions according to pre-given natural laws; whatever doesn't conform
> to said laws, belongs to the realm of the subjective. But the S is a temporary
> compartment, once Science advances enough, there would be no S left. ( I hope you
> are keeping in mind  that when I say 'we' I mean the people in the mainstream of
> our culture; I gather you don't place yourself in that mainstream and neither do I
> ) .
>    
>   "  How did this "oddities" come up with "alternative ways to 'thinking the
> world", if S/O is "hammered" and "ingrained" in them?
>    
>     Although not easy, it is possible to rebel against ingrained beliefs. Thus the
> innovators, the really original thinkers that propose radically new ways of 
> 'thinking the world' or, at least part of it. Not an easy feat by all means. It
> requires not only exceptional intelligence but courage to pursue your views
> against the established ones. I've said earlier that I read Zen&AMM as an allegory
> of a person rebelling against established patterns of thought. By reading the book
> you can realize how difficult and anguishing that could be.  Since one is
> rebelling against established patterns of thought (that is, patterns established
> among the society you are inserted-in) one cannot expect but to be perceived by
> the mainstream as an 'oddity'. As W. Kandinsky writes in "Concerning the Spiritual
> in Art", commenting on those that open new frontiers: "Real spiritual gains are at
> best under-valued, at worst entirely ignored". "The solitary visionaries are
> despised or regarded as
>  abnormal or eccentric"

Excellent. You have nailed the problem with Western culture. The immoral S/O
pattern of thinking is sowing the seeds of our own destruction. Thanks for
spelling out the problem so clearly and succinctly.

Platt
 


-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/