[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:03 AM, David Harding <davidjharding at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
>>> David H:
>>> Yes. So taking it back to the rta analogy..
>>>
>>> "The explanation for this contradiction is the belief that you don't
>>> free yourself from static patterns by fighting them with other
>>> contrary static patterns, that is called bad Karma chasing its tail.
>>> You free yourself from static patterns by putting them to sleep. That
>>> is you master them with such proficiency, that they become an
>>> unconscious part of your nature. You get so used to them you
>>> completely forget them and they are gone. There at the center of the
>>> most monotonous boredom of static ritualistic patterns, the dynamic
>>> freedom is found."
>>
>> Dan:
>> I think Phaedrus is discussing Buddhist rituals here in regard to
>> meditation, not artistic endeavors such as music, painting, writing,
>> motorcycle maintenance, etc. Note the next paragraph:
>>
>> "Phaedrus saw nothing wrong with this ritualistic religion as long as
>> the rituals are seen as merely a static portrayal of Dynamic Quality,
>> a sign-post which allows socially pattern-dominated people to see
>> Dynamic Quality. The danger has always been that the rituals, the
>> static patterns, are mistaken for what they merely represent and are
>> allowed to destroy the Dynamic Quality they were originally intended
>> to preserve."
>>
>> Dan comments:
>> Notice he says 'ritualistic religion' here. He seems to be saying that
>> these rituals break down social barriers and allow people to glimpse
>> Dynamic Quality. I don't see this as being the same as using intellect
>> to better develop skill sets and thereby become better artists.
>
>David H:
> I agree with you that Pirsig argues rta is for 'socially patterned-dominated people to see Dynamic Quality'. However, I don't think this ritualistic repetition applies only in a social setting..

Dan:
Of course not. Right practice pertains to all artistic endeavors.
Consider for a moment a baseball player going through a hitting slump.
He has practiced countless hours, played innumerable games, and faced
many and diverse pitching opponents. Now he cannot seem to get a hit
to save his life. So what does he do?

He goes back to basics. He works with coaches examining his swing for
flaws. He spends extra time in the batting cage working out the kinks
that may have crept into his game. The one thing he does not do is
seek to forget those carefully honed skills until they're gone.
Rather, he attempts to rediscover the skill sets that allowed him to
flourish in the first place by putting in the necessary hard work.

Now... if he is into meditation, he may sit quietly at times. And he
may see how the mindfulness of meditation may spill over into greater
attention in his aim to hit a baseball. But those skills are never
gone, and if they are, he may as well retire.

>David H:
> Repetition IMHO is necessary to 'master' anything.  Intellectually, for instance, a Koan or any question you might ask is something which we naturally go over and over again in our heads - thinking about the question trying to find an answer to it which produces the most harmony and peace of mind.  As you probably already know - Lila is one such Koan -   It asks "Does Lila have quality?" over and over again until Pirsig was satisfied he had a solution which answered the question with sufficient clarity.

Dan:
A koan refers to principles of reality that stand apart from our own
private opinions. It might be likened to perennial philosophy in that
regard. In Lila, Phaedrus tells Rigel that Lila has quality and then
spends the rest of the trip trying to figure out why on earth he said
that about her when in fact it seems clear she's pretty far down the
ladder of quality in anyone's estimation. And in the end, he realizes
it's the only moral thing he has done.

>David H:
> While, as Zen Buddhism claims, we don't need to go to school to experience Dynamic Quality, it does take training and sacrifice to get good at something and experience Dynamic Quality on a regular basis...

Dan:
I agree it takes right practice to become skilled at any endeavor.
However, experiencing Dynamic Quality is more about letting go. We
experience Dynamic Quality all the time. We just cover it up in a
shimmering cloak of intellectualism.

>
>>> Dave H:
>>> In other words, he couldn't just start playing other patterns which he
>>> hadn't mastered. He could only play those patterns which he had. So
>>> long as he did that the dynamic freedom was found.
>>
>> Dan:
>>
>> I don't think that's quite what he's saying... otherwise he'd just
>> play the same song. No, the artistic freedom he talks about finds its
>> strength in reference to original form but is something new and
>> unique.
>
> Yeah.  But where does that new form come from?

Dan:
Ah! Now that is an interesting question! I should think anything
completely new and un-looked for arises in response to Dynamic
Quality. In order to uncover it, we steep ourselves in whatever we
happen to be engaged in at the moment and then forget about it. That
isn't to say the original form is gone, however! Without that as a
reference, the new form has no foundation.

Dave H:
> I think it's only from mastering of the old form that the new, better, form can appear. The old forms are still there as Bill Evans claims - they're just made better as a result of mastering the old forms to the point where he 'mastered them with such proficiency, that they become an unconscious part of his nature. He got so used to them that he completely forgot them and they were gone. There in the most monotonous boredom the Dynamic Quality could be found.' And as DQ is the source of all new things, new patterns were created.

Dan:
Again, we may forget about the original form but it is always there,
lurking under the surface, waiting for a moment of clarity when we
suddenly see how we can weave something new into the old. I would say
Dynamic Quality isn't found in boredom so much as in the 'ah-ha!'
moments when everything becomes clear, if only for an instant.


>David H:
> I really like disagreement. It helps to bring out our philosophical distinctions. Kind of the point of this discussion group I suppose...

Dan:
Absolutely... I don't know about you but I never learn much by being
right. And I find much value in our discussions.

Thank you,

Dan


http://www.danglover.com