[MD] Creative Freedom in Jazz

[Joseph Maurer]

Hi Dan and All,

IMHO It is not useful to describe Dynamic Quality as the "source of all
things, completely simple and always new."  DQ is a metaphysical term,
described as being indefinable experience.

The experience of emotions seems to be a proper analogy for DQ.  I do not
see emotions as the "source of all things, completely simple and always
new."  Intellectual activity seems to be a higher reality.

Emotions may have been present when the founding fathers created the
constitution, but intellectual activity describes the results.  DQ emotions
are subject to intellectual activity as a lower level to a higher level as
the delegates are to the constitution.  DQ emotions as perceptions evolve
into DQ/SQ intellectual conceptions.  Evolution is alive and well.

Joe 


On 7/22/12 1:58 PM, "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:

> "Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality, the
> source of all things, completely simple and always new. It was the
> moral force that had motivated the brujo in Zuni. It contains no
> pattern of fixed rewards and punishments. Its only perceived good is
> freedom and its only perceived evil is static quality itself-any
> pattern of one-sided fixed values that tries to contain and kill the
> ongoing free force of life."
> 
> "Static quality patterns are dead when they are exclusive, when they
> demand blind obedience and suppress Dynamic change. But static
> patterns, nevertheless, provide a necessary stabilizing force to
> protect Dynamic progress from degeneration. Although Dynamic Quality,
> the Quality of freedom, creates this world in which we live, these
> patterns of static quality, the quality of order, preserve our world.
> Neither static nor Dynamic Quality can survive without the other."
> 
> Dan comments:
> Here it is clear that Dynamic Quality is to be seen as the Quality of
> freedom while static quality is the quality of order. Since neither
> can survive without the other we cannot negate the one without also
> negating the other.
> 
> It seems to me that by mastering static patterns and putting them to
> sleep they are being negated. Wouldn't you agree?