Colin wrote:
> Why eat the question as opposed to attempting to answer it?
You're being too literal. The Polish "I don't know what to eat this with"
just means "I don't know how to approach it".
> But i am being unkind, because of
> course, you do answer it in your creative redescription of "letting" to now
> mean "doing". [...]
> Equally, in Cage's specific area the letting can only proceed after the
> doing.
I think these are both inaccurate. Rather, I would say that for Cage,
the doing has to be such that it is, at every juncture, a form of letting.
In other words, "letting" is a micropolitical concept which has to infuse
doing at its most molecular levels. Hence, for example, the infusion of
chance operations into every step of the compositional process.
> In fact, what Cage is referring to is something akin to Hendrix's
> notion of not ironing out to many mistakes from the process. In this sense,
> perfection may not be the goal when placed in the context of soul. Still,
> what Cage is involved in is a much less structured free form sort of
> composition, and it is in this sense more akin to a Californian notion of
> "letting it all hang out".
I don't know what I think about the kinship with Hendrix; let me ponder
this some more. But I don't think that it is in any way accurate
to say that Cage is involved in a "less structured free form of
composition" -- and the connection with "letting it all hang out" is,
I believe, spurious. A typical Cage composition is, for example, the one
(I forget the title) where he derived the placements of the notes from
the knots and imperfections of the paper he was writing on. Now, this is
hardly a "free form of composition" in the sense in which you are implying.
To the contrary, it is immensely disciplined, and it precisely precludes
letting anything "hang out" as far as the personality of the composer
is concerned.
> [...] Also, i wasn't asking whether or not you
> subscribed to Cage's politics but the extent _you_ were advocating "letting
> things be what they are" as a form of politics.
I think that the element of actively "letting things be what they are"
is inherent, in some way, in most forms of anti-oppression,
anti-authoritarian politics -- in the sense that what motivates these
politics is a striving to allow people and things to flourish according
to their desire, or their true nature, etc. It is not really a _form_
of politics; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is an
attitude, an impulse, an I-dont-know-what. It is a starting place for
many very diverse forms of politics and political thinking. To say that
I am in favor of letting things be what they are, which in some sense
I surely am, is to say absolutely nothing.
-m
> Why eat the question as opposed to attempting to answer it?
You're being too literal. The Polish "I don't know what to eat this with"
just means "I don't know how to approach it".
> But i am being unkind, because of
> course, you do answer it in your creative redescription of "letting" to now
> mean "doing". [...]
> Equally, in Cage's specific area the letting can only proceed after the
> doing.
I think these are both inaccurate. Rather, I would say that for Cage,
the doing has to be such that it is, at every juncture, a form of letting.
In other words, "letting" is a micropolitical concept which has to infuse
doing at its most molecular levels. Hence, for example, the infusion of
chance operations into every step of the compositional process.
> In fact, what Cage is referring to is something akin to Hendrix's
> notion of not ironing out to many mistakes from the process. In this sense,
> perfection may not be the goal when placed in the context of soul. Still,
> what Cage is involved in is a much less structured free form sort of
> composition, and it is in this sense more akin to a Californian notion of
> "letting it all hang out".
I don't know what I think about the kinship with Hendrix; let me ponder
this some more. But I don't think that it is in any way accurate
to say that Cage is involved in a "less structured free form of
composition" -- and the connection with "letting it all hang out" is,
I believe, spurious. A typical Cage composition is, for example, the one
(I forget the title) where he derived the placements of the notes from
the knots and imperfections of the paper he was writing on. Now, this is
hardly a "free form of composition" in the sense in which you are implying.
To the contrary, it is immensely disciplined, and it precisely precludes
letting anything "hang out" as far as the personality of the composer
is concerned.
> [...] Also, i wasn't asking whether or not you
> subscribed to Cage's politics but the extent _you_ were advocating "letting
> things be what they are" as a form of politics.
I think that the element of actively "letting things be what they are"
is inherent, in some way, in most forms of anti-oppression,
anti-authoritarian politics -- in the sense that what motivates these
politics is a striving to allow people and things to flourish according
to their desire, or their true nature, etc. It is not really a _form_
of politics; perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is an
attitude, an impulse, an I-dont-know-what. It is a starting place for
many very diverse forms of politics and political thinking. To say that
I am in favor of letting things be what they are, which in some sense
I surely am, is to say absolutely nothing.
-m