[silence] Positive/Negative

[MITCHELL RENNER]

Please understand, I did not mean positive or negative in the sense of good or bad, but in mathematical sense.  When I studied Cage's life and works, I noticed people emphasizing his ideal of non-purpose.  And then I saw that, on the other hand, Cage said art's purpose was to sober and quiet the mind for divine influence.  So in a way, when you read about Cage, it seems like a contradiction.  On one hand, no purpose, on the other, a purpose.  Negative and positive in that sense.  Yin and yang.  Opposites that exist in synergy.

To me, "divine" isn't about gods or good or evil.  It's about connecting to beauty and wisdom and truth, through mind/spirit, beyond space or time (which could be "God" if that fits).  Truth is power, and power can corrupt, but I would argue that it would be unlikely for higher-developed intelligences to perform great acts of evil, knowing (as they would from their supreme intelligence) the consequences of karma, and that any evil act on their own part would eventually be enacted upon them in return by virtue of karmic law.  The competition of finite resources is what is mostly responsible for our mortal quibbles, if one thinks about it.

> "Divine influences" seem to mean - to most people here - something  
> good. I wonder why that is. Do you automatically presuppose that gods  
> are good? Look into Greek mythology, and you'll find that that isn't  
> always so. Or look into the Bible and find the rivers of blood  
> flowing, for example from the little boys that ridiculed a bald man;  
> even stark for the most hardheaded of today, don't you think? And,  
> hey, look at the world! Left by God, or run by him/her/it? And if God  
> is the same as The Universe, then WE are God, since there is  
> absolutely NO difference, at "core" level, between us and anything  
> else; just energy quanta.
> 
> The other matter, of non-intention, was, of course, a way for Cage to  
> try to get as far away as practically possible from letting his own  
> personality or preferences come in the way of the sounds; of the  
> music. Is that negative??? I think it's both humble and truly  
> positively experimental!
> 
> Loco
> 
> 
> 19 feb 2009 kl. 21.00 skrev MITCHELL RENNER:
> 
> > I couldn't help but laugh at this one, as my memory fails me, and it  
> > seems like gibberish on my part.  Let's see...
> >
> > In the earlier interviews and media references I came across  
> > studying Cage's life several years ago, it seemed that the aspect of  
> > non-intentionality or non-purpose was mentioned more than the aspect  
> > of sobering and quieting the mind for receptiveness to divine  
> > influence.  That was somewhat startling for me, because I didn't  
> > think you could understand Cage's music without realizing both  
> > aspects.  People were clamoring about this music which had no  
> > purpose at all (the negative), but absolutely, it had a purpose, as  
> > did 4'33" and all of Cage's works (to renunciate in order to be  
> > susceptible, to be empty in order to be receptive...).  One can  
> > choose to view only the negative, but there was a positive aspect as  
> > well, and I was always surprised when the one was mentioned and not  
> > the other.  But, isn't that typical of media - to get it all wrong,  
> > and emphasize only a one-sided view of life, which ultimately can  
> > only be viewed subjectively?

_________________________________________________________________
Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Access_022009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.mail.virginia.edu/pipermail/silence/attachments/20090221/a93dff5e/attachment.html