One note, struck truly, contains a symphony.
12.19 What is research?
10 june 2007
I have a question about the proposed GCIR&P that I hope is not out of line for me to ask… what is the research you wish to undertake? From the stated name (GC Institute of Research and Practice), it is not obvious (to me) the nature and focus of the research. I ask this question as a professional researcher and scientist, where the meaning of the word "research" is very clear, and this meaning is widely misunderstood by the layperson; it is also widely misused by many people (well-intentioned and otherwise). Practice, in terms of a craft tradition, is quite clear. Research, in terms of the GC tradition, is less obvious.
RF>Crafty e-enquirer 6/11/07
Well, what do you understand by research?
11 june 2007
According to my closest dictionary, research is, "a systematic search for facts" or "scientific investigation". These don’t give you much flavor of what science is, though, and they are somewhat contradictory.
As a practicing scientist, I tend to shy away from the use of the word "fact" because science is always deepening and growing. We can’t ever really know the "absolute truth", and any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you that science is the collected body of objective human knowledge as we presently understand it. We shy away from words like "fact" for this reason. For example, Newton’s laws of motion and gravity are no less true today than they were more than 300 years ago; Einstein deepened our understanding of gravity through Relativity.
So, I would agree with definition 2, but would change definition 1 to "a systematic search for objective knowledge". A cornerstone of the scientific method is that results must be objective and repeatable, otherwise it’s not a scientific investigation. True research demands that subjective experience is irrelevant to the ultimate body of scientific knowledge; E.G., the laws of gravity work the same for you in the UK as they do for me on the other side of the pond.
But...much of my experience of GC is that it contains much that is objective (mechanics, scales, music theory, exercises, tools for survival as a professional musician, and the elements of craft tradition), but it also contains much that is highly subjective (the quality with which we live, play, hold a pick, sit, or simply, the quality of our being). To me, this begs an important question as to what will be researched, and what you wish to convey by "research" in GCIRP.
If the aim is to bring about a deeper understanding of the objective elements of GC, then "research" is the word for you. But if you are working to deepen and broaden the understanding of the subjective and the elusively qualitative aspects of GC, I would suggest something that appropriately describes this (such as "qualitative studies"). Are both words appropriate or neither? This is all based on my point of view of GC, so take this for what it is worth from a level two-point-fiver.
This had me twitching: E.G., the laws of gravity. I would far prefer e.g the laws of gravity; and the quality of our being I consider objective.
30 june 2007
First, thank you for your (indirect) answer as to the nature of the research (R) in GCIRP. I was able to divine an answer from your later diary posted diary entries… If I had held in my question a little longer, the answer may have come on it’s own…
Holding the question is a valuable research technique. So, thoughts…
Two approaches to research: one, of the professional; the other, of the artist.
One, is a research of measurement; the other, a research of perception: noticing, seeing & creative insight.
One, an extrapolation from experience, the other an immersion in experiencing.
One, a distancing from what is researched; the other, distinction without disconnection.
One, a research of fact; the other, recognising value.
One, builds a whole by adding together parts; the other, sees the whole within the part.
One, examines an object; the other, the quality which gives rise to the object & which is exemplified within/by/through it.
When we touch that quality, there is no subject / object. The “touching” is made by a creative leap. There are no guarantees that, when we leap, we fly away. But, we can train ourselves to grow wings, we can practise taking the leap, we may learn to recognise quality.
This is what I have in mind for the GCIRP.
Artistry is “repeatable” (but not without training) yet individual; verification is only available to the community of the (at least) competent.
Thank you for your interest & good wishes, and you may find Henri Bortoft’s work of value.
14.38 Drilling-sounds in the cellar as electrians are replacing all the brass boxes with white plastic. We are seeking to isolate a circuit that keeps tripping the breakers. There is more than one circuit doing this, so we are eliminating possible causes one at a time.
Astonishing skies I…
17.40 E-flurrying, mainly GC arisings.
20.45 A walk around the town & now to gentle with the Minx.
Search Robert Fripp's diary archive.