I am no longer prepared to absorb the desires of others, particularly where this undermines my integrity and compromises my aim.
Responses to the DGM Guestbook:
1. The Award for Dopiest Post of Recent Weeks goes to Joe Anstett.
In reference to the illicit taper at a ProjeKct Four performance in Boulder, Joe moves to defend the right of bootleggers to spittle-free footwear when challenged in the midst of their illicit acts, and indicates the Venal Leader's clear hypocrisy when he involves himself in the editing and duplication of Mr. Bennett's recorded talks. What a creep, that Fripp!
However, Joe's argument is somewhat undermined when we consider the differing conditions of recording.
i) The recording of Mr. Bennett was with his explicit permission (if not at his initiative). Some of these recordings were sold publicly before Mr. Bennett's death. All the recordings of Mr. Bennett to which I have access were / are legitimate, and with his approval.
ii) The recording of P4 in Boulder was in flagrant violation of a clear injunction and request to refrain. The posters on display to that effect did not appear in the theatre by accident: they were prominently and deliberately posted, at my direct instruction, so that no-one would be able to spuriously claim in public argument or discussion that they were unaware of the non-consensual nature of their act.
As a non-consensual act, the recording was illegitimate and a violation of the performers, the performance, and (I suggest) the audience.
This is a debate / discussion in which I have been publicly engaging in print since (at least) 1980. No bootlegger, or bootlegger's apologist, has yet presented a convincing argument as to why and how any non-consensual act might be considered legitimate. As an illegitimate act, it is indefensible.
The taper's acknowledgement is surely: I wanted to do this, so I did it without regard for the feelings and concerns of those I am violating; and I don't care.
iii) A further argument, for advocates of spittle-free footwear, might be: "But DGM releases bootleg recordings of King Crimson!". My responses to this possible (and feeble) argument:
a) DGM honours the injunction: turn a seeming disadvantage to your advantage.
b) An action, any action, bears the intent of its agent. "Bootlegging" in 1969 was an act of relative innocence. There was (in my view), no intention to steal from the air; although inevitably the performance would have been affected in the subtler dimensions, where performances reflect / mirror the "real" world.
c) Contemporary recording is accepted by some performers, rejected by others. In performances of which I am a part, if anyone feels they have "the right" to record, you don't. If you feel "the need" to record a performance which you attend, please go to someone else's performance.
d) I am no longer prepared to absorb the desires of others, particularly where this undermines my integrity and compromises my aim.
2. Problems for the Lacanian friend of the poster:
What is "real"? and "There is / are no absolute/s".
My sympathy is with anyone who has difficulties in discussing / debating what might be "real" or "objective". How to define "reality" in sufficiently satisfactory terms to undertake a dialogue (a debate is inevitably adversarial) with anyone who rejects concepts / notions / ideas of the "real world"? What are the possibilities of empirically verifying the "real"? Surely the "real" smacks too much of a vagueness and "mysticism" which isn't / aren't open to clear discussion between thoughtful people? Comments:
i) My personal approach is to begin with the experiential. Like, childbirth and dying. Both are universal and, to me, utterly mysterious while practically verifiable. Each birth and death is unique, and universal. Both processes, once accepted and underway, are inevitable. This leads to questions regarding the quality with which we live and die. Whatever opinions we hold while living, eventually, necessarily, we experience dying.
So, my own simple answer to the question "what is real?" begins with this: "Anything to do with the necessities of living and dying". This addresses degrees of necessity or, alternatively expressed, the quality and intensity with which we embrace our living and dying. Practically, this moves the focus of our enquiry to the more and less necessary.
ii) "Mystical" experiences (alternatively, perceptions of more and less subtlety) ARE open to reasoned debate - but only between those who are practised to a sufficient degree of proficiency / competence in the particular area of endeavour being discussed.
Religions present "truths" to their congregations / communities: the "what-to-do" of living. Living traditions present to the seeker / enquiring sceptic / student what needs to be done to test these "truths"; that is, the "how-to-do" the "what-to-do". Why bother to "debate" meditation with someone who hasn't sat on the mat for at least ten years? Otherwise, they have an insufficient experiential background. Even after ten years, the penny will only be about-to-be-beginning to drop. After 21 years, then a dialogue may have value.
If I were a research scientist, I would undertake a sufficient period of training in that particular discipline, fulfilling the instructions and injunctions to meet the consensus view as to what constitutes competence in that field. Then, I would present the results of my research to a community of peers and elders for their adjudication and consideration. Otherwise, my opinions are only degrees of tosh, and a relativity of dribble. (Cf. Ken Wilber, particularly "The Eye of Spirit").
We may go to concerts but we don't assume to be sufficiently qualified to authoritatively engage with a concert soloist on the "realities" of what they do, how they do it, why they do it, and (more particularly in this context) their experiencing of what they do. Although a "connoisseur" would be able to engage in dialogue up to a point.
iii) One of the characteristics of sound is that it carries / bears the intent (non-intent, and degrees of intent) which inform / direct / initiate that sound. Non-intentional sound is best described as noise. One form of intentional sounding is music.
On occasions, I know the music being presented to me is real. If you were to ask me -"How can you know this is real?" - I would answer: "I have been in this place; it is where music arises; I know this perfume". Then, you would gauge the merit of my judgement/opinion by examining/assessing my life and living of it, my work, and my way of working. The listening community would then form a consensus as to the authority of (in this example) Fripp, or whichever person is presenting a judgement. The judgement may be accepted as authoritative, rejected as speculative/unformed, immature/plain wrong, and/or somewhere on the continuum between the two.
The aim which directs the striking/sounding of a note is born on/carried within the note; the note also bears the impress of the personal state and condition of the player sending that note out into the world (their physical health, intensity of presence, capacity for feeling, quality of knowing and understanding). That is, the action of sending the note outwards into the world is directed by the player's intent, and qualified by their being.
You won't find this referred to in textbooks on music, but it is "real" nevertheless. If the enquiring sceptic, engaging in a spirit of critical goodwill, were to ask me to substantiate this claim, they would ask me to present a repeatable "scientific" experiment to "objectively" verify the truth of the proposition.
One of the "repeatable experiments" in Guitar Craft which demonstrates the proposition above is known as "circulations". The full form of this particular "experiment" is called "The Exercise of the Transmission of Qualities". Each "circulation" is different, yet all are the same. The exercise is very practical, exceptionally subtle, and open to all levels of playing experience and qualities of perception.
iv) The intellect is a poor key to open a door to the "real world". Doors closed to the mind sometimes swing open in front of a hungry heart, and sometimes even to those who follow their feet while walking.
v) The statement "there are no absolutes" is itself an absolute statement. If I accept this statement as true, then:
a) There are no absolutes, because this statement is true.
b) There is an (at least one) absolute, because this statement is absolute.
So, if both these statements are true, may there be a continuum between the two extremes, of degrees of absoluteness and degrees of relativity (non-absoluteness?). This would give relativity as a bottom line, the absolute as a top line, with the absolutely relative and the relatively absolute in between:
the absolute
the absolutely relative
the relatively absolute
the relative
Experientially, I would ask myself: what do I know of the "the" absolute? the relative? In a post-modern world, we may be prepared to accept that contradictory impulses might be equally true, as the original statement rather implies. If statements are true, both relatively and absolutely, we may be prepared to accept shades of grey - like, the truly relative and the relatively true.
Is the "true" capable of bearing differing degrees of quality, quantity and intensity? May I experience contradictory impulses simultaneously, like weeping with remorse while laughing with joy?
The twentieth century has been a century (at least partly) governed by the notion of relativity. In my own life and living, points along the continuum tend to be at the forefront of my experience. So, approaching the absolute statement that there are no absolutes, I note that notions of relativity are easily applied to questions of quantity, but more difficult when we consider questions of quality.
For example, the fragrance of a rose. Is this absolutely the scent of a rose, or relatively the scent of a rose? If the fragrance is weak, is this no longer the scent of a rose? I accept that the fragrance may be more or less intense, more or less blended with adjoining fragrances, but incline to the view that, if a rose is a rose is a rose, then a fragrance is a fragrance is a fragrance, regardless of how much of it there is available to my nose.
23.05 On the way home I popped in to visit Pierre and Vivien Elliot, off to London tomorrow, to bid them the best of the season. Reports of Mr. Gurdjieff, first hand from people who were with him, arrive with directness and power. Tonight, I was happy to view Pierre's orchid, which he proudly led me to inspect in the kitchen, and visit with two post-mature friends.
