IV
So, how do you know when knowing-what-you-know is actually reliable?
A series of Questions for Robert from a Pesty Questionier IV
PQ: So, how do you know when knowing-what-you-know is actually reliable?
R: I present my work for validation and verification.
PQ: One example, please.
R: I walk onstage and play music. The audience have the responsibility to provide validation – Yes! This works! – and then – Yes. This is true. Validation is external – This works! This is fit for purpose! Verification is internal. We go into ourselves and notice if our resonance is sympathetic with the subject/object of our consideration. If what we know to be real and true inside us, resonates, then we may give our approval. “Yes, this music is true”. That is, to the extent of our competence in knowing the true.
PQ: And if the judge doesn’t know - what is The Truth?
R: Then the adjudicator asks themselves - is this Real?
PQ: And if the adjudicator doesn’t know what is Real?
R: I think it likely that all of us have some experience of what is real for us. This then gives us a taste, or exemplification, or ideal, of reality. A point when, in a flash, everything changes. We can use different words for situations, circumstances, when we slip from the timestream into a timeless moment. For some, a positive moment. For example, recognising the person we love, notes coming to life and becoming Music.
When the validation and verification process is mediated by the forces of commerce, there are problems. Validation and verification are only reliable where the judgement is made by, at least, a peer group of those with sufficient competence to make the judgement. That is, the “judges” have proficiency and experience, at least at the level of the performer. Our peer group.
The question then follows: are the audients qualified to make a judgement? A quick answer: some of them. As there are different qualities of musicianship, so there are varying qualities of audient: the fan, a reasonably-well-informed and mature listener, and the connoisseur. This also implies that the practice of listening is comparable to the practice of musicianship. Within a commercially-mediated audience, there will most likely be disruptive elements who assert their “consumer rights” to recording, viddying and photography. At which point the, potentially, unifying musical event begins to fracture. The coming-together, collected nature of the audience, fragments and disperses. The particular energy which is possible in live performance, doesn’t quite cohere.
This is the history of my professional life. I find it tragic. Subjectively, it has spoilt the satisfaction that anyone may reasonably receive from a piece of good / useful / necessary work. This for audients as well as performers.
PQ: Right. But if there were widespread support for your views on photography, recording and so on, would you feel your opinions are vindicated?
R: Words beginning with V with this time.
Vindication belongs to an entirely different level than validation and verification. For vindication, in the sense of “justification against denial or censure”, we present considered arguments and trust that the applicable “justice system” may confirm our sense of things. Or, and this is already an achievement, accepts that any “judgement” is left open. That is, our experience may not be confirmed but is not denied.
For the process of validation and verification, the primary Rule Of Engagement is that all parties to the engagement accept each other as they arrive. With vindication, in my experience, this has been rare. For example, the continuing argument that “I’m only taking a photo without flash!” and “Filming for only a few seconds changes nothing!”. That is, what I do has no effect on the larger undertaking. What is overlooked is the impact, not so much of the specific act, but the intention behind the act which gives rise to the act. At a certain degree of intensity, when the intentionality of the camera-holding person is strong, this is more like an act of will. At this point, we are not discussing different views towards our functioning in a shared space, but conflicting aims.
When I am in the zone, my feeling-response registers different degrees of intentionality. Sometimes, a flash goes off, or red light goes on, and there is little force behind it. This is careless, witless, automatic behaviour. On occasion, such as at the Greek in LA 2021, I have felt hostility with the flashes – “Take that! You can’t tell me what to do! Take that!”.
https://www.dgmlive.com/diaries/David%20Singleton/the-greek-theatre
PQ: You can’t seriously ask people to believe that.
R: I am presenting a report of my experiencing from within a long professional life.
PQ: Do audients share the same aim as the musicians?
R: You need to ask the audients. I can say that, in a working band, not all the musicians even share the same aim/s. And that is a longer report from the life of this working player.
PQ: OK. Back to words beginning with V this time.
R: As I’ve said before… verification is the validation of a proposition/action / undertaking by a community / council / body of those qualified and experienced in the particular field of endeavour under consideration, and therefore with a sufficient capacity to render a sound judgement.
Those passing assent, affirmation, approval, determination, finding of the proposition will have, themselves, been validated and verified by a body of the {at least) competent, perhaps even expert, judges / adjudicators.
Validation and verification take place among those who are on a mutually supportive trajectory. Essentially they share the same aim and process, and are moving towards completion while at different stages in the process, with varying levels of experience, accomplishment and achievement.
Validation is more on the outside: does this work?
Verification is more on the inside: is this true?
Validation belongs more to professional accomplishment.
Verification belongs more to artistry.
PQ: Assuming we’re validated and verified, what then?
R: We are accredited. For example, after three years of Alexander training, the trainee becomes qualified to work as an Alexander teacher.
I can sense you buzzing. You have more questions. Endless questions. You would have less questions if you feel your questions when asking them. You will sense that your questions are coming from your head-thinkings. Unless you feel your thinking, your questions come with little weight. When you feel your questions, you may become aware of an inner question which you are covering with words.
If you feel your question has little weight, better not to ask it. If you have sufficient distance from your urge to speak, less trapped in it, then you may be able to hold your question. Hold the question. For yourself. Ask it of yourself. You may be surprised to find, at a certain point, that an answer presents itself. Follow this, and see where it leads.
The words you use provide a vocabulary which partially determines the answer. So, how you present your question prevents it being answered. An answer to your inner question, which you have failed to articulate, requires another vocabulary entirely. If you develop a practice of listening to yourself while you speak, and feeling what you’re saying while you’re speaking, you will come to recognise when your questions hold power. These are burning questions. A burning question contains a kind of heat which, perhaps, enables an answer to be given.
Otherwise, it’s more rattling of Monkey Mind.
