Thanks for the reply
Eva Durant wrote:
> Religious people believe in a god, whether
> it is a literal one with beard or an abstract
> one that supposed to be symbolising some
> sort of human feeling/thinking/valuing.
There is nothing abstract about Ultimate Concern withthat which is Ultimate in the
person's life. It could be an
automobile, a book or even another person or pet.
We put it a different way, we said: "When we die, so
do our Gods."
You said:
> Well, I am thankfully free of all this, so I don't know
> what sort of opinions you have alotted as mine.
I say:Put yourself in my place. That is what, as an actor, I do with you.Then I have
a conversation knowing that the dialogue is with
myself on an inadaquate machine. I can only stir the things
you already know within yourself and you within me. Neither
one of us is Mime or Wotan and so we don't have to worry about
only asking that which we already know. That is all there is
anyway. That is also what I was trying to say to you about
translation but you have a different thought attached to me on that
one.
You said:
> Yes, there is an underlying human concern with
> finding our place, finding our role in life,
> but as there is no evidence for anything
> "ultimate".
I say:Glad to know that you don't believe in a hierarchy of needs.
You said:
> I have no reason to think
> any of it has anything to do with
> a fair description of our reality.
I say:See the Gardner article or see the earlier post I wrote on Arts and Crafts.
You said:
> There is enough wonder around
> in the form of all that ended up
> existing temporarily as a result of
> chains of random coincidences to fill
> our lives, especially if we also
> have an ambition to make the best
> of the short period of consciousness
> we have for ourselves therefore for
> everybody else.
I say:1. I'm all for "wonder".2. There is no more proof that it is random than that
it is not. One might compare it to the randomness of the Internet except there are
all of those links. I tend to believe more in the interconnectedness of all
reality and that it is a conscious as I am but different.
3. I to wish to make the best for my short period of life in this place but I have no
idea about
before or after and I must find a balance between enlightened self-interest and the
rest of the world. Are you saying, along with Ayn Rand, that if you are truly selfish
with your brief period that it will be good for everyone else as well?
You say:
>If you think that all of it is here to please
>you or your god, you are wrong,
I say:Actually that is a paper tiger but how do you know that it is wrong. I
thinkthat is as much an area of "belief" as the "faith" of the people you deride.
I'm not speaking of faith as "ultimate concern" but as "belief in that which
cannot be proven."
You say:
> but you should
> let me criticise peacefully yours ...
> it is just an other aspect of life one has
> to puzzle about...
I say;I agree and you can.
You said:
> As for languages and people - they exist to
> pass on meanings. If there is no content,
> there is no point in language or communication.
I said;Every word in every language can contain at least seven
meanings.Meaninglessness is the concept of the Barbarian gibberish that the
Greeks claimed everyone else spoke but them. They meant that
foreign languages were gibberish. I find it quaint that you seem to be
asserting that in the 20th century. But it feels like something else.
It feels like you are using it for a purpose other than the Greeks
ethnocentricity. But I don't know. This is still a one dimensional
machine. But:
It feels like you are using my words to allow you an opportunity to
pass judgment on my being and intent. Is that true? If so, Why?
I have attempted to convey respect about your first language, including
going to the trouble to check my translations and your couplet even
after I said that I didn't speak your language. But I have studied it
enough to make those beautiful songs available to our audiences here.
But next to a native speaker I am no more than a tourist. But that being
said:
I have made my living on the International Arts scene in New York City
for the last thirty years both with myself, my professional students and
my company. During that time we have placed our expertise and
artistry on the line before world critics and in venues including the
Metropolitan Opera, Covent Garden, La Scala and others as well as
on premiere recordings. So I find your judgments interesting in that
no one is perfect or above learning.
At the same time I find that
carefully worded sections and passages rethought to mean exactly
what I am thinking in the moment are just "put down" ignored or skipped.
The key to what a professional singer does is words and words are almost
God in that we are very nearly ultimately concerned with them.
I like a great deal of what you say and I am delighted to read a genuine
Marxist rather than the Capitalist professors and others that have tried
to represent you without listening to you. You pull no punches but
neither do I. I would bet that you have done more to me through your
culture than I to you even though I may seem harsh and blunt. The
harshness and bluntness of the Native Peoples is pretty impotent next
to people who number like the leaves on the trees. And yet the judgment
you have made on what I have said is incorrect.
You said:
> I don't know what sort of person Marx was,
> I am interested in his theories.
I said:As a performing artist I am required to recreate the reality of people inthe
past as completely as possible. Their theories are usually much more
complicated when viewed in terms of their life. That is why one can do math
on the computer but cannot create, with today's technology, a translator for
languages that is anymore sophisticated than a child.
The political and philosophical "language" that you
venerate is much more complicated than simple theory. Making a
society from it is like trying to predict the weather from current chaos theories.
It's still an issue of relative predictability. Marx was tied to the Industrial
era and
its machine models. They were just one period in the history of humanity and will
be consigned to the same honored place of all of the other "great writings."
Venerated and read only by experts and artists.
You said:
> You'll find, that most geniuses, including artists,
> tend to be self-centered and preoccupied with their
> art or science, so they are usually unhappy and
> difficult/antisocial individuals.
I said:That is too complicated to answer in this long post. I think you
shouldrethink that.
You said:
> So what?
> Ask Jay not to make leaders out of them...
I said:I never advocated that. I believe leaders spring from need and talent in
themoment. You can only plan your children's resources you can
never design a leader. It too is like the weather.
You said:
Their biographies are
> fascinating like anybody else's but
> the major thing is what they
> made for us to use and enjoy.
I said:OK
You said:
> Even if we know
> absolutely nothing about Wagner, Mozart and x number
> of scientists and poets, if their work somehow touches
> the human condition (they are lucky
> enough to develop their potential instead
> of dying of malnutrition aged 3 or sitting in prison
> after a deliquent youth), it will be in the public
> domain forever.
I say;How many poems do you know by Nezhualcoytl? Malnutrition is anissue of human
alienation. They are "objectified" and therefore separate
and we can therefore be untouched by it. That is a problem with both
their family and our heart.
There was no malnutrition in the Cherokee
nation until the Europeans began to muck around in it. We had universal
education and health care and no poverty. And we didn't have prisons
until you guys insisted upon it. But they were places very different from
any of the prisons across the Western world. Too big of a story for here.
> You quoted:
>
> "Marx's zest for punctillious intrigue"??
> "Counter warlike postures of the Soviets"??
you said:
> You are what you preach, all words and no meaning.
I say;
Why do you denigrate that which does not make sense to you.
Read Lord Russell, he said the same but it took a book.
"Why I am not a Communist." I think he should have
written another book entitled "Why I am not a Capitalist Either."
REH
