Continued Studies - 06/16/2006 (MOZART example - "perfection")

CONTINUED STUDIES

Of

David A. Archer

02/15/1968

Observations

And

General Philosophy

(r.f.p.p.s.h.)

02/16/2006 ~ 07/19/2006

06/16/2006

I find myself in thought again pertaining to the question as to why it is that the direction of modern "technology" seems bent on the "blanketing" of pre-existing "reality" with the emulation which technology is? As if the idea were to somehow overcome it (existing reality).

It seems that within such a radical development as was electricity alone, that the opportunity is there to truly "branch out" as it were. Perhaps within our larger perspective, such isn't considered as a possibility - to actually utilize the potentials in "developing realities" as well as technological "advance."

I must say that I do not mean this ("utilize - developing realities") in the "brain wash" way - more to the point of capitalizing on the extreme level of advance which such was and has the potential to be - to in fact "create" more "area" within that perceived "finite" reality.

It strikes me as odd that within the normal human tendency to meddle and control, that such would not be considered beyond the attempts at "reforming history" for example - I believe it is referred to as "history revisionists" - in the topical propaganda manner.

That seems a waste itself. Simply amplifying the volume of propaganda is still only propaganda. Especially since it is done so within that "blanketing" aspect I have referenced.

Again in the larger sense, I suppose such efforts (being of a confined ideology) are evidence and proofs of the less than acceptable result of human arrogance in comparison with the more natural progress of "developments" a person can see through out history. It definitely exemplifies the lack of efficiency and even the sadly humorous elements of such attempts and posturing - much less the draw and focus on such areas in the place of the other possibilities.

Such in my opinion, is a loss of skill in the art of living and of society.

That aspect, I believe is of that hyper-linear result in the proposed amplification effect I have touched on earlier.

It amounts to parroting essentially and does nowhere near begin to address the actual "stuff of life." but maybe in the larger picture, such is a deliberate and desired result? this being as result of a place where those inclined to such "spasms (as it were)" of ego and control among other things (as well as that amplified tendency), can play them out to their satisfaction while producing very little real effect (comparably) on the larger process itself - this as result of that confinement and hyper-focus as well?

Such seems based on a game of "what you don't know, I can change" which I see as directly related to the resulting dynamic I have cited in regard to the "speedier ascension" and subsequently the "rules au minute."

In many ways I feel such efforts could be described metaphorically, within their tendency to haste, as akin to removing a can from the middle of a stack of them - It also is evident of the topical nature of an overall perspective permeating society (again, becoming more and more narrowed within that amplification) - that is of course, if you ask me.

It seems as though such efforts could be a great source of "energies" in the "social movement (movement OF society)" aspect at least.

Real "development" and social changes usually happen over some considerable amount of time ,historically that is, in my humble opinion.

this gives me a humorous insight though, as I consider it - again, there is a huge contradiction within such efforts. firstly I see the problematic area of insisting that there are absolute truths (in the fervent literal sense that much seems to be interpreted as within the "virtual" realm - unless of course it needs to be different in the given moment) - then secondly is the task of contradicting those established points in order to introduce the "hasty" changes desired.

What this suggests to me is that truly there are no "absolutes" in that sense, only the greater "opinion" - which as most all know, isn't the case for various reasons.

Only in regard to that which is of and from "human" could such justifications hold true.

this then extends as well, to the idea of "perfection," meaning that even established "perfection" is really nothing more than flimsy opinion - changeable at any given time.

topically, that understanding makes sense - that is, if a person approaches the idea of "perfection" from the direction that humans created it ( a product of "ego" in the classic sense) and can only compare that which is said to be "perfect" in that interpretation - in comparison with and in the light of other things of human origin.

From my personal opinion, the concept of "perfection" was derived in a human effort to embody and convey one of those "things" we can hardly conceive of - and, as I have addressed elsewhere - cannot attain beyond the "opinion," topical interpretation of it through purposeful effort to do so.

This common "topical" understanding of such a concept - again illustrates that direction of confinement in a "conceptualization" sense - which I have described earlier here-in as well as in different pieces. In fact - within my own opinion - if it is that humanity is ever to actually "progress" - that "chain" of perception which continues to confine itself with each revolution, must be rectified - at least augmented in some way. this of course could be in relation within that larger motion and meaning, to those "extraordinary occurrences" many great minds have referenced and noticed coinciding with every great "advance" of the human species.

For instance, the ever shrinking area of perceived "perfection" resulting perhaps from the topical mis-understanding of the concept itself, then coupled with the effects I have described - then within the area of "one thing of human origin being compared to another" and thus being "perfect" - needs to be addressed in a way (within my opinion) that is not of the same haste such form of "understanding" is within our modern atmosphere.

11/21/2006 As a note here, this is very much related to that which I have addressed concerning a given "cusp" of perception within our capacity that I see as potential (and even direction) within humanity - where we now still reside within the need for imposed limitations in the effort of "understanding" - i.e. the use of a "tree" for instance to represent the idea of "all" within existence. Metaphorically it is admitted no less than a poetic ideology - but in regard to this current subject matter (and especially the modern tendencies toward confinement as per) it represents an imposed limitation - the likes of which we continue to cling to so to speak and further have amplified within said dynamics.

As further example; if a "given" is then perceived as "perfect" in that more common interpretation, then it is that such "given" is all that perfection can be.

If the example "item" is the limit of perfection, what then could possibly be beyond it?

In that topical confined and linear understanding of such a concept - "perfection" then negates itself. In fact it could be argued that such stands even as evidence of and within itself, that such does not even exist. This result being reached through the actual application of the idea in that sense and context.

But again, such is only in considering such a concept in relation to that which is of "human origin," and further in regard to that aspect of imposed limitation - and NOT in relation or regard to the concept itself.

11/21/2006 As another supplemental note here - taken from my personal journal in regard to this line of thought while musing one evening, I began to consider another aspect of "perfection" and the modern application of our "advance." I did so while listening to Mozart in a digital format, which then lead me to consider a chain connection of sorts.

It is very much touted that Mozart had achieved the respect of "perfection" within his compositions.

This I do not argue, and such is in no way the point here.

What is the point here, is in considering such from and WITHIN a human understanding - being that perfection is of humanity. Then it is that a person must consider what was once the expected progression of and within such an example of achievements.

It was very much taken into account as he was producing it, that there would be human interaction in the line of progress his work would take into the "future." In considering that, then a person must also accommodate the idea that such human interaction was very much a consideration for, of and within those works.

This is to say, that within the idea of "perfection" before the advent of modern technology, there was an element of human tendencies taken into account within such regard. Meaning that from his perspective, after his demise, the only way to preserve that level of achievement was through the human interaction which entailed rehearsal and having taught by a master - FROM THAT MASTER - who had probably studied from yet another master.

Regardless of their respective "mastery," it is only human tendency that some influence would seep into such works from generation to generation. Within that then, the example of change (however slight) in that progression.

This again, I believe was to be considered very much a part of that "perfect accomplishment."

Then along comes modern technology and promises to preserve things of the sort in a level of perfection which had never happened before.

Immediately this seems to be the truth... until you consider that the version which was first "preserved" in such a state (being recorded), was not MOZART'S version, but that of several generations in progression of MOZART (as intended to that point).

There then it stayed. With that advent, it actually lost an element of the intended (and presumably conceived) perfection - being that progression from Master to student throughout the existence of humanity.

Most assuredly there is still a level of that element within the world of Mozart, but the point here, is that it now is not of that progression which was preserving the intended effect of the work in total. It is very much of and from that area of solidification where it first began to be represented in said "preserved" form. The references of it in reproduction, are now as much or more influenced from the impending "mimicry" which such forms as "records" inadvertently imposed - as they are of that initial intended progression.

In so many words; The "perfection" of Mozart was suspended - and solidified. Yes, preserved - but no longer "Mozart" in that initial sense. Only now progressively "better (presumably)" mimicry's of the previous "recording" as it were.

How then is a person to "argue" perfection?

In my own opinion, regarding the "concept" and perspective I am trying to convey - it isn't something to be "argued." It simply is or it isn't. It is a concept which is understood or it isn't understood - regardless of where misunderstanding may lead.

It would be my understanding then that "perfection" only finds human limitations within that topical perception of it. Within the human effort (as established through imposed limitations example) to understand - if not purposefully "establish."