.diminished discords (vi)

a new series of aphorisms and short reflections for twenty twenty six.

.

a consequence of a more individual life on earth is a more individual life after the earth. if your inner life on this earth is unlike anyone else’s, then what comes after will be even more unlike. if there ever was a collective afterlife, it is no longer the case.

you invite people into your inner life and they invite you to theirs. if this is accepted, then it means you can partake of it forever, and grow together. if this is rejected, then similarly, there is an ever growing estrangement.

(the afterlife can be thought of as an external manifestation of what on earth was an inner life, and that includes our motivations, and our committed relations and engagements.)

consequently, if there is little or no inner life, as must be admitted is the case for many, by all external appearance, then there is also no question of heaven or hell for them. there is only the disembodied, collective porridge. this is not tragic, because there is no alternative. what is tragic is that many who do have an inner life have this suicidal desire for spiritual porridge when they have been offered delicious and nourishing bread.

but everything is a choice, and follows from it.

.

because they are abstract, music and metaphysics actually share many aspects and speaking of one can enlighten us about the other.

jazz metaphysics can be opposed to both folk and classical metaphysics (the name classical works for both music and theology slash philosophy; it fits too perfectly to be a mere coincidence).

in folk music, as in folk metaphysics, there is very little room for deviation from the norm handed down over the centuries. thus there can be no progress. ideally, folk music sounds the same now as it sounded a thousand years ago (of course this is impossible, but that’s the ideal). thus individual players have very little will of their own. they must move within an existing framework that accepts no alteration, under the pain of ceasing to be what it is. this is also the case for popular music, though the timelines for its exhaustion of form are much shorter, because they are not tied to a spiritual component, as was folk music.

for pop music to be spiritual, it will break with form, and become something else. that is, it must call the individual nature into play, and do away with following the norm.

in classical music players have no will, but it’s the omnicomposer’s vision and will (rather than tradition) that cannot be deviated from. the larger the ensemble, the less freedom there is for the individual player. by necessity they merely follow the will of the composer and, at best, the conductor, but even he is merely the priest enforcing the orthodoxy of the god composer. while soloists have a little more freedom of expression, it is still very limited, and by design (this was not always the case in the west, contrary to what is thought. until the end of the baroque period, players were expected to improvise between the lines; this aspect, which was very prominent in the renaissance, became less and less so with the baroque period and disappeared completely with the advent of the omnicomposer in the classical period and even more so with the romantic period; it is, if nothing else, very ironic).

in jazz, on the other hand, there is an expectation from every musician to contribute something individual to the piece. and it’s not just in the sense that a musician has an individual take on a piece, or on his parts. but that each rendition is unique. it is most individual precisely because it happens in a specific moment, and will not be repeated. it is the individual as he is in one specific moment. and because music, like everything, happens in a linear fashion, there is no necessary exhaustion of form.

it is ironic, as noted above, that improvisation disappeared from classical music as the west was becoming more individual. and although jazz enjoyed a certain popularity, the improvisatory nature of it was never popular, and the more individual and improvisatory, that is, the more artistic its exposition, the less popular it became. this remains the case, and ever more so, because modern men seek to avoid their individuality despite the claims to the contrary. what most people crave is repetition, predictable patterns, and little deviation from what they know.

few people want to be surprised. and fewer still want to surprise. because this involves taking responsibility, all the time, at every moment.

.

contrary to what might be supposed, and what is often the stated metaphysics of people who love to talk about symbolism, patterns only make sense within a linear conception of the world. within a cyclical view of things, there are no patterns, only actual repetitions. patterns are applied and make sense only because it is not a repetition, but another, unrepeatable instance.

it is the jazz musician and metaphysicians who can master patterns. the classical and folk musicians and metaphysicians know nothing about patterns, only note for note repetitions.

.

it is amusing that the whole tone scale is the only scale that does not sound whole (it cannot resolve, ever). although i love the whole tone scale, it can really only be used properly as seasoning, and when it’s the whole thing (pun), every piece sounds more or less the same. this, i believe, underlines the necessity of contrast and uneveness in all things.

.

because of increasing individuality, our motivations for doing things become more important. failure in action is more or less assured, but there is no need to fail in motivation. but to succeed in this, one must cease making excuses. and that includes shunning any metaphysics that excuses us of moral responsibility.

because it is chosen, there is a moral dimension to metaphysics. first, it has to be conscious. but of course, for most people, it’s unconscious. that’s the first moral failing.

.

any metaphysics that denies freedom and linearity is a moral failing. (freedom and linearity go together, even though they are usually put in opposite categories; but this is just show and wordplay; if there is no linearity there is actually no true freedom, because no action has real, lasting consequences; the image of the resurrected Jesus with wounds has always struck me as implying that there is no complete redemption; there is only progress, and expansion, and overcoming).

metaphysics of anti freedom, which are most of them, are in the end completely self serving, and non committal. all the cyclicality ideas, especially reincarnation, are a way of avoiding responsibility. if everything is repetition and or a consequence of some past life, then there is no moral weight to any behavior whatsoever. and of course, there can be no repentance. because to repent one must be capable of moral choices, and free to make them. therefore, in such popular schemes, there is no spiritual progress possible.

omnigodism might seem like something different, but in practice it is the same. God is responsible for it all, in the end. and we are mere pawns in a fixed game. but the game isn’t fixed, and it is very obviously so despite some people’s desire for stability and predictability. it’s all up in the air, and we are free. we must face reality, with all its uncertainty.

vedism and classical theology, so often thought to be at odds, actually both converge on complete avoidance of responsibility and moral freedom. this may have been ok in the before times, but not anymore. now it’s a moral failing. in fact, vedism is probably a moral cancer at this point of human development. unfortunately, western people seem to be falling more and more into this trap.

it does baffle me that so many people desire meaninglessness.

i suppose it can be comforting, but i never saw it that way. to me it is a nightmare. abhorrent. it’s again this idea of ‘throwness’. the more i think of it, the more disgusted i am by it. but it explains so much about the way people live, or rather fail to live.

.

it is very comical however that so many who subscribe to the nonsense spoken above (under whatever form) spend so much time worrying about political matters, social organization, religious tradition, etc. in such a framework, all of that is absolutely meaningless. not race, not religion, not anything.

i suppose one cannot expect consistency from people who believe everything is utterly transitory and meaningless, or else dictated from above from an imaginary timeless nonplace.

.

today’s musical portion is Mccoy Tyner’s aptly titled Contemplation. he is best known for his work with John Coltrane, and often underplayed, but one can see his contribution to the other’s works in context, and how instrumental his approach was. he is also noteworthy for having rejected the transition to electronic keyboards, while most around him embraced them. i respect this, and can hear his connection to the acoustic piano in his playing and his compositions.