some ramblings on creation and gods and Frank Zappa

i consider that the realities of this world have meaning, and tell us something of what came before and what will come after, and of what is above and also below it. plus, i regard creativity as a primary value, and thus am doubly interested in how the creation we inhabit came about, and how it works.

because of this i think often of what would be the best analogy or allegory for the work of creation. is it a potter molding shapes out of clay, or a father begetting children, or a farmer sowing seeds, or an architect designing a building, or a writer trying to tell a story, and so on. it’s hard to reject the idea that all of these are applicable in some way, or to some aspect of creation at large. and this somewhat implies that creation involved all kinds of intuition and art, and not only one artist, but many, with many different functions.

it’s likely, too, that there were activities and intuitions involved in the creation of this world for which we have no analogue, or at least that we do not consider to be such. as an example let us say that in some aspects the creator might not be like a farmer sowing seeds or pulling weeds, tilling the ground or preparing compost, but more like the soil itself, perpetually being renewed and meant as support, or maybe the plant itself, growing and giving seed, or it may be the wind, or the bird who eats the fruit, sowing it elsewhere. what i mean is that there is creativity and purpose in all these beings and actions. everyone can think of examples that they are familiar with, and realize that there is intelligence involved even in the simplest functions of creation.

this diversity below at least points to a diversity above, that is, not just in the creation but also the creator, which must now be plural. thus a very powerful and purposive god, why not call him what most peoples have called him, Sky Father, is thus the producer and steward of creation, but he worked with others, specialists, to realize his vision. the work of creation is extremely complex, and that it makes sense that other beings were involved in bringing the Father’s vision into completion. for christians this is easy to imagine since Jesus presupposes at least a second god, and no different from the Father. jews and muslims have, at least in theory, no problem with this either, for they all recognize there were other spiritual beings involved in creation. the question of course, for all three, is the nature of the contributors, not so much of the contribution. they are monotheists, which for me means nothing else than considering that not only is there a higher god, but its nature is radically different from every other god, entirely separate and self sufficient and the ultimate origin of any and everything. christians sidestepped the whole discussion by the clever wordplay of trinitarianism and spent centuries rationally discussing a logical absurdity. for the folk, however, it was some kind of polytheism.

but there are as many polytheisms as the gods themselves. this alone means that polytheism is by nature more scattered, and tends to fail to see coherence in the cosmos. i find myself in the middle. i don’t believe in the wholly other type of god, and i think there is a head to creation, a larger vision, a broader plan. to me it seems very clear that there is an individual imprint both to the creation as a whole, and to each part of it, no matter how small. maybe Richard Dawkins was a little bit right when he noted that atheism is believing in one less god than monotheism. although i suppose that should make him more amenable to it. i don’t think he was the first to note it, but i’m not well read enough to know which greek neoplatonic writer did it.

for me, i prefer variety and plurality. i do not believe in this radically different one origin of everything, and yet i believe there is a single vision from the start and above it all.

i have wrestled with what analogy serves my perspective best, and i was thinking in abstractions as before, potter, farmer, and so on, and then it hit me that maybe if i thought of a specific person it would make more sense. for one reason or another my mind fell on Frank Zappa, a favorite of mine.

for years i listened to his music, and studied his work, and for those who are not familiar with either, i will try to give a summary. the man was entirely self taught, bypassing all credentials and officialdom, always and until the end, was uncompromisingly honest and straight, and unsurprisingly met with significant opposition. he wrote and produced literal years’ worth of music, spanning many different genres and moods and formats, from rock songs to symphonies, from jazz to operas, and musicals and films and on and on. Yet in all of it, there is an undeniable imprint of individuality and uniqueness, perfectly distinguishable from anything else. it was his music, and no one else’s. this is not an exaggeration in any sense.

the man oversaw every aspect of bringing his vision to life, from the composition and arrangements to the recording and production and mastery, both the subtle and the practical aspects of all of these, dealing with the instruments and the machinery required, and keeping every musician on a tight leash of rehearsals, and touring and recording schedules, plus many other peripheral aspects, like artwork and video, and even the running of the business, having his own company controlling his product from conception and execution to publishing and promotion. Zappa oversaw all of it, and again in all of it, even in something as practical as business, there is an individual imprint, a single vision.

before i forget, because it’s important for the picture of the man and for the analogy of creation, Zappa was also a very unique and competent soloist. he was not himself a virtuoso, capable of playing anything. no, he handled the guitar with the same individuality as he handled the larger picture, a signature style, and in many cases the guitar solos were at the forefront, and many that were originally improvised were transcribed, and then repurposed, rearranged, orchestrated, and so on. to me this speaks of using spontaneous inspiration and then rational development of it, and again i believe this is true for the highest god too.

also very important to mention, and central to my cosmology, is that Zappa was only able to achieve this level of control over his vision due to the presence of a counterpart, his wife. no matter her personal flaws, she was fundamental, not only in providing stability to an overactive mind, but also by being involved in many practical aspects of the whole endeavor. this too, and again, i believe to apply to our Sky Father, he too must have a wife to ground him and help him.

for all of this it could be said that he was the supreme creator of his life’s work. and it would no doubt be true, but it would forget other aspects. other people contributed of course, and without them it would not have been possible. let’s say these are the angels in monotheist lore. one can be very broad and talk of the people involved in creating and maintaining the framework on which the artist’s work is done, like say the people who made the instruments, though here too Zappa was involved at times, helping to develop new sound possibilities.

but if we zoom in we start to get a more interesting perspective. if we look at closer collaborators and contributors, and their contributions, we see that each of Zappa’s bands was different, and thus albums from certain eras sound very different, and not only because of natural development and evolution, because it happened in albums from the same era, but with a different band or in another project. for someone who listened closely and attentively and repeatedly, as i did many years ago, it was clear sometimes that even the single substitution of a player changed the ensemble. and it’s difficult to say why it made such a difference when, at the same time, it is still, and so clearly, Frank Zappa’s music. of course what this means is perhaps trivial, that each musician brought his own talent and uniqueness to the project. it’s even trivial when we apply it to the highest god, and the other gods, involved in creation.

what is less trivial, and more interesting to me, is the other side. what the creators gained from creation. what the highest god gained, of course, was having his vision realized. what about the others. there’s a Zappa anecdote for this too, and i think it illustrates well how i see things regarding gods and the work of creation.

after a decade or so, there started to be a joke about Zappa, that he was running a school. because the compositions were so complex, requiring not only talent but very hard work to master, and Zappa demanded nothing less, only the very best were hired. not only that but Zappa took control over certain aspects of their lives. there was to be no fooling around while on the job. for example, and remember this was the sixties and seventies and eighties, no drugs or partying or anything that could endanger the production of the work, whatever it might be. Zappa himself never took drugs, and always spoke against them. many were fired for these offenses. others for being consistently late, or for not practicing enough. many called Zappa a dictator for this, but his vision had to be realized, and secondarily he many times said that he was providing a service to people, that people paid for it, and that to deliver anything but was cheating them. both of these include a certain moral aspect, and a natural law aspect.

after a certain level of success, with the help of his wife, he finally was able to have musicians on retainer, ready to go at a moments notice. this made sense because of his many different projects within the larger project. the rehearsals were always intense and long, and regular, as were the recording sessions, and the tours.

all this meant that after a couple of years attending the Zappa school, the musicians were among the elite of musicianship, perhaps even in a league of their own. they had learned not only new techniques and new possibilities for their instruments and for making music in general, but also had endured levels of professionalism well above anything required in any genre of music, whether rock or jazz or classical. thus many graduated into well established bands, some were even poached directly, while others became themselves composers and artists under their own name. the most radical transformation has to be George Duke, which started as a talented but mostly boring classic jazz pianist, and when he left Zappa had become a much larger musician in technique and texture and intuition, and also, because of Zappa’s insistence, started to sing and compose.

in my mind, or i should say given the above, to my ears, one takes nothing of the highest god by considering the uniqueness of the others involved in the work of creation. that both him and the others gained something in the process, and that the difference between them is rather one of function and stage, and that it’s possible to graduate into higher or more advanced stages. the composer above, the musicians below, and then the audience, which ourselves on earth start as.

it seems reasonable to suppose that the audience should in some way participate. Zappa encouraged this very actively, he loved to conduct the audience as if it was an orchestra, creating different sections and activating them to make interesting sequences of sounds. there are videos of this and it’s very amusing. thus for us here on earth, there is at least the goal of active listening, which is the first form of audience participation. and for some the musical event that is incarnate life on earth might even inspire them to pursue their own, and there are so many possibilities. the song of creation has many parts, one can dance, and sing, even add some words of his own.

this is, at least, what i believe.