Date: Thu, 3 Apr 1997 10:36:49 -0500 (EST)
From: malgosia askanas <ma-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: Chance


Colin asked:

> 'm' are you advocating this as a political position? Resignation or what?

>> Here, the purpose is to get the will completely
>> out of the way, to train oneself to let things "be what they are". 

I am not quite sure, as they say in Polish, what to eat this question with,
but I'll just eat it as best I can.

I don't see how the word "resignation" can be applied to Cage.  Does your 
understanding of the word "resignation" make it applicable to the kind 
of active relationship to the will that is characteristic of Cage, with his
project of "demilitarization of language", demilitarization of music-making,
etc.?  If so, please explain.  

The program of "letting things be what they are", although it might be taken
to imply resigning oneself to whatever state the world is in, is very rarely
proposed in that spirit.  I would say that the pivotal words here are "letting"
and "things".  So for Cage, the "letting" is something that we are certainly
not doing right now -- it is something that will require much work.  In music,
for example, instead of letting sounds be what they are, we use them for our
own purposes -- self-expression, for instance. 

Now one might say: But is the use of sounds for self-expression not part of
the way _we_ are?  So that by trying to rid ourselves of this kind of attitude
towards sounds, we are not letting _ourselves_ be what we are?

I don't really know what Cage would answer to this, but the answer probably
would have to invoke some idea of balance and harmony between things in
the universe.  It is clear that the way _we_ are is immensely complex.  The
imposition of our will on things is part of what we are, but so is the desire
to not do violence, to give love and attention to things other than 
ourselves, to live in a world not exlusively populated with imprints of our 
own will.  

In my view, there is in Cage's program of self-curtailment a definite streak 
of asceticism, which is one reason why I find it interesting to compare 
and contrast his relationship to chance with that of Nietzsche and Foucault. 

Would I advocate Cage's political position?  To me, Cage is one of the most
luminous figures in 20th-century art, and what he represents resonates very 
deeply for me.  But this is a very personal relationship, which cannot be
translated in any direct way into an "advocacy".  I have no doubt, given the
depth of the resonance, that much of what I _would_ advocate would in some
way have been touched by my exposure to Cage.  But it would also have been 
touched by many other exposures.  


-m