Re: Stockhausen, R.I.P.

["Tom Rex" <tomrex1@cox.net>]

...and we need to remind ourselves that the discourse in the Bhagavad Gita 
takes place on a battlefield, something Gandhi apparently struggled with, 
notwithstanding the mystical allusions in the text.

tOM
http://www.myspace.com/yetanotherbeatmaker


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Qua Veda" <qua@oregon.com>
To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 10:17 AM
Subject: RE: Stockhausen, R.I.P.


> Though not talking about art, but rather an atomic bomb tests, J.Robert
> Oppenheimer cited a verse from the Bhagavad Gita, "If the radiance of a
> thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the
> splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of 
> worlds."
> This was slightly misquoted according to Gita experts, and Oppenheimer
> mistakenly attributed it to Vishnu.  I think it may have been Shiva (in 
> the
> Hindu scriptures, Shiva is the destroyer,  Bhrama is the Creator, and 
> Vishu
> the maintainer - if I recall correctly).   In any case, distructive 
>power 
> of
> nature (and man) can inspire awe, and wonder.  These particular qualities
> are not dissimilar to art.   In this mythology, Shiva , unlike Lucifer, 
>is
> not evil, but simply the force of nature that transforms creation.
>
> -Qua
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daryl Shawn [mailto:highhorse@mhorse.com]
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 8:18 AM
> To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com
> Subject: Re: Stockhausen, R.I.P.
>
> Well, no question he didn't endear himself to anyone with his comments.
> However, other than referring to "Lucifer" as the spirit of rebellion
> and anarchy (which is positive in my book :-D ), Stockhausen says he's a
> destructor, who does not know love. To me it doesn't seem as if he's
> praising the act itself, at all. If he'd have simply said "it was a work
> of art by the Devil himself", or "it was the ultimate masterpiece of
> destruction", I think it'd be accepted that the sentiment is that it was
> an evil act.
>
> BTW, my personal definition of art is wide-ranging, and I accept
> anything that involves creation with the intent of generating an
> aesthetic reaction - a terrorist attack doesn't fall under this
> guideline. I just think here that if someone as fearless as Sr.
> Karlheinz actually admired the act, he'd have stood behind the simple
> misquote of his words, or said something like "well, it certainly was a
> brilliant plan" or something similar (and similarly offensive).
>
> Daryl Shawn
> www.swanwelder.com
> www.chinapaintingmusic.com
>
>
>> In general, invoking "Lucifer" in a positive sense does not further
>> endear yourself to the sort of audience that doesn't see terrorist
>> acts as a form of art.
>>
>
>