Remembering Marc Bolan who died on this day not far from where I used to live in SW London. I think that though Bolan was highly respected by other major artists of the day (Bowie for one) Bolan never was able to escape the teen idol yoke.
Here is a recent news item: Mystery of Marc Bolan’s death solved
Here is the power pop of Bolan at his peak:
and a late characteristically quirky flourish from his very short career:
Here is a rather obscure and confused invocation of stigmergy.
Our habits, the way we present ourselves to others and the persona we have created, our social context – all these things constrain us, limit our capacity for change, and drag the “old” us into any attempt to start afresh. Kol Nidre annuls those vows and breaks the chains that hold us back from reassessing our goals and practices as the year begins.
This is vulgarly rationalistic and at odds with custom and tradition which is by it’s very nature is stigmergic.
To human beings, “essence” and “self” depend on ideals and values, on will and commitment, and on actions and practice. The moment we truly change course on those levels, we are different – and we will begin to build other stigmergy structures that are better suited for the new place that we want to be.
There is a tension here. Mereological theorizing from a stigmergic perspective does not preclude personal identity issues: “actions and practice” are part and parcel of stigmergy.
Jazz As A Liberal Arts Education
Liebman more directly argues that a jazz education, though unlikely to result in a full-time performance career, provides exposure to a lot more than technical knowledge. “Playing jazz combines several qualities: instinct, honesty, confidence, experience, trust, imagination and a positive attitude . . .
From Why Jazz Education?
Having trailed the chapters comprising section II of the Companion I now present my co-editor’s piece.
Michael Oakeshott’s writings on education form one of the most attractive aspects of his philosophy and have duly garnered considerable attention. They evoke an ideal of liberal learning for its own sake, freed from the narrowing necessities of practical life and social purpose. This ideal is summed up in Oakeshott’s famous image of the university as a “conversation” between the various modes of understanding that make up our civilization, a conversation that has no predetermined course or destination, an “unrehearsed intellectual adventure” (VLL 39). Of this ideal, Noel Annan wrote: “It was the finest evocation of “the idea of the university’ since Newman; and more subtle and persuasive.” As I hope to show, however, Oakeshott’s philosophy of education is not without its difficulties, and these difficulties largely mirror the ones that run through his philosophy as a whole. In its formalism, conceptual compartmentalization, and rigid separation of theory and practice, Oakeshott’s philosophy of education does not adequately address the problems of specialization, intellectual fragmentation, and cultural isolation that currently afflict education, especially higher education, today.
Coming soon – a must have for any “Pops” fan. This release has been co-produced and with liner notes by none other than the author of the terrific biography What a Wonderful World: The Magic of Louis Armstrong’s Later Years. Bravo Ricky!
We are indebted to Sandra and Allan Jaffe and Larry Borenstein.
Martyn Thompson’s contribution to the Companion:
My concern is twofold. First, I shall outline what I take Oakeshott to have meant by the phrase “the history of political thought” and then I shall consider some criticisms from Oakeshott’s perspective of the theory and practice of Quentin Skinner, the leading figure in the so-called Cambridge School of historians of political thought. Oakeshott was impressed by his work. But there are significant points of disagreement. I shall focus on two: first, Oakeshott’s disagreement with Skinner about the historical interpretation of Hobbes’s Leviathan; and second, more generally, Oakeshott’s objections to Skinner’s reduction of the history of political thought to “the history of ideologies.” The two points are closely connected.
Now why didn’t I think of this as the premise to a documentary? So, I’ll do it without the cameras around. Up to 722 stops already and as the Rev. Ray Cannata says in the video “Life flows from the table. NOLA is both heaven and hell – the former something to enjoy, the latter something to fix.”
This from The Economist and again here:
In the past year, the spirits of Keynes and Hayek have done battle for the minds of China’s policymakers. This month Andrew Batson of GK Dragonomics, a research consultancy in Beijing, argued that Hayek seems to be winning.
The new companion has landed in my mailbox. A fine production and my congrat to you and Paul for your efforts in bringing it to press. In an earlier message, you said there would be some surprises here, or words to that effect. Wow! What a stunner from Robert Grant! I think most of us knew that Oakeshott got around a bit, but not in quite such sustained Casanovian fashion! Those who think the output of creative people is based on the sublimation of sexual activity have just taken a bit of a shot in the nose! One does wonder, however, how MO had time for all this given the discipline needed for his reading and writing! I was reminded of Rilke in many ways, on reading Grant’s account, for there was so much going on in Rilke’s mind, that he, too, found it difficult to maintain any close domestic relationship, for he could not separate himself properly from the other. He too, was in love with love. Oakeshott studies will never be quite the same again. Shall read the rest of the papers with interest.
Best wishes
Graham MacDonald
Parksville, BC.
manwithoutqualities 