>On Jul 6, 10:22 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> For example, I don't understand the game cricket. And I will
>> say "I don't understand cricket" if forced to comment on it. And
>> that is as far as it goes. If you'd said "I don't get it", I'd a'
>> chuckled - been there, done that. That's a perfectly reasonable
>> response.
>
>Oh? If I asked you to come play cricket with me this sunday, I take it
>you would likely decline. When pressed, I don't think the reason would
>be that you didn't want to play because you didn't understand it. Why
>aren't you on a cricket team? Why does your lifestyle not revolve
>around cricket? The truth is not because you've never tried it or you
>don't understand it. You don't play cricket regularly because you are
>not attracted to it. You simply don't like it.
>
>Let's use RichL's post as an example:
>
>On Jul 6, 10:21 am, "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > So how does he know? Well, because it's easy to tell what kind of
>> > person "likes" frank zappa, thats why. If you can see it. It's
>> > difficult to see such a thing from the "inside", if you catch my
>> > drift. But it's obvious to "outsiders".
>>
>> Right. Because you have the truth and the rest of us are too blind to
>> see it.
>
>It's ironic because the sarcasm is true.
>
>See? look at what you said in response, you picked up on something
>totally different:
>
>> > So how does he know? Well, because it's easy to tell what kind of
>> > person "likes" frank zappa, thats why. If you can see it. It's
>> > difficult to see such a thing from the "inside", if you catch my
>> > drift. But it's obvious to "outsiders".
>>
>> That's actually a valid criticism.
>
>It's unfortunate RichL didn't see it that way, but that's what I'm
>talking about. RichL's response, designed to hurt, is representative
>of the sort of person who claims to like and/or understand frank
>zappa's music. They are much more likely to ridicule me, and treat me
>as an outsider, to label me ignorant because I hold a different
>opinion - while at the same time telling me that holding a different
>opinion is what makes the world go round.
>
>In short, there is something deeply not right with these people
>cognitively - they aren't really thinking things through - they're
>making connections but the link is tenuous.. there's no confirmation.
>So to them, the argument is very subjective, and they use this as a
>line of defense. "It's subjective." But really, it isn't.
>
>The funny thing is, they don't want to admit that what I say is based
>on a very deep understanding of Frank Zappa's music, as I've said I've
>listened to a lot of his stuff repetitively, listened to a lot of his
>interviews, etc - and they seem not to really understand that a lot of
>what I say was first said by Zappa himself. For example in the
>crossfire interview (ex. http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc)
>
>Now, what's frank saying in this interview? It's exactly what I said,
>that the words of the music aren't subjective, they are absolute. And
>absolutely, there isn't anything wrong with the words themselves -
>only subjectively. So applied to this discussion, in an absolute
>sense, when I say zappa's music is designed to suck, or to annoy
>people, it is very true.. and that if someone subjectively likes his
>music, well that says a lot about that person. Not about me, who sees
>the music in an absolute sense.
>
>> But it's inherent to the structure
>> of Zappa's work - which consists of a system of interlocking inside
>> jokes. It's just part of the deal. It makes the work less
>> accessible, but that wasn't a real high priority.
>
>As zappa said you're free to not buy the records.
>
>> >> What I find interesting is that somehow the quality of art is being found to
>> >> be nothing more than opinion. It's a view very reflective of modern times,
>> >> but IMO it's just another part of the dumbing down of society.
>>
>> > Thats a very dangerous and subjective conclusion you've reached.
>>
>> It's also probably true. What it refers to is dangerous; stating it
>> isn't.
>
>It's dangerous because it's reflective of modern times - but we didn't
>discuss if it was an improvement over the previous view. I don't think
>it is. Listen to that crossfire intervew then answer one.. simple..
>question...
>
>Do we need people like RichL or whomever telling me I suck, or am
>ignorant, because I don't like the same music they do?
>
>I mean Wow. It's just so.. ironic....
>
>-
