what cart? what horse?

the intro lays out the poles of the study after noting that the inquiry "is governed by an assumption that an emphasis on process is a shared concern of all artists commonly regarded as *experimental*" (p.xvi) Shultis goes on to note that processes can be initiated in two ways

1) by a self controlling the process 2) by a self co-existing with process

next we are given 3 criteria against which to contrast those whose work fits with option 1 and option 2 - these are their attitudes about Nature, Symbolism, and the Unintentional

briefly

the is outside of Nature, separate from it, is IN the environment, seeks to know, use, etc // uses Symbolism in the same way that it uses nature as a means to an end // and is closed to the unintentional

the 'self coexistent with process' is inside Nature, not separate, part OF the environment // uses natural objects as themselves instead of as Symbolic of other things // & is open to the Unintentional

ok

so far this is all intro - where CS lays out the presuppositions of the study to follow - this is all enmeshed with a contrast between Emerson (who will be aligned with Charles Ives, Charles Olson - Projectivists) and Thoreau (Cage, Objectivists) part of what i like in all of this is that CS is very careful to state that the poles of his comparison are in some sense hypothetical - intentionally overdrawn - and that what he's interested in is the gray area between them & how consideration of Cage is useful to charting this space Emerson and the Charles' Olson and Ives - via their 'projectivist' stance (retro application warning) are in CS's view 'dualistic' - Thoreau, the Objectivists and Cage are 'nondualistic'

i changed the heading of this post from "review" to "thoughts" b/c i find that i'm basically in sympathy with the book - and as Shultis has been quite careful in delineating just what he is making claims about and what he is not i find it hard to do much more than agree with the main points of the book within their chosen and carefully staked ground

those who have an investment in Emerson or Thoreau might have differences or wish to debate terms but i have not these investments and so in addition to recommending the book to anyone interested in Cage's poetics as well as to Olsonites and fans of the Objectivists and others i'd like to ask some questions about the 'gray area between the poles' that Shultis' study highlights

if - as Cage said - his purpose was purposelessness or perhaps - that nonintention was his intention then he does partake of both poles he intends not to intend some i'm sure find this contradictory just as Shultis (and maybe Cage fans generally) see it as breaking with the dualistic logic one finds in Emerson but an insistence on nonduality

but i wonder

i think Cage probably wd have said something similar and affirmed in some way what i hear Shultis affirming in his book

but still i wonder whether it might be that Cage's position implies less a 'nondual' situation than a multiple one - i've read statements wherein he speaks against 'unity' in favor of 'multiplicity'

is 'unity' a dualistic notion - maybe so but is non-dualism also built on a notion of unity ? one without any outside ?

so cd it be that Cage's position has less to do with an argument between 1 and 2 but instead poses in some way an argument for a 3rd position ?

in the Peircean triad each element necessarily mediates between the other two Cage's intention to be nonintentional mediates between the poles of Shultis' study

likewise understanding what Cage is Intending in relation to "normal" Intention requires the mediation of some notion of Nonintention

just as understanding in what sense Cage's work is nonintentional must be mediated by the fact that he does it - Intends it

)L