Re: question re: The automatic minimum (see above) is two.

Hello Hans,


An interesting question, and I won't pretend to have an authoritative answer. What comes to mind about "two", though, is that the possibility of relationship arises when there are two. Relationship and then movement. Two eventually give rise to three, and then there's your new universe. So it may not indicate dualism as much as the minimum possibility for making a world.


But is that what Cage had in mind? Others may confirm or deny :-).


Warm regards,


David M.

________________________________
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of hans w. koch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 3:42 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [silence] question re: The automatic minimum (see above) is two.

dear all,

i might overlook something glaringly obvious, but anyway, i have a question:

in hs text “experimental music: doctrine”, cage writes:
Relevant action is theatrical (music [imaginary separation of hearing from the other senses] does not exist), inclusive and intentionally purposeless. Theatre is continually becoming that it is becoming; each human being is at the best point for reception. Relevant response (getting up in the morning and discovering oneself musician) (action, art) can be made with any number (including none (none and number, like silence and music, are unreal]) of sounds. The automatic minimum (see above) is two.

now: what does that "The automatic minimum (see above) is two.” refer to?
in the paragraphs above the one quoted, cages seems to dismiss all dichotomies, notably the one between sound and silence.
and yet here he seems getting back to that?
or does “automatic” here reference a kind of reflex?

thanks for your help and insights

hans


"Now I a fourfold vision see And a fourfold vision is given to me Tis fourfold in my supreme delight And three fold in soft Beulahs night And twofold Always. May God us keep From Single vision & Newtons sleep."

— Blake, Letter to Thomas Butt, 22 November 1802. Quoted in Geoffrey Keynes (ed.), The Letters of William Blake(1956)