Dissidens: Thursday evening I was biking down "the Mall" in Washington, D.C., between the new WW2 Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial, and musicians (vocalists and instrumentlists) from one of the branches of the armed services were rehearsing for a concert to be held the next night. These groups do a wide variety of things--"serious" and light. As I'm going past, they're doing "the Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B". I think it's a WW2-era song, originally sung by a female trio like the Anderson sisters or whoever. This current rendition is faithful to the original, so it's very dated, time-bound mid-20th-century jazz. (Not that I'm a jazz expert, but that's what it sounds like to me.) It's cute and clever.

Should people enjoy this sort of thing from time to time as part of their musical diet? or, because it is not high culture, should it be eschewed?

Web Watch Archives
Ideas Have Consequences Remonstrans "High culture is good because it does what culture is intended to do: to give a trustworthy account of what is good and true and beautiful, and to help orient the human soul in an...

DGus and Capdoc -

(This post doesn't relate necessarily to the topic posted on 9/3 but is more general in nature.)

Kudos to both DGus and Capdoc for your various comments that help (among other things) to bring necessary balance to Dissidens' cryptic posts. I hope each of you will keep on questioning and challenging Dissidens where he is mistaken or overstates his case.

I'd also encourage you both not to "lose heart". I'm sure it's as apparent to others as much as it is to me that Dissidens (apparently) must have too much pride to admit it when he's overstated or misstated a point. Instead of responding to your various legitimate questions, it's crystal clear that he just ignores them. That practice has now occurred so frequently and repeatedly that I believe I am justified in suggesting to other readers that when someone like Dgus or Capdoc asks a question that goes unanswered by Dissidens, the reader is probably safe in presuming that the point implied by the question has merit - otherwise, Dissidens would have no hesitation in responding and defending his original proposition (since he seems to respond to most questions asked by posters other than Dgus and Capdoc - which posters may not have put as much thought into these subjects as Dgus and Capdoc).

Having read almost the entire website over the past few days, my overall conclusions are probably shared by most: Dissidens frequently has perceptive comments, and may be sounding a message that each of us agrees with to a point - but Dissidens periodically so overstates his position that his arguments often lose credibility and force (at least with me). That loss becomes even more acute when, by his dismissive one-liners, he dodges the (usually) legitimate questions, or by his stubborn silence, he refuses to answer them. In the case of Dgus, particularly, it appears that Dissidens' reluctance to engage in meaningful back and forth arises out of a silly misunderstanding that occurred a long time ago (at least in the blogging world) re: a comment Dissidens' father made about soup contents or some such. Talk about holding grudges! Or, is it that Dissidens knows he simply cannot spar with DGus without losing the argument?

Bottom line - Dissidens, you almost had me convinced with respect to some of your theses. But as you continue either to blithely dismiss and/or ignore and refuse to respond to what seem, at least to me, to be legitimate questions, I am becoming less convinced that you know what you are talking about. You are, I assume, familiar with the implied consent DUI laws. Your silence, to me, implies consent with the arguments underlying the questions that you have managed to dodge for so long. If you want to convince me, answer all the legitimate questions you are posed. If you don't have a smooth-talking response, say so. And, in those cases where the questioner has perhaps caught you overstating your case or trying to further it with suspect arguments, be enough of a man to admit it and I won't hold it all that much against you as I weight the overall argument.

To be fair, I should reiterate that I do appreciate Dissidens' observations. They make me think. Most probably have merit. It's mostly just that I'm more than a little amused by his attitude that reminds me of the Wizard of Oz and seems (to me, at least) to be that "I am the great Dissidens and I am never wrong, even in a minor point" and "No one that disagrees with the great and powerful Dissidens in any respect is worthy of any consideration." That's a bit much for someone like me who has no axe to grind (i.e., vis-a-vis Dissidens, DGus and Capdoc) and tries to be a somewhat impartial observer of the exchanges on this blog.

Wow, that's really sad.

Luke 23:9 Then he questioned with him in many words; but he answered him nothing.

Prov. 26:4-5 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

Inkwell: Good verses. (They're pretty much ALL good, eh?) Here's another one I like:

James 3:17: "But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy."

In speaking throughout the last 3 years with certain people I know, I've found that my arguments seem to them "overstated", and I lose my "credibility", and so forth, when I try to get across the highest and deepest reasons for believing certain things. It is lost on them and my heart aches for them. Speaking only in generalities which are easily used for the person's own purpose, never wanting to get to the essence of the thing. This is what seems to happen here.

Christ wasn't always so gentle and merciful (say, when turning over the money-changers' tables in His Father's house). So, certainly, this verse can't simply mean by 'gentle' and 'merciful' what you are wanting it to mean.

Overstated = past what I agree with

Now folks, lets not panic. It is clear that what dissidens is up against is nothing less than a full-blown, big time, no-messing-around Intellectual Coalition. I'm sure he's trembling, I'm sure he's scared, I'm sure he's thinking "what will I do now?" Because he's gone and got the Intellectuals mad at him. What o what will become of this blog now? Dissidens is probably smarting from the pain of the discharged Intellectual pea shooter and wondering how to outgun this one. Why, he's got such a formidable enemy this time around, he might actually have to ask a fundamentalist or two to step in to match the caliber of that last shot.
I don't know dissidens, do you think you'll make it or should we put in a call to the Fundamentalist Big Guns for you? I got connections.

Scared? Scared!

Man, I haven't got time to be scared; I've been busy making out a list of all the preachers I can "channel" for the people here on Remonstrans.

Here is just a partial list:

Apollos
Richard Baxter
James Montgomery Boice
David Brainerd
John Bunyan
Chrysostom
John Knox
Robert G. Lee
George Muller
John Newton
St. Patrick
Polycarp
Girolamo Savonarola
Thomas Todhunter Shields
Gipsy Smith
Charles Spurgeon
A. W. Tozer
Roger Williams
John Wycliffe
Ulrich Zwingli

As you point out, Dissidens, some people understand their culture, most do not. Like frogs in a pot.

Yeah, right--intellectual this-'n'-that, fundamentalist big guns, whatever. This thread was originally about high and low culture, and the pertinent pending question that I was hoping for a response to, which question has little to do with either fundamentalism or intellectualism, is this:

Should people enjoy "the Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy of Company B" from time to time as part of their musical diet? or, because it is not high culture, should it be eschewed?

DGus, I'll try an answer. No. But I will also attempt an explanation. The reason is alluded to in the title of this thread, "Ideas Have Consequences." Everything, which does mean everything, furnishes our moral imagination either constructively or destructively (adverb?). It either helps one view Reality correctly, or it distorts one's view of Reality. Music is one of the strongest forces in shaping the moral imagination.

How does boogy-woogy contribute to your understanding of what is beautiful, good, and true? It teaches you to love that which is ugly, bad, and false by making you think that it is beautiful, good, and true.

For example, while sitting in church Sunday morning, the choir was blessing the audience with a Wild's tune about Christ's death (we were observing communion.). I was offended because the music was evoking from me an emotion I believe is not appropriate for reflexion on Christ's death. The song was teaching me to feel a certain way about it, a way that is not good, nor true.

Now, at least boogy-woogy has no "christian" words to it. So is it good boogy-woogy. You betcha! Is boogy-woogy good? We've returned to your question and dissidens's.

~MR

Dear MR: I appreciate the answer, but I think I still don't understand your position. I do understand how reverence makes you disapprove "light" (or frivolous) music in worship, but my question really addresses other circumstances. Are you saying that there is no place in a well-ordered Christian life for the merely amusing. Maybe "boogie-woogie" has connotations that make it complicated to address, so scrap that. Try another example instead:

Do you know the song, "There was a farmer had a dog / And Bingo was his name-o"? Picture the family driving along in the car singing it. Is that a wholesome picture, or a disordered one? Or pick any other silly song that people like to sing. Should the Christian life exclude this sort of thing?

DGus, ask 'em if Jesus liked hard questions? Me thinks I know the answer:)

Dgus~

Your question is a good question, but the answer is still beyond your grasp. I am afraid your thinking is upside down. By your examples, you are trying to derive principle from particular. It does not work that way. Though you are attempting to climb out, I detect that you are still bound in Pilgrim's cave (Pilgrim's Regress). There are no modernist list of rules or criteria which you can check off to answer yea or nay. There is no objectivity here.

I trust you have read Weaver. If not, begin there. After you begin to understand what he is saying, move on to Barfield's Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry. After that, contact Unk at Unknowing for a bibliography on culture; I believe he is currently writing on the subject.

Giving an answer to a question does not guarantee the question will be answered. Look at SharperIron.org for example. They asked the question "Are we being duped?" and when someone answered them "Yes", they attacked him. When Jesus answered the question, "Are you King of the Jews?" he was crucified.

~MR

My question is this. Why are we in America so consumed with defending our right to have fun? The increasing use of that concept, (i.e. fun) I think, has ruined many men, women and especially teens. there is an underlying assumption that says we have the right to have fun, and we loosely defend it with the "recreation" idea which is backed up with the sabbath principle. Where in the scriptures do we find God, or Jesus or Paul saying that we should seek fun in our free time. I think we are commanded to seek joy . Phil 4 Rejoice in the Lord, Psalm 37 Delight yourself in the Lord, etal. But Boogy Woogy is just plain old fun, and it is trivial and banal. It causes our children to steer away from anything "meaningful" or "significant" or "enriching" or "ennobling" or "worthwhile" or "edifying" or "helpful" or "strengthening" or "encouraging" or "deepening" or "transforming" or "valuable" or "eye-opening" or "God-exalting"?

We need ot live inthe light of eternity. As one writer said,
"When you have come to know your God, and love his Son so much that you can say, "For me, to live is Christ and to die is gain," then living in the light of eternity will replace your "fun" with deeper, higher, wider, longer, more unshakable, more varied, more satisfying, more durable, more solid pleasures than all the fun that entertainment could ever give. "

I am not a curmidgeon who does not believe in enjoying life. I am a serious seeker for the highest joy. I do not think we should be satisfied with "fun" songs, but joy producing music.

Just my opinion. That and $3.50 will get you a cappocino at Starbucks.

Sorry, "curmudgeon", not "curmidgeon."

A curmidgeon is a very short curmudgeon. And I'm tall.

Dear MR: It's indeed possible that you understand things at a level that exceeds my grasp. For example, I may have missed out on many of the the things that you have learned at your church where they sing camp songs during Holy Eucharist.

However, you may have assumed wrongly that I was hoping for some well articulated, principled, coherent explanation of the Theory of Everything. If so, then I can see why you despaired of teaching it to me by answering a question about a children's song. But I want you to rest easy that you are NOT responsible for rescuing me from Pilgrim's cave, and that your tossing me a reading list (by the way, Weaver who?) was a sufficient contribution towards my eventual escape. Truly, my only desire was a simple answer to a simple question; and notwithstanding my limitations as a student and yours as a teacher, I think you're up to it:

If you picture the family singing "Bingo was his name-o" in the car, is that a wholesome picture, or a disordered one?

It is, as I say, a simple question; for most of us, it admits of a simple answer. But if, on the contrary, you find the question nuanced and difficult to answer, or if you find that in order to address Bingo adequately within the framework of your world-view, numerous qualifications must be made, or much additional information is needed, then you could simply say that. In fact that would be a very illuminating and satisfying answer.

I am going to come and laugh at you, Metaphisical R. Very hard.

Dgus said "by the way, Weaver who?"
If you are serious,
Richard Weaver, "Ideas Have Consequences." That is the book this is all about.

Look at SharperIron.org for example. They asked the question "Are we being duped?" and when someone answered them "Yes", they attacked him. When Jesus answered the question, "Are you King of the Jews?" he was crucified.

Wow. It's been a while since I've visited these parts, but clearly the analyses are only getting better.

"If you picture the family singing "Bingo was his name-o" in the car, is that a wholesome picture, or a disordered one?"

Disordered to the extreme, obviously.