Perfection

[berns@lti2.lti (Brian Berns x26)]

IED says:

> IED meant
> to say that there may indeed be "flaws" of a technical or even of
> an expressive kind in some of Kate's work; but he questions not
> only whether their removal or "correction" would "improve" the
> work, but also whether those "flaws" are evidence of _imperfection_
> at all. Perhaps they--like the evil which religious people cannot
> explain, but which through their faith in God's omniscience they
> assume must have a purpose--are aspects of the Perfect Work which
> we mere listeners cannot understand.

I will admit to the attractiveness of this way of thinking.  I have a friend
who cherishes a certain Bryan Adams song (sorry, don't remember which) because
of a clearly accidental double entendre in the lyric, which gives the song a
dark other-meaning.

Personally, I find myself thinking this way when confronted by a piece of work
where the intentional fine-details merge seamlessly with details which simply
must be accidental.  At this level, it becomes impossible to determine the
genesis of any particular connection that appears in the listener's mind.  The
work can then take on the aspect of an immense, inassailable whole, the scope of
which stretches all the way from earth-shattering truths to subtle nuanances
of infinite understanding.  Pink Floyd used to do this to me.  Perhaps it is
this sense of "wholeness" which IED describes as "perfection"?

However, IED must certainly admit that there is no earthly way to know which
songs are deserving of his description above.  Philosophically, the description
is utterly circular, since it provides no way at all to distinguish songs
which are mundanely flawed from those which are supernaturally flawed.  God may
be just as easily speaking to us through Bryan Adams as through Kate.

-- Brian