\chapter[The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness} (1960, 1975)][The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness}]{The Supererogatory, Misleading Notion of \enquote{Newness} (1960, 1975)} \signoff{\uline{From ``Culture'' to Brend}, Addition, Chapter 4.} \vskip 2em Quite apart from Serious Culture, metaphysics[, Serious Cultural Neoism]; in \enquote{culture} a production is sometimes said to ha \enquote{new.} A production is sometimes said to be (positively) valuable because it is \enquote{new.} There are controversies over whether productions are \enquote{new;}. and over what \enquote{real newness} is. There are controversies over whether \enquote{newness} is good or bad. In general, there is the notion of \enquote{newness,} not limited to \enquote{culture}: things are said to be \enquote{new;} things are said to be valuable because \enquote{new} --- here is the vague, general, valuational notion of \enquote{newness.} A few \enquote{culture} producers, taking this existing vague valuational notion of \enquote{newness} for granted, try to produce \enquote{culture} (which is (for the present, to be appreciated now; all right, but) valuable entirely because it is \enquote{new};) which is primarily \enquote{new,} is \enquote{new,} \enquote{different} \uline{as such}; without any thought of other value, irrespective of its other characteristics. In their attempt, one thing they do is the intellectualistic, consciously experimental rearrangement of the elements of productions or an activity just to obtain a \enquote{different} production. One can play this little game indefinitely. Of course, what has enabled artists to believe in rearrangement as much as they have is that the results do have a little curiousness, surprise value. The classic example is the projectors in \uline{Gulliver's Travels} who were trying to develop an ointment which would remove the wool from sheep, and to propagate the breed of naked sheep throughout the kingdom. The music concert without performers, the audience without a concert, painting a brush with a canvas, and so forth to infinity. Note the similarity to the central Dadaist techniques, which are relevant because the Dadaist technique of satire (Dada's principal purpose) is to change a thing so it appears to have its original purpose, but can't possibly fulfill it. Then, thinking about \enquote{newness} without regard for other value has led by several paths (for ex., from taking \enquote{newness} as next in a tradition to identifying anything as such a next thing) to the conclusion that anything is new. Attempts to do \enquote{anything} naturally tend to take the form of doing free-floating, purposeless, trite, simple things. An example was my own rolling a tall across the floor, supposedly in the context of no activity or purpose. Then, they try to think up arbitrary new purposes, new activities. An example was my attempt, when I first concieved it, to develop a percussion-sounds ritual which would magically make a toy car roll across a desk. Finally, those who are a little more sophisticated theorize that the appearance of newness has something to do with complexity and real purposiveness, and, although still merely trying to do something \enquote{new,} try to make their productions \uline{appear} to have these characteristics, giving a quasi-aesthetic experience of surface newness. The notions of principal interest, the most problematic notions, the principal notions to be analyzed are the existing vague valuational notion of \enquote{newness,} and the notion of \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} (irresoective of other characteristics). (Incidentally, such \enquote{newness} cannot be identified with the exciting, the shocking as \enquote{new} sometimes seems to be used to refer to; certainly the most exciting, shocking things are not \enquote{new} in any sense, but are as old as humanity and well-known to it --- religion, obscenity, violence). The key point is that valuational \enquote{newness} is, "newness' \uline{as such} \uline{as a value} must be, valuational notions. In the non-valuational senses, everything can be considered \enquote{new}; but the connotation of the notions of principal interest here is that only selected things \enquote{really} deserve to be said to be \enquote{new} --- one speaks of \enquote{real newness.} The best explication for the term \enquote{(really) new} here is that one applies \enquote{new} approvingly to a thing \uline{one is encountering for the first time}, which one finds \uline{has some major value} quite irrespective of \enquote{newness,} quite irrespective of whether it is \enquote{new.} The \enquote{newness} of interest here is best explicated as not a \enquote{primary} value or characterisic of a thing, but rather an extra, \enquote{accidental,} \enquote{secondary} characteristic a thing, which has some major value quite irrespective of \enquote{newness,} can have; the characteristic of being encountered for the first time. My conclusion readily gives the solutions to all the problems about \enquote{newness.} The notion of a thing having just \enquote{newness,} \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} irrespective of its other characteristics or value) as a characteristic, as its value, is absurd, inconsistent; represents taking a \enquote{secondary} characteristic as a \enquote{primary} value, represents a confusion of the formal and the substantive. The case of \enquote{newness} \uline{as such} is like the case of \enquote{ability} \uline{as such} or \enquote{freedom} \uline{as such} or competition \uline{as such}; it represents taking a formal matter, a matter of context, as a substantive matter. (As usual, the mere formal matter isn't worth making an issue of, thinking about.) In fact, it can be concluded that it is better to omit the issue of \enquote{newness} in determining whether a thing is valuable. The thing is \enquote{new} only if it is independently valuable, can't be known to be \enquote{new} before it is known to be valuable (and anyway, even if it is valuable, its \enquote{newness} is only a matter of when you happen to encounter it). And, thus raising the issue of \enquote{newness} does lead to the notion of \enquote{newness} as an independent, primary value, and to resultant confusion. Further, \enquote{new,} in the neutral uses I listed, can easily be eliminated, by replacing it with the underlined equivalents I gave for it. Thus I see no case where the term is uniquely useful: the notion of \enquote{newness} is supererogatory. As the term \uline{is misleading}, I suggest that it be consigned to oblivion, at least as a term for rigorous discourse. \vskip 1em \signoff{[\enquote{Newness is dropped.}]}