I'm thinking Bossa Nova; in the Pyrrhonic sense of rejecting acceptance of dogma and substituting an 'assent to the natural order of things', aka 'going with the flow'; and in how it reflects the sounds of birds, cicadas and the playa.
Which demonstrates - some might say - the strength of Pyrrhonic scepticism in being 'flexible'. But others might say it's proof that it is easily bent completely out of shape (as when Rome adopted it as an 'approved philosophy' because it proved that Luther (dogmaticly wrong-headed) was in error, while the Pope was 'just right' (in all senses of the phrase) because being Pope and following God's will was certainly what Scepticism meant when it talked about 'assenting to the natural order and custom of things.' What scepticism actually 'meant' - was easily interpreted to favour any side of any position in consequence. I guess that's the price you pay when you are a philosophy that rejects a dogmatic interpretation of your own position.