How much money do you want to waste?

Hey Viggen, it looks like you've found a friend! :) On definitions, yes, I know, but the context of where words are placed changes their meaning, ie words are not things separate from their contextual ground...like objects are not separate from space, or sound is not separate from silence, or thoughts are not separate from the causal ground of silence in the mind from which they arise... somthing I think I've been talking about. Hmmm...

For example, if you place the word surreal-ism, indicating a school of thought, and place it in juxtaposition to a claim of dream-like irrationality, then one assumes that you are talking about something different than Kant's terms, which are mentioned, vaguley, obtusely, in the previous paragraph.

I sent you an e-mail if you care to continue. Cheers.

Incidentally, my question still remains outstanding. This is no "philosophy" here but a very simple inquiry that we all can have an opinion on because we all listen to music:

When I listen and begin to seep deeper into the music and my thoughts fade in their influence, and I stop listening with my thinking and instead listen with a mind without thoughts, am I still perceiving? Is the experience of listening that I am having a valid one, or irrational because it doesn't include thinking about music?

Asa, how did the dogs let you back in this post? = D

In regards to language, there has been a great deal of debate about how it is used in the realm of philosophy since the great Buddha (one of the first major philosophies to cross over to cultures of varied language and metaphysical understandings). Even modern philosophers such as Wiggenstein and Lacan have delved into the importance of language being used to describe topics of philosophies such as sansara, wu-wei, unconditional regard, and a few terms that has been adopted by audio manufacturers such as sunyata and satori. To understand each of these terminologies, one must, or at least I have, read hundreds of pages of primary and secondary texts to get a crutons worth of empathy for the "philosopher".

And you want me to qualify the text I used in my previous posts? I once did that for a 3 page essay because my professor, snob from Stanford, disagreed with my arguements, so the paper turned into a 15 page research paper (he still gave me a B for the paper, bastard).

I haven't received your email yet, so I am sticking to the post. First I must qualify that your questions are fascinating and requires some thought before answering, but I am impatient so here goes:

My assumption is that it is possible to temporarily forget your objectivity. However, your mind never stops doing three things unless you achieve satori sainthood: perceiving, interpreting perceptions and reinterpreting perceptions. You only temporarily perceive without using objective-goggle.

This brings up an interesting new/old audio dichotomy: Objectivity vs subjectivity. But I dont want to get into now.

Welcome back, haha.

Yes, Viggen, I agree, until Stage 4 Enlightenment occurs (actually, beyond the initial Satori experience), the force of perception continues (this is beyond this forum, but, basically, thoughts arise and the meditative mind receptively traces this force back to its ground). Yes, any audio "ground of listening" that is attained still contains significant vestiges of this force arising. When you first sit down, it manifests predominantly through thought construction in an objective way, producing an instinct to make sound into objects. This level corresponds to our present stereo language using visually-orientated terms (in us, evolution has produced a predator with visual-orientated physical perception tied to objective cognition, so at the objective cognitive level of listening it is natural that we choose visual terms when decribing that perception, ie transparaency, detail, image, etc.). As you let go of the instinct to objectify perception (closing the eyes sometimes aids listeners because it detaches the visual from our cognitive objectifying tendancy)the "force" of thinking lessens. This lessening of force leads to a state of perception that also has a corresponding language. In this state of lessened force towards objectifying (no longer objectified in structure), emotive imagery becomes more predominant due to the relative absense of constructed thought. This level produces languages that are emotively-based. As one goes deeper, the abilty to capture the experience in language becomes more difficult (language is based on thought and as thought fades, the ability to structure the experience in thought becomes more difficult), but this does not negate the occurrence of the dynamic, nor its importance to understanding how listening occurs. Why is this important? Because until we admit that the experience of listening includes trans-cognitive levels, we will be unable to construct a further language to discuss our experiences. Certainly, as the experience deepens this person-to-person communication becomes more difficult, but that does not mean that we should claim that only objectifying cognition and its corresponding language exist (by categorizing all other voices as irrational).

Presently, this is what science does; attaches to the assumption that there is no reality beyond ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive, formal operational cognition. Although it is irrational to conclude that evolution stops at science's level of apprehension (notwithstanding millions of years of evidence to the contrary showing our cognition evolving, and notwithstanding the reduction of the exclusiveness of such thinking and its accordant method by Popper, Kuhn, Freyerabend, etc.), the scientifically attached continue to adhere to their assumptions - whose only purpose is to perpetuate itself and its attachment to the manipulation of matter.

This is reflected in the stereo microcosm by people claiming that only objectified knowledge of sound exists and is valid. Again, the question: Do you concede that a dynamic of perception exists characterized by a fading of cognitive force towards objectifying? If so, do you concede that these deeper levels are valid towards perception of truth/knowledge?

Simply because deeper levels still retain the "force" towards perception (a force that manifests as it arises in/as all levels of external-orientated perception - as opposed to meditative practice which is interior receptively focused upon the stream of thought-force), does not mean that those levels contain constructed thoughts in objectified form.

Again, Viggen, this is much beyond this here. I have published articles on the mind's perception of music and would be interested in your comments. I e-mailed you asking if you would like to read them and offer any comments. Sincerely, I would be interested. If you still would, send me a FAX or address and I will send them to you. Regards, Mark.

Admittedly, I have little experience comparing different cables but as an electrical engineer, I would have to think that if the cable offers a small enough amount of resistance to provide a good damping factor, capacitance and inductance should be fairly neglegible in a practical system. Unless the cables are hideously poor in design, the differences should be vanishingly subtle. Besides, have you ever looked inside even high quality speakers? There's nothing magic in the way the signal gets transfered from the binding posts to the drivers. Why should external cables provide the missing "magic"?

And so it goes...