6ch, invited you, not called you. Don't say - the first thing out of mouth that someone carries too much water - just say "Hi!". Not saying Hi! is, um, carrying too much water...
Gregm says Hi, from where he is sitting, and from where (you think) you are sitting, tell him No! Who is sitting where? Just say Hi!
Pulling you "in", see it? Stop!!! Where are you NOW? What do you say? :0) HI! :0) HI! :0) 123 :0) 456.54 :0) +0 |
Hey, Asa how are you, today! Funny how a good speaker become a great speaker. LOL.
Regards |
Hi, 6ch. Glad you are happy. Now, here's some real a choppin'(!!)...
Detlof, you won't take my bread on the water...Question:
If we move from the noise of the active analytic mind while we listen intially and then move towards the silence of the receptive mind as we sink deeper into the music, and yet, we also follow the same dynamic as we get closer to each other (will towards being-to-being permeability, let's call it, or just empathy), are these silences related? Is the silent space of deep music listening in the mind the same space of silence that we are "in" when we see a sunset, or myriad waves on an ocean, or in finally meeting each other?
And...
I have said earlier that when one sinks deeply into the music, one percieves "information" that may have existed at less deep levels, but had been less noticeable (because of the thinking noise?). Namely, at deep levels we become more concerned with the NATURE of space around players and not just the sound projections themselves. We become more sensitized to existential qualities of space, or rather, their absenses.
So, if this is true - if we more readily experience spatial continuity as a perception of the nature of silent space in deep listening - is there a relation between that fact and the fact that these silent spaces are percieved by the mind that is also silent? What is the relationship between silence inside and silence outside? Is there a convergence of silence between inside and outside as beauty is more and more deeply encountered?
And, finally, the circle: What is the relation, if any, between these silences and our perception of beauty, in the music, in the sunset, in each other?
(Zaikesman?) |
Asa, you should post it in Detlof's music, mind thread. You are the "speaker".:-)
I like Beethoven, today. Not "Chopin". You pick on me again, I will bring out the voodoo mirror. LOL.
Yeah, Z where are you? I've been waiting for your answered! Or look like I don't get one. :-) |
Oh, I just wrote this on another post, has anyone heard of this?
Hello Tubegroover, on a great system, you're not only hear the "image focus of individual instruments as we hear them in the live venue". You hear the un-focus on the ind. instruments, also. For some frequency are directional, and some frequency are not. :-) |
|
Bring on the Voodoo mirror!!
Boo!!
Didn't know detlof posted it. Will look. |
UUUUUmbala, Umbala, umbala...
Where is my M-79? hmmm...LOL |
That was boo like a ghost, like a little boy on Halloween out with his father, not really scary at all, just together, another sound together - not boo like the opposite of hurray. Meant positive. Arm around your shoulder.
What is a M-79? a gun?
You like my hmmmm; want more of (my) hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Nice sound, eh? At end, it makes mind stop, sometimes; yours going? :0)
Does "LOL" mean lots-of-luck? I really don't know. |
"You like my hmmmm; want more of (my) hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Nice sound, eh? At end, it makes mind stop, sometimes; yours going? :0)"
Oh no sir, my mind keep spinning as it's suppose to. If it is stop I'd be dead. What stopped are my ego, attachments, judgments, and hatred, etc...
Like I said, look in front of me, I "see"; outside the world is alive in it own merits. :-) |
Zaikeman, I've just described my mind to you. :-)
Sir, have faith in yourself, and trust yourself...What you "see" "outside" is what you "see" in your "mind".
Regards
Now, Asa who said the language is limited? Hand me the bamboo stick. LOL. |
Oh 6ch, "I" finally pulled you into the world of words, or at least admitting it (although you were there all along).
You know, I've always wondered about this Buddhist bias (lets call it) against thought (the basis of language/talking). If you sit up on a mountain all the time and *think* that going down is "bad" (mountain/no mountain), you also have a marked tendancy to say that silence is only what is and all talk is "bad". This notwithstanding that the guy who originally told you about "it" - Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu et al - used words to tell you. Being against thought per se is Zen sickness, as much as being attached to thoughts and their accordant desires (attachment/recoil); you are then attached to being seen as not attached...
mind,outside,see,inside,no mind,other mind,thought,word,no-word,no word,no thought,bird,call,image,bell,water... |
Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu used words to tell man. Not to use word to tell Buddha. He who know who he is does not need word to prove it (Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu). That is why, in the end, he did not say a word.
Men from the beginning, surround themself of those (ego, attachments, etc... That is why Buddha, Jesus, Lao Tzu tell men to leave them...
No limit, no contradict, no beginning no end, not inside not outside, not left not right, not up not down... the world.
Star bright, star shines...it is not beautiful, it is not not beautiful. Men start to put their own marks (judgment) on it and say it is beautiful, it is romantic, etc...
In order to point it to men so he said...It is beautiful and then said, do not "judge" it, just see them for what they are (your pure mind). They are tools, all tools...
Good day
I usually don't like to write long words, sentence, paragraphs, because I know "words is leading". Ever heard of he story about 5 blinded guys, who describe an elephant by touching different parts of an elephant?. One can describe the world till the end of One's life and still not finished. Men live's is about 100 years, does one have time to describe the world? |
The method is also call:"Use words, leave words". By the way, if you already "know", then I do not speak to you. :-)
Regards
Like I said, it's not for everyone, not for one. :-) |
Yes, I know what you mean.
But, in pointing, you have to be shrewd - like an Iroquois woodsman leaving no trace - which does necessarily make you attached. Words can be leading, but they can also lead (to where?).
The only non-attachment that a Bodhisattva has is one towards saving all beings from suffering, even while not being attached to it ; desire without desire, search without search = non-search/non-desire/non-dual.
Non-search is his/her nature = saving is his/her nature-in-the-world.
It is beautiful and not-beautiful, both at once, not attached to either. To say that it is not, is itself an attachment to emptiness (attachment to absense of form, or absense of word-form).
Emptiness and form; not-Emptiness, not-form. |
No trace is the "Idea", Bodhisattva. :-) |
Non-search is his/her nature = if it is called nature, it always there. No need to search. That why it is called non-search.
saving is his/her nature-in-the-world.= Bodhisattva has Bodhisattva's problem (stuck). And I am not joking!
|
What can I say, 6chac? That was for Asa, and was supposed to be humorous. I don't mean to be unresponsive, but I don't mean to further respond, either. My take on all this sort of stuff was laid out by Asa above, as I unfortunately dared to make clear. Do you really expect any more from me now? Maybe the two of you should start a dedicated thread for this ongoing _-fest, where you can return anytime the mood strikes, and just keep it there. Sorry. I don't believe in (...), and will be quiet. |
Is that why they say you can't kid a kidder? ;^)
Likewise, William |
Anyone for a MIT PC that can be installed on this thread and then be immediately UNPLUGGED. |
Hi Zaikesman! Yes, I know, I'm pestering 6ch, watching him make words while talking against them. He has thick skin, even though says has no skin. Spin, spin :0) (how dare he think he spins "me"!). Be patient with the foolish children...
Zaike, sorry I missed what you posted. I looked too fast through everything and also thought you were someone else (sorry, 6ch, thought his face came from you! So now, do you, do you 6ch, still like my Hmmmmmmmmm....?)
Zaikes. How are you? Funny face, it is. Am I using too many hmmmm's, hmm? Not meant to be patronizing; will have to *think* of something else maybe. Hmmm (at myself)
We are yapping, yapping, yapping. Is that "bad"? I come down the mountain to talk/think; its not "bad".
Here, I'm having fun! clipping off my words to sound like a Zen Master, using lots of / and / and ! and " " and " "!!
Now everyone will know I am a Zen master from my words!
I see a bobber bobbing.... |
I had to return to this thread seeing how it was still going since I left it 160 posts ago. I hate to say this after so much deliberation and consternation but none of this really matters if we just like (or don't) what we hear. It seems that simple to me. However some of the posts made for good reading. Arthur |
Ha! Motdathird, gotcha. I take your MIT and raise you a Transparent.
My God, I can't believe this thing is still going - but I am hearing a slight murmur...
BTW, 6ch, nice answer. No-nature = Nature. I think we've come to the end of words (which is, doggone it! hard to believe! Yap, yap, yap!)
Murmur, murmur, goes the opened heart.
Motda: what do you say? (I know, I'm incessant...). Do you like boxes on wire?
I duck at the thrown tomato. Then bow to my friends goodbye. |
!!!!!!!!Max was right FUR FLEW,fur really did fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
I knew it would! Then I couldn't stay out of the fray. |
I just arrived, and I already miss UncleKrusty. I believe all he was saying is that too often people are disregarding the flaws of their box components, while attempting to sooth the flaws with expensive wires.
That's not to say magic boxes aren't useful. I have no doubt MIT cables can help a system overrun with ear- splitting nasties caused by poor system matching. It has been brought up that MIT got a start in reaction to the terrible solid state amps around then.
Wire unbelievers, through default, are constantly seeking out better electronics. In response, active components are being changed for the better at an accelerating pace. For instance, relatively low cost class D amps are beginning to push older technology class AB amps to the brink of extinction. By the way, class D modules have arrived through the efforts of science minded people. ;)
Like UncleKrusty, I adhere to the component upgrade path. While friends have been busy tweaking their systems with expensive mods and wires, I have merely inserted in line the latest and greatest new electronics to go with my fabulous speakers.
Everyone I know, MIT users included, agree, my system is scintillating. I still have my old Kimbers. |
When it comes to analog interconnects, I'm with Muralman1. I do a bypass test with a couple of IC's under audition placed in the tape loops (signal just goes around through the interconnect and right back into the preamp, nothing else is inserted in the loop), and the one that least changes the sound compared with the straight feed wins. (As of now, and within my budget, that means van den Hul The First Ultimate and The Second carbon conductor models.) Having gotten that out of the way, I can evaluate the sound of my components and recordings more objectively, and don't think of altering the wires to suit. It always amazes me that interconnects routinely get reviewed without this simple and quite objective test being made. On the other hand speaker cables and digital cables are more system-interdependent (compared to short runs of interconnect placed between components having normal range I/O impedances anyway), and some subjective trading-off of virtues and vices based on personal sonic priorities is pretty much inevitable. (None of the preceding is meant to address MIT or other cables with boxes on them one way or the other - or what Uncle Krusty might have been saying...) |
I would have to agree with gregm about the cables with boxes, with the exception of their power cords, VERY NICE.
I used to be a dyed in the wool. Tara Labs fan, but more recently have discovered CARDAS cables, best that I have ever auditioned. cables used in the past, Kimber, Tara Labs, MIT briefly. |
