Nietzsche and Runaway Audio Consumption

The gear cannot disapear, the room cannot disapear but they could be used optimally, anyway the gear and room disapear completely only with very few high audio grade recording and with the right gear in the right room, otherwise we create simply an habit to live with we have already...

The best system cannot make most average recording miraculously "audiophile recording one"....The gear here do not disapear BUT REVEAL all acoustic tags and cues from the original event and the choices which have been made by the recording engineer... ...

A good system, even at low cost like mine, could, when the system/room is acoustically well controlled , reveal all acoustical chosen trade -off from ALL recordings..Then this is not only the so well recorded albums which become interesting BUT ALL RECORDINGS by the way we perceive them now in a new revealing acoustic light so to speak... Then when the room acoustic is optimallly controlled we listen to all our recordings for the music and not for a "good sound" coming from very few audiophile recording of choice....People listen to their best recorded album mainly only because their gear/room CANNOT reveal the original takes of the recording engineer...

Acoustic settings is the greatest of all upgrade ....It makes all album not on par with one another on all counts for sure, but it makes all of them acoustically interesting and there is no more a wall between the sound and the music...

There is no corruption of music by love of sound... There is an unending unsatisfaction by ignorance of the way to embed optimally a system in his mechanichal, electrical and acoustical dimensions...Then the upgrading deceptive road is chosen...

If i am not right, why am i satisfied by my low cost system ? After years working with the SAME GEAR in these three working dimensions, with what some uninformed called "tweaks" and which i call embeddings controls methods, am I deaf?

Like see N. we are free to create our own source of joy by our own hand and with minimal skills and basic acoustic science...Music and sound become ONE.....

One thing though is true, we dont need an audio system to be glad with music , when i was 14 years old i was in ectasy with the first battery radio and bad plugs in ear....Then we must learn how to use the gear to go back to the essential : simplicity...Not ascetism...Simplicity...

Art is a human gesture if not it is an empty sums of objects ....

😊😊😁😁😁😁😁😊😊

And yet...I wonder. I can only speak for myself, of course, but too often my pleasure in listening comes not from the music itself, but from the reproduction of it. The proof of this is that I will often choose to listen to something that is well-recorded even if it is musically banal, and I privilege good recordings over good performances in most cases (although there are fortunately lots of good performances that are also well-recorded). Bottom line: I love the equipment, especially when it seems to "disappear"! This is a paradox.

Maybe, as sns suggests, this is due to some "corruption" of real passion for music by "the need for material goods." I’m also a musician (cello and guitar), and I know a lot of musicians; none of them—literally, none—are audiophiles. Why is that? And I’ve had profound experiences with music in very compromised acoustical situations. How can that be, if SQ is the be-all and end-all?

1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

    

   Is this not the essence of Neitzsche?

    

    

No, N is not nihilist. Rejects religion and morals, but replaced it with a convoluted and somewhat romantic notion of the "superman."

Not an armadillo.

N. is a thermometer of his era...Nobody trash the thermometer because it say that it is too cold outside...

The contradictions of his era he took them on himself , like a reverse image of Christ....He died from a poisonous logical equation: man is only an ape but he must become a god....It is impossible because time is finite and the universe is a finite atomistic eternal return engine...

Anybody thinking that is condemned to become ill and mad...N. understood the science of his time and all the hypocrisy of christianity....A deadly equation....

The lucididy of Dostoievsky is on par with N. but he was never the deceived  dupe of the science of his time... Russian are more stronger souls...

The deepest short novel of all time is : "the dream of a ridiculous man"

Nihilism

noun

1. the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.

    

   Is this not the essence of Neitzsche?

    

    

twoleftears: very interesting suggestion. Benjamin was not in my mind when I wrote what I did, but I see your point.

For those not familiar with the famous Benjamin essay, it's certainly relevant. I won't pretend to do justice to its subtlety and complexity, but here's a gist. Benjamin writes: "Around 1900, technological reproduction not only had reached a standard that permitted it to reproduce all known works of art, profoundly modifying their effect, but it also had captured a place of its own among the artistic processes."

However, he goes on to insist that "In even the most perfect reproduction, one thing is lacking: the here and now of the work of art—its unique existence in a particular place." He calls this "unique existence" of the original work, prior to its reproduction (for us, the "live performance"), the work's "aura," and further claims that this is what "underlies the concept of its authenticity." Thus, the problem posed by reproduced artworks (especially music): "The whole sphere of authenticity eludes technological—and of course not only technological—reproduction...: what withers in the age of the technological reproducibility of the work of art is the latter's aura."

Now, this suggests many interesting things, not least of which would be that the recording is its own "artwork" not to be compared disparagingly to some inaccessible "original." Thus, the aim of reproduced music is NOT, as it might seem, to re-create an impossible lost original performance, but rather, to provide an authentic experience of its own, an experience of a new kind of artwork: the collective product of composer, performers, AND engineers (recording engineers, the designers of microphones and amplifiers and speakers, etc. etc.). 

BUT: what is still supposedly missing is the "authenticity" of the uniqueness of the original. In the case of a painting, this is pretty obviously very important, at least for commercial reasons: an "authentic" Picasso original is worth vastly more than a "copy," however accurate the copy may be. 

Here's where I think Benjamin's argument is often misunderstood. He calls this lost "authenticity" the artwork's "aura." But "aura" is a loaded term! It suggests a kind of mystical quality possessed only by some fetishized object; it is NOT an aesthetic value in any straightforward sense. After all, the only aesthetic difference between a Picasso original and an exact technological reproduction indistinguishable from it would be the fetish value assigned to the historical facts associated with the original alone (the artist himself touched it, etc.). These are of interest to the investor, to the art historian, to the museum curator—but not necessarily to the art appreciator.

So, returning to music reproduction: if it were possible (and it very nearly is!) to reproduce in one's living room the acoustic experience of a live performance, what, really, is lost? The social facts of sharing the live performance with others, I suppose. But that's not a feature of the music itself. The fact that, in a live performance, someone might make a mistake—a little like a live Formula One race, where someone might crash and get killed, vs. watching the same race on TV after the fact. But again, these are not aesthetic values.

Admittedly, with larger ensembles, this kind of simulacral reproduction is progressively harder and harder to achieve: the acoustic of the Musikverein can't really be re-created in one's living room. But a chamber ensemble is within the range of possibility—not to mention solo instruments. 

Rather than Benjamin, the relevant thinker here would seem to be Beaudrillard. His notion of the "simulacrum," whereby a copy, being more familiar than the original from which it is derived, is actually more a cultural touchstone than the original it is "parasitic" upon, seems to me almost exactly the concept that is at issue. An example: most Americans are more familiar with Disneyland's Magic Castle than with Bavaria's Neuschwanstein, but Neuschwanstein is the original and the Disney "simulacrum" the copy. 

So here's the bottom line of these reflections. Listening the the Berlin Philharmonic—or, better because smaller, the Orpheus Chamber Orchestra—in my living room is not a substitute for hearing the ensemble in person, but rather, the thing itself! As Benjamin put it above (modifying the grammar for the present circumstances), "technological reproduction has reached a standard that permits it to reproduce all known works of art, profoundly modifying their effect, but thereby also capturing a place of its own among the artistic processes." Indeed, the spatial specificity of different voices on a good audio system in a good room is superior to what would be experienced live. The "effect" of the "authentic" performance has been "modified," all right, but in a positive way, in order to provide a "reproduction" that is actually superior to the "auratic" original! The only thing lost is fetish value! How cool is that?

The way you state it, pretty cool.

If I may, I think I relate to what you say with regards to a painting I have. It's one of Balthus' work entitled, Katia Lisant. I saw a poster of it at a friends house but could never locate a reproduction until I came upon a Chinese company that does it for any artist you care to name on giant printers. 

They also have the option of having one of their art students paint it. I opted for the painted version knowing it wouldn't look exactly like the original but in the end, I prefer the painting much more than the exacting copy of the original. 

Firstly, it is a painting and not a virtual knock off masquerading as the original.
Secondly, it has some serious weight of it's own in that the artist really put their heart into painting something that they knew wasn't exactly like the original, but possessed of it's own soul and beauty. It comes close but not at the expense of being an "original" on it's own (like a well made recreation of music in your listening room).

I was lucky to have had that particular art student to do this as another I had done wasn't up to the standard of the first and I had to order one of the printed reproductions. 

All the best,
Nonoise

The only thing lost is fetish value! How cool is that?

Great post indeed!

«The only thing lost is fetish value»

Benjamin+Baudrillard....

If we observe that mechanical reproduction can ADD all interpretations in classical music and all "takes" of a piece in jazz and gave them all in one fell swoop to a listener, for example i collect interpretations of the "well tempered klavier" we can correct Benjamin lost of the aura concept and Baudrillard predatory simulacrum and replace/correct them with the revelation that the gesture of time, his timing, could add something which lack from eternity : the fleeting essential moment....THE ACT DONE IN TIME at the right time..All interpretations and " takes" ADD a perspective totally new on a work of music that exist at the same time in perspectival time and in eternity ....

Here we have the secret of martial art, of musical playing, of listening and speaking and the key to redemption...Even the secret of small room acoustic linked to the timing of reverberations waves and the timing of the first wavefronts for each ears GESTURE....

At the root of martial art: Heinrich Kleist "the puppets theater " masterpiece about the gesture in time , and the deep meditation about REALITY in Dostoievsky short novel : the dream of a ridiculous man...

Think about that these two short complementary stories contains all the history of the world in condensed and abbreviated way...

Read the 2 and compared them...

In a word, the possibility to listen in one day to many interpretations of a work of music takes us from time to eternity and from eternity to time back again...Erasing the illusion of a past "golden age" and erasing the illusion of the ALWAYS future progress to come...The work of art is no more an image of paradise but a part of it through our own listening gesture...

And so we can value experience of original and reproduction each in it's own way. A printed reproduction may even provide greater cultivation of spirit vs original painting. Because the print has relatively little material value, nearly all value contained or perceived in what the painting says to us. The original may divert our attention to material value, artist's technical skill, etc.

This conversation brings to mind Robert Pirsig's, 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.' When quality only perceived as judgment on linear scale we lose sight of process and true values, we only see the ends of things.  A more holistic view understands and values all the parts that make up the whole. Complex systems are made more easily understood and each part becomes more valued.

Audio systems and motorcycles, and all complex systems for that matter can be contemplated in like manner. Rather than jump to conclusions based on simplistic notions of what is good and bad, we can contemplate the qualities of complex systems. Its in these qualities we find the human spirit. Capacitors, resistors, pistons, connecting rods, all the parts contained within audio equipment, motorcycles, and all complex systems, invented and manufactured by humans, all endowed with spirit of those makers.

And so, are audiophiles engaged in spiritual work when building audio systems? Perhaps those with above mindfulness are. On the other hand, maybe all of this  delusional rationalization, the whole endeavor may be in fact nothing other than a zero sum game, the wins are temporary at best, all become a succession of loses. The win only comes when no further upgrades desired or purchased, and this has to be permanent position. One may be contemplating or desiring audio system changes right up to death, in this case futile endeavor.

To me, this idea of how our spirit is tied in w/ our individual level of fulfillment as we pursue this hobby of ours, is how well content we are, at peace you might say, with whatever equipment we currently posses, or use to enjoy it.

Of course, how well each of our systems perform is not only very individualized, it's also very subjective. There's a certain level of smarts here, right? Prob why this hobby attracts so many intellectuals. I don't consider myself intellectual but I am eccentric as hell, and I kind of like that about myself. 

Love the part about poverty of spirit. That's exactly the way that I see it. At the end of the day if I'm not content with whatever I have, it may very well possess me. And that is a form of poverty, for sure. I'm sure we all know those who never seem to have enough or always want something they don't have. It's like a bottomless pit that can never be filled. 

Thank you for provoking such an interesting conversation, @hilde45 

Definitely also helps me understand better why I find listening spiritually fulfilling and uplifting. 

Wonderful food for thought.

My go-to aphorism for making sense of many interactions:

“When the pickpocket saw Jesus, all he saw was his pockets.”

nonoise: in China, and also in Japan, there is a serious market for the kind of hand-painted artistic copies you describe, to the point that particular "forgers" who are exceptionally skilled can sell "their" work for huge sums. The quotation marks here are necessary, as you surely see. Is a copy of a famous painting a "forgery" if it is not intended to deceive, but rather, is meant almost as a kind of tribute to the artist who created the "original" that it is based on? In many Asian countries, artistic values do not derive from "originality" at all, but rather, from successfully imitating some ideal. I spent some time years ago on a house boat on Dal Lake in Srinigar. All the house boats are elaborately painted, and all in much the same way. The artists don't try to be "unique," but rather, to most successfully express a Universal. As a philosopher, this makes me think of Plato's theory of Forms, according to which all sense objects are just copies of ideal archetypes. 

sns: I really like what you say about how even a poor copy can perhaps provide "greater cultivation of spirit" than the original painting because we are not distracted by "material value" or even "the artist's technical skill." That's a really interesting suggestion. Perhaps it has something to do with the decline in straightforward representation in painting, an historical fact often said to be related to the technological development of photography, which rendered realistic painting superfluous. But your insight is much more interesting than this commonplace "fact." Perhaps the "expression" managed in a genuine artwork has very little to do with "accuracy" (representational accuracy in painting, or "high fidelity" sound quality in music reproduction). There are some recordings of very poor sound quality that nevertheless are tremendously moving. My favorite performance of Brahms' First Symphony, for instance, is an old monaural recording by Furtwängler; every other interpretation of that work disappoints me.

And if this may be so, it brings us full circle. What is valuable in art, finally, is not something quantifiable: not "measurements" in audio equipment, surely, but also not exactly "SQ" either. Rather, aesthetic value comes from the expression (call it "spirit," since we've been using this word freely in this conversation) of the artist.

Shinto refers to spirit or holy powers that reside in everything from landscapes to objects to forces of nature and not just that of ancestors. I wonder if Nietzsche studied that or was it just coincidence. Different cultures have arrived at similar beliefs despite geography and time. Maybe Marie Kondo studied Nietzsche and didn't have that epiphany that led her to tidy things up and keep just what gives us joy. 🤔

All the best,
Nonoise

The win only comes when no further upgrades desired or purchased, and this has to be permanent position. One may be contemplating or desiring audio system changes right up to death, in this case futile endeavor.

I consider that the pursuit of mediocrity. Is this be something that disciples of Nitty aspire to? Guys.  That's a win?  Upside down and inside out.

I prefer these words of challenge from Walt Whitman, an American poet -

Passage, immediate passage! the blood burns in my veins!
Away O soul! hoist instantly the anchor!
Cut the hawsers—haul out—shake out every sail!
Have we not stood here like trees in the ground long enough?
Have we not grovell’d here long enough, eating and drinking like mere brutes?
Have we not darken’d and dazed ourselves with books long enough?

Sail forth— steer for the deep waters only,
Reckless O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me,
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

O my brave soul!
O farther farther sail!
O daring joy, but safe! are they not all the seas of God?
O farther, farther, farther sail!

@snilf @snilf  Good point about aphoristic works, and I took a risk, but I thought the quotation made enough internal sense for it to be related without trying to "size up" Nietzsche, which many know is either impossible or a lifelong occupation.

I happen to be reading Nietzsche because I occasionally teach him. I'm a philosophy professor.

Regarding you comment about the "corruption" of the real passion that happens sometimes, all I can do is echo Steve Guttenberg's explanation that sometimes the audiophile is really interested in sound itself -- not as a vehicle to music but for its own textures. That seems fine to me, too. The only problem with loving sound is when it somehow *substitutes* for music. That doesn't mean that music is better than sound, only that I was diverted from my purpose, on that occasion.

@mahgister @mahgister 
"There is no corruption of music by love of sound... There is an unending unsatisfaction by ignorance of the way to embed optimally a system in his mechanichal, electrical and acoustical dimensions...Then the upgrading deceptive road is chosen…"

I think this happens a lot. I did listen to a system yesterday that had the room right and the gear very very right — GR Research Super 7's with incredible mono block tube amplifiers. It was sublime.

Regarding Benjamin, I agree completely, especially your point that "the aim of reproduced music is NOT, as it might seem, to re-create an impossible lost original performance, but rather, to provide an authentic experience of its own, an experience of a new kind of artwork"

A good article on this general question is here: 

[Listening to Music: Performances and Recordings Author(s): Theodore Gracyk Source: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism , Spring, 1997, Vol. 55, No. 2, Perspectives on the Arts and Technology (Spring, 1997), pp. 139-150]

 @mglik   Nietzsche is anything but a nihilist. He questions the kind of life lived by people who automatically accept and then enact values that are imposed from others because that effectively prevents one from being, themselves, a creator of value.  The ideal of the ubermensch is a goal -- a way of life in which one seeks to create rather than merely obey. Create what? What they will.

@sns @sns The Pirsig reference struck me. Nice. I can imagine building audio systems as either spiritual work or delusion — but not either, necessarily. It depends on whether one has mastered oneself and know one's own purposes, which is the issue that initially lead me to the Nietzsche quote in the OP.

@tunefuldude @tunefuldude — 

"this idea of how our spirit is tied in w/ our individual level of fulfillment as we pursue this hobby of ours, is how well content we are, at peace you might say, with whatever equipment we currently posses, or use to enjoy it."

 -- exactly! As for whether you're an "intellectual" or not, well, in America that word is mostly used as a pejorative. So I won't say I thought your observation was very intellectual -- I'd opt for "insightful" and "illuminating," instead! 

Good to know others with spirit and questioning of spirit still exist!

Seems to me information, data taking the place of spirit in decline of civilization. Its rather confusing, on one hand, information, data elevated to level of belief, on other, diminished  such that cults of personality arise.

Those with spirit are always mindful of the entirety of universe, and how relatively insignificant they are. And yet, be significant in the sense one can feel united with all the spirited that ever existed upon the earth.

Me thinks the increasing divisions we observe today are in direct inverse to the loss of spirit in the masses.

@sns Fair points. Regarding data, increasing amounts of it are being used to subtly guide our spirits in profitable directions, all the while maintaining the illusions we are in full control. We don't get to keep those profits of course; we generate them for others.

The sad thing is, it's all a choice, and a conscious one at that. The spirit that could lead one to a better place has been intentionally disregarded for the data, however false, so as to take it's place and give meaningless, unrequited solace so one can do the unthinkable.

The more one does such things, the more it solidifies the actions and hardens the resolve to do more damage to those that prefer to function as a community, as it was always intended, for it is in community, that spirit, when practiced, is strengthened.

Unfortunately, the resultant, forced community of the false data driven can have the same sense and strength of community through rote practice but lacks the natural conviction and ease of living that resultantly benefits the spirit guided community.

It's probably why they're so angry all the time. They've created a world that isn't fulfilling which requires them to attack others instead of looking within.

All the best,
Nonoise

I will add to this discussion about Nietzsche that his master Schopenhauer had deep view about music revealing the "noumenal" or the "thing in itself", passing over or under or through the mere "representation" and linking the "will" in man to the universal cosmic will as ONE... Then music express the esthethical and the ethical dimension as 2 aspects of the same coin so to speak... This is the reason why music was so important phenomenon for S. and N. inherited this passion for music experience as a cosmic experience from S. himself...

S. was an admirer of the Spinozist Goethe, who is the recognized or unrecognized center of all the german philosophy even more than Kant himself...... And for Goethe colors express the same esthetical and ethical dimensions 2 aspect of the same "coin" and experience...In the same fashion the morphology of an animal is a book to be read in his environment whose chapters contains all the physiology of the animal and of the world itself.... For this read the monumental 1300 pages book of Wolfgang Schad

http://www.adonispress.org/threefoldness.php

Now physical Acoustic and psycho-acoustic , the science but also the lived experience of acoustic, express for me, like music an esthetical and a ethical lesson to the acoustician and to ourself : the location of our body in the world or in a room make us able with our attention to explore CONSCIOUSLY a perspectival meaningful world lived internally and externally as ONE WORLD...

More than that the perception of sound is the DIRECT perception, through the wave-image, of the INSIDE of a resonating object and an immediate perception of his density, of his topology, and of his intrinsic qualities located in a particular vibrational state in a pareticular environment...( this is the reason why the "timbre" experience for example cannot be reduced to his spectrum) .Intuition is then a compensated PERCEPTION here as real as for the senses...

For example the location of cavities , their number, the size of their aperture, the materials which compose them, be it dry wood or wet wood or diverse metals, be it a ripe fruit or not if we tap it to verify, etc, are revealed by tapping or putting the object in a resonant state... A cavern or a flute, not only fruits or rock are perceived directly for their qualities this way by prehistoric man or by blind man in their environment...Or by conscious listening experiment nowadays...

If you can read this article The Body-Image Theory of Sound: An Ecological Approach to Speech and Music by Akpan J. Essien is very instructive....So much i boight his doctorate thesis in a book...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267327268_The_Body-Image_Theory_of_Sound_An_Ecological_Approach_to_Speech_and_Music

I will add that my insistence in audio thread about acoustic and psycho-acoustic, and about embeddings controls, is related to this experience of music and sound as ONE experience uniting world/body/ soul...

Then it has no relation to market consumerism conditioned ignorance upgrade obsession about sound only or about "taste"...

Any musical experience, in a lived event or recreated in a room, is also a unique acoustical and cosmic event...

Sound and music are like our body and soul ...Not one without the other....

We need no money at all to create our own experience it is my take about the freedom of spirit in the N. quote...

I thank heartfully the OP for the deep discussions made possible by this thread

out of the usual "branded name" or "Tweaks" discussion...

«Someone who know how to listen dont focus his attention about his "tastes" anymore»-Anonymus Smith

«Crocodiles live by their tastes, scientist dont»-Groucho Marx 🤓

«We listen with our body gesture, not only with our ears but with our lungs, ask any singer»-Anonymus Smith

«How ridiculous it would be ! A book called:  acoustic for your lungs»-Groucho Marx 🤓

Food for thought in all the above.

One thing we haven't touched on up to now, what about our own contribution to this cultivation of spirit. Aren't we artists of a kind in putting together audio systems? Yes, we want to experience the spirit of music and it's performance at home, but aren't we inherently contributing to this experience?

Which calls into question, what are our true intentions in this whole endeavor? I'm sure there are times when we feel spiritual connection to music and performance. Is there not also a feeling of pride, of self satisfaction in having put together this system that evokes such feelings? If this case then we ourselves are unquestionably part of this evocation of the spirit. 

So, is ego fulfillment part of our true intent as audiophiles?  Do we not superimpose ourselves into this musical performance? Based on my observations and personal experience, feelings of pride inevitable. Is this truly cultivation of the spirit or something else? Can the artist divorce him or herself from the masterpiece they have created?

Also, is pride inherently good spirit, or only good to a point? Certainly there is malevolent spirit in form of hubris. When does pride morph into hubris and how can we tell when it has?

Perhaps audiophilia is an affliction after all.

@sns   Very well said. 

Here's my quick take — audiophiles do contribute to the artistry by making their systems. They feel power in making the sound immersive, in bringing music and bodily feeling into synergy with the room.

What was once a cold piece of machinery is embedded (agree, Mahgister) into the larger space of their home thanks to their actions: knowledgeable care in selection, arrangement, positioning, adjusting of all in the environment.

Pride and self satisfaction is warranted. I like nothing more than to experience what another audiophile has created and talk to them about how and why they did things in that unique way. In effect, I'm asking for their spirit to sing its song to me.

Pet psychological theory about when audiophiles go too far — over-consume or are dogmatic about the gear: we need to make our own music, too. Too many of us, me included, don't play an instrument anymore. We "make" music by playing the music of others. If more of us were at least singing, playing music with others from time to time, we'd be less frustrated. That frustration comes from trying to fulfill deeply creative urges with audiophile pursuits *alone*. That's not enough to satisfy a lot of us.

Greats posts thanks to the Op And sns...

I will only add that pride of the job done is not a sin...

The ego is not something to be erased but a tool to serve the spirit...

The creation of our own audiophile event by our hand and experiments is not a feat of worthy of unending praise just circonstances to learn something about ourselves...

Music is also therapeutical tool for me, some frequencies are very important to be rightfully perceived with optimal accuracy...

Music is a hobby, i listen to enjoy myself but the therapeutic aspect is on par with the pleasant sensations..

Music is also a tool to explore and modify a part of the earth : our room and make it completely adapted to our own body from an acoustic point of view...

Also acoustic and psycho acoustic are really a simple meditation about our power , how consciousness could modify the perceptions by reorganizing the room...

The only luxury is a dedicated room but someone could also do without it...

The essential is acoustically optimize so well our audio system that we will be able to enlarge our original tastes and appreciate many other culture perspectives takes on the soul/world through music..

By the way many of us lack self confidence, me included, and we prefer to give ourself to the market and bought without any creative move, but the most important thing is to have self-confidence and self reliance... I never had that myself...I am not a very skilled craftsman ....  The only reason i embarked on this journey was not first self confidence but complete lack of money and the desesperate urge to improve greatly my unsatisfying actual audio system after my retirement or just before it...Then for those of us who are like me, without self confidence, you must learn to do it, and the less money you have to throw in the wind sometimes is the better, it will make easier your frantic searches for solutions and studies of basic science....

This is deeply true :

That frustration comes from trying to fulfill deeply creative urges with audiophile pursuits *alone*. That’s not enough to satisfy a lot of us.

I wish you the best christmas possible in this impossible world....

Humans tend to imbue things with qualities not present. Personification of animals comes to mind. Seems reasonable that we'd imbue inanimate objects with a part of ourselves as well, maybe even more than an animal since it hasn't life of it's own until we complete the process.

When it becomes a part of us, it becomes an extension of us. All of us: the good and the bad. I feel it true that pets are an extension of their owners so it must fall that our personal possessions are an extension of us as well. 

The danger lies in what these possessions, in return, enable in us, further in us.

We contribute to art with our systems, which in turn, return the compliment. It completes us. It becomes a selfless, self gratifying endeavor to reach out and share with others which is powerfully rewarding.

As mentioned, a danger lies in hubris, when some think their connection to art and system is the only true answer. 

All the best,
Nonoise

Just a remark about anthropomorphisation of animals and the reduction, in some quarter of "civilization", of all life to be only machines, even us at the other extreme in transhumanism cult for example coming from the cartesian dualism divide...

These 2 attitude are TOOLS coming from different cultures at different times in history...Domestication of animals is linked with their anthropomorphisation, our own humanity is born from animals and plants...Cutting this link is loosing ourselves...

Which one is the most useful tool LONG TERM ? Asking the question is answering it....

It is not so much that we imbue animals and plants of a part of ourselves, which is true for sure, it is them that give us a material and spiritual life and the feeling of the "sacred" to begin with anyway...

«Plants "speaks" so to speak, and it is not so much ONLY an antropomorphism gesture than the lost of our inattentive "superiority" over which appear to be for science now no more mere materials to be used than a consciousness living on another time scale....

For sure your observation is right but must me compensated or balanced by another one.... This is the reason of my post...

Humans tend to imbue things with qualities not present. Personification of animals comes to mind. Seems reasonable that we’d imbue inanimate objects with a part of ourselves as well, maybe even more than an animal since it hasn’t life of it’s own until we complete the process.

Domestication of animals is linked with their anthropomorphisation, our own humanity is born from animals and plants...Cutting this link is loosing ourselves...

I like this part. We are part of a chain and not above or apart of it. Cutting the link is where we lose ourselves. That is hubris and an error.

All the best,
Nonoise

Merry christmast nonoise....

I’m confused how humanity is being used in some of these posts. We are animals, our "humanity" is from evolutionary and societal pressures in my opinion. Spirit isn’t something external to the mind or consciousness. I've never seen or heard of any evidence that points to any sort of universal spirit or consciousness, it’s simply part of us, it dies when we die.

It all boils down to how it completes us and is not reliant on some limited western way of thinking of spirit as an outside force due to some religious affiliation. It all comes from within and we merely project onto other things so as to make us feel whole. It's how we relate.

Nothing that metaphysical about it. It's a means of dealing with nature, objects and reflects the character of the one projecting. We do it all the time in life without thinking or being aware of it, unless we transgress others wrongly.

I'm an atheist and yet I find it easy enough to "grok", which could make it just a matter of choice in understanding something. We all put names to things.

All the best,
Nonoise

@djones51 Carl Jung had a very popular and compelling idea of collective consciousness.  He exactly believed in the idea that since humans have similarly evolved, we have a collective consciousness that is sub-conscious, that we are not immediately aware of.

And since I have started typing I wanted to add that I like exploring philosophy such as Nietzsche, but I lean towards Diogenes and the classical philosophers (I gather Nietzsche hated the Stoics).

So Diogenes would not approve of my speakers, and I keep that in mind when finding myself wanting more, when the answer often times is to want less.

The stoics might say go experience sound in a natural environment, the sea, the river, the leaves in the wind and animals about. 

guys we are scaring off the under 90 crowd...

now, say what?  ain’t that backbeat on jb’s ’holy’ sumthin’????

guys we are scaring off the under 90 crowd...

I don't think they understand...

All the best,
Nonoise

Sorry but Neither God or Nietsche could die...

Our notion of dying is medically under revision now...

It is vastly proven by hospital medical research ( not a Fauci paid for hospital though guess why?) that cousciousness could exist OUT of the body...a falling body and his decomposition dont mean ABSOLUTE destruction anymore...Save for transhumanist cultist....

And for the possibility of miracles the most interesting miracles PUBLICLY recognized in the 20th century were worked by an ordinary man on CROWDS of thousand of sick and paralysed people for years... Some Doctors were so afraid they almost kill him and jail him at all cost... They feel completely humiliated...It remind me of the actual health crisis by some aspects...A man named Christ did the same some years ago....Think about his fate.... Groning prove that this Jesus was not a lying crook created by superstition perhaps...By the way i am not a religious person but i am not a childish ideologist of matter static atomic only real existence and flat earth reality either...

Try to listen to this 3 hours totally true documentary and try to debunk the testimonies .... Good luck...Bruno Groning actions was one of the most mysterious

healing spritual feat of the century because it concern THOUSANDS of miracles in one fell swoop...With doctors verifications in many many cases...

The world is not what simplistic materialist theory said it is...

Study and think.... Opinions are not of any interest....

This is the first part, it is more than very interesting, it is SPELLBINDING..No Dysney movie would have take this on a film because it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe this especially in a movie which want to stay credible ... But all really happen and is DOCUMENTED by testimonies and photographs ....Negationist beware...Documents are fake or real there is nothing else between these 2 alternatives....

By the way this is a little enigma for materialist: there exist people who live normal life, and even a case where it was a mathematician, with almost no brain at all , then if you think consciousness is produced ONLY by the brain think twice:

Can You Live Without a Brain? | Office for Science and Society - McGill University

I cannot wait to read materialist ideologue trying to debunk these two perfectly documented facts in history...

I suggest geometry, number theory and quantum mechanics...

And why not biographies of the greatest mystics in all religions?

Try to Debunk Emmanuel Swedenborg for example one of the greatest scientist and mystic of his time who was the first scientist of the Sweden kingdom all his life in ALL fields..Even the poor  Kant could not debunk him...He tried hard in a book....

You think that this mystic visionary who visit hell and paradise out of his body every day was a crook... Ok read that opinion about only ONE of his expertise field by a modern neurologist:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18641979/

ABSTRACT:

«I discuss three examples of neuroscientists whose ideas were ignored by their contemporaries but were accepted as major insights decades or even centuries later. The first is Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772) whose ideas on the functions of the cerebral cortex were amazingly prescient. The second is Claude Bernard (1813-1878) whose maxim that the constancy of the internal environment is the condition for the free life was not understood for about 50 years when it came to dominate the development of modern physiology. The third is Joseph Altman (1925-) who overturned the traditional dogma that no new neurons are made in the adult mammalian brain and was vindicated several decades later.»

Study and think BEFORE believing in the only EXISTENCE of "matter" or in the INEXISTENCE of ghosts or spirits....

Our own spirit we feel it and matter external to us it is ONLY a convenient HYPOTHESIS...Nothing more...

So tempting to link NIN's Heresy..........

By the way my most important discovery this year was that we dont know YET what is sound...

Then think twice before reading audio magazine...

The only science is HISTORY of science...To quote Goethe in my own word....I add the word "ONLY " to be more clear using the Goethe sentence...

Idolization of science is SUPERSTITION like in transhumanist cult...

Human spirit progress by METAMORPHOSIS of himself in non linear time,not by a linear progress toward some transhumanist technological hubris "singularity" and HIVE mind...

Ok i apologize for my rant but i dont like when some people present their short uninformed opinions like EVIDENT uncontroversial PROVEN fact....

Reality exceed our little convenient opinions and toys....

And being a believer in God of which name you choose to name him or it, is no more stupid than being an activist atheist and materialist like Dawkins......in fact it is less stupid if we inform ourself...

I will myself adopt the less stupid and narrow stance... Guess which one and why ?

I forgot to correct my post: there is THREE parts in the Bruno Groning documentary: more than 4 hours...

@rodman99999 

😂  now that kinda philosophy is my speed!  

merry christmas 

@nonoise

wisdom is indeed wasted on the old and irrelevant members of society...

@mahgister -     If you'd care to conduct a scientific experiment, regarding that hypothesis: stop over sometime.

     I have numerous ways to explore your proposition; IF you have the FAITH!

"Sorry but Neither God or Nietsche could die...

Our notion of dying is medically under revision now..."

 

I had faith from my young age...

Faith in the only intellectual discovery in all my lifetime...

The distribution of prime numbers is the most complex object existing in ANY possible cosmos or transcending ANY universe... The prime number distribution is a fixated instantaneous image of the dynamical cosmic memory...Nothing less.... Like an image on a cinematographic film ribbon containing many other one...

I did not sleep over that for a month when i was 24 years old......

Someone else discovered it in his own way with way greater mathematical skill than me but it is too complex to be judged here... There even exist a worldwide controversy right now about this mathematical theory... A fascinating story in the making right now...

Shinichi Mochizuki , the great japanese mathematician , the greatest after Grothendieck his master, he called it "inter-universal geometry"...

I believe only mathematicians and mystics...

All the rest is only limited physical experiments...Or otherwise technological or religious superstitions...

This image is very simple and is the prime numbers embeddings with one unit represented by small circle added to one another... The interrelated primes are represented by increasing circles toward the infinite...

There exist no object in any universe, and even in all universes in any finite number of them in any finite numbers we may chose that exceed this distributed indefinite complexity... NONE... Save the first infinity itself containing all the primes..

If you think about that ask yourself this question: Who created this object?

Answer: NO HUMAN... We observe it like we observe the distibutions of stars...

But all the galaxies in the known universe is only a drop inside this object...

This is my faith.... But this faith is based on an exact direct perception of this object meaning and dynamic....

This object is only an image of the EMPTY cosmic memory, or a fixated snap in one moment  of its internal dynamic...

The mathematic of this living object is described by Shinichi Mochizuki...

It all boils down to how it completes us and is not reliant on some limited western way of thinking of spirit as an outside force due to some religious affiliation.

And an Eastern way of thinking of Self (large S) which permeates the whole universe and connects us all as opposed to self our animal instincts of preservation. No, I don't see any evidence of  this sort of spirit, soul, Self, God.  Maybe I'm confusing the meaning of" human spirit " but this

all comes from within and we merely project onto other things so as to make us feel whole. It's how we relate.

sounds more like conscience to me. 

Whichever it's not really that important. It's difficult for a reductionist like myself to follow these philosophical conversations. 

Another image of the same object 

https://i.imgur.com/xVd1p6I.jpg

Omigod you leave a thread for a few hours and....

I am sorry and i apologize....

I will stay mute if no other materialist affirm his faith like a fact...

My only excuse is none of my post are boring at least....

Promise....

But i am off-topic yes...

Finally Hilde45 you were right about me from the begininng  i wrote too much lenghty posts...

😁😊

To get back to the OP at least Nietzsche includes something I can relate too. 

whereas, while it is to some extent a matter of money, 

Otherwise us peons should shutup and continue eating cake. 

Are there humans devoid of spirit, or is it only unknown to themselves? God and N not dead as long as they evoke spirit in others.

Spirit much like love, sometimes spontaneous combustion within us, other times dies without warning. When it leaves us, where does it go? Why is love and spirit so often thought of as coming from the heart? 

Some claim to read chakras, some feel vibrations, often called vibes, auras, etc. in response to all sorts of stimulus. These are symptoms or forms of spirit reported by humans down through history, universal and timeless.

sounds more like conscience to me. 

Like I said, it's just a name we give things: an attribute that conforms to how we think and see things. Some provoke more emotion, some less. The trick is to not get caught up in what you ascribe to the point where that "spirit" takes on a life of it's own and becomes a dictum. Then, we're in trouble. 

All the best,
Nonoise