neutrality vs. realism

What a nice man.

Actually, Asa, I am usually of two minds about just about everything, so on any given day, we might not have any differences at all.

As far as science goes, (this is a gross oversimplification of the systems approach) some try to analyze a leaf by cutting it up and looking at it under a microscope. I look at the tree.

I have a couple of email acquaintances who are always at odds with each other. One a pure subjectivist with no scientific or engineering training who really does not know how sound is recorded, stored and transmitted. The other a well-known math professor who really does know a lot about the science and engineering of audio reproduction. Both of them arrived at the same speakers (Harbeth Monitor 40's - I have smaller Harbeths) as The Truth. Most of the time, I agree with the professor that everything we can hear can be explained by things we already know.

Perhaps it would be instructional for us to look at Buckminster Fuller's theories and constructs which stem from his foundational principals of the inherent "duality" of nature. He has derived an entire "science" which revolves around the basic assumptions of his philosophies.

As it seems, we have arrived at a premise here, which requires "inclusivity" of two superficially opposing points-of-view, which inherently must both be included together in some way, if a "universal truth" is to be derived from this study/discussion. Since both ends use empirical data, albeit with different methodologies, a link may be available.

The superficial "duality"is a dilemma, and the obvious "goal" would be to find an underlying "tie", which would link both approaches with a "unified theory" of sorts.

We must find a way to swim through the ether, that appears to separate these ideas, but ultimately binds them together in an shadowy interconnected-ness, that is not easily seen by superficial inspection.

A question would then arise, do we start from one end and work toward the other, or do we start from an intermediate point and pull both ends toward each other at the same time?
Or it is even possible to bring them together? Would there be a "quantum break", in which closing in on one observation would cause it's counterpart to be less observable, such as is the case with sub-atomic particle speeds and locations? Are we dealing with a Von Schroedinger dilemma, where all probabilities exist simultaneously on a wave-function until observation occurs? Can we quantify the probability curves of these occurences, to make some useful data?

Or do we simply accept this duality as "yin & yang", with both being equally required for equilibrium, never meeting but never apart? With a philosophical satisfaction that the twain shall never meet, and that they are just roads to journey on the way toward enlightenment?

Just a few thoughts to ponder on this subject.

Ying/yang is the function of cognition directed at the "what is", which, presto!, even science points to as infinite in its physical reflection to this structuring perception (remember, "infinity" is an abstraction for an experience beyond terms, beyong dualistic encompassment; if all is infinite, then there can be no non-infinite separate from it; words and science point to it so we can talk, but the infinite is expereinced in a trans-dual space of the mind).

Ying and Yang, twl, you say perhaps never meeting but never apart? The symmetry of your observance determines whether you only see one (Ying/Yang as manifestation of your dualistic cognition, seeking to manipulate things) or view the world dualistically AND a perception beyond those limitations that integrates both IN THE SAME MOMENT OF SIGHT (integrating Ying/Yang seen manifesting through the cognitive's mind construction of "what is" and, also, at once, through the trans-cognitive sight integrating opposition). This "see-ing" both ways at once has to do with the causal ground of Ying/Yang, and seeing this arisement as it arises as your own mind's constructed cognitive processing. You have to observe your own processing until you know that "you" are not only those constructs; you settle by "letting go" of your attachment to all thought as defining your ground nature. This open space of the mind, stably reached, reveals both sights at once.

Every road is a road towards this integration. "Data" may point in that direction, or our words here for that matter, but only YOU can go there with your OWN MIND; the "what is" is suseptible to measurement of others to give you pointing koans, and pointing mathematics on subset and/or chaos and/or quantum uncertainty theories, but you can not look to the others' "measurements" to go there; you must have the courage/faith to go there yourself, beyond the ideas of yourself. Until then, you will live in a world where you believe in the paradox, a dualism of separablity your thoughts inherently impose, rather than seeing its integral resolution in each moment of experience, thinking or not, "you" or "other".

It is not only a knowledge for Kings, or for Kings of knowledge...

PS Wonderful words twl.

Have a nice wkend all.

Realism. Always. Because Neutrality implies measured flat system response from 5 hz (or whatever that low is ) to 20K hz (or whatevr that high is) at certain intervals say 16 hz , 20 hz, 32 hz and so forth. What happens in between is what the Realistic well nuanced musical system sounds.

Realistic well nuanced musical system reproduces realistic tonal balance not only fundamentals but also lower and upper harmonics of an instrument. Analytical Neutral systems don't necessarily does that hence could be uninvolving.

Other way to look at this is: A piano notes from 25hz lowest to 8 K hz highest. Analytical system can measure flat even say (but may not) 25 hz, 26 hz, 27 hz and to 7999hz , 8000 hz of piano notes. But what happens at undertones, overtones, overall tonal balance. There is no way to measure the' flatness' of these wide band at each freq cut-off.

Therefore a realistic, Well nuanced musical system, if there is way to measure, will come close to live sound of the same very well recording.

GOD IS IN THE NUANCE (realistic). An audiophile slogan.

Since mics, etc. will always take away something from the original sound, it would seem components would have to add some of that back. Meaning the must put out more than they get in.
Not the best example but: say SET's are quicker than reality. Since some speed is lost in the recording process, SET's just put it back at the realistic amount of the original event.