Where have the long-time regulars gone?

02pete, wonderful post. Balanced, insightful, and how could underlying currents to markets be seen as irrelevant to ours?

Yes, post modern nihlism (read: the aftermath of deconstructionism of matter and mind, thereafter concluding that neither has a ground, resulting in that mind turning further into its focus on the accumulation of matter-products, e.g. capitalism) has run headlong into the notion that "democracy" must be sustained by active citizenry; sustaining a balance between our self-interest and other-interest (empathic identification), but not slipping to a predatory degree that we see every "other" as their prey.

We presently have developed an assumption in western society that infinite greed is "good", and we even make such people our icons and golden calves, but that is a far cry from the mutually reinforced self interest leading to happiness (conceptualized at the time to denote meaning and pleasure)that Smith, Locke et al, our so-called founders, envisioned.

The balance between freedom ("democracy") and self-interest ("capitalism")is a delicate one, and when the minds that constitute "society" cycle into pleasure to avoid the fact that democracy is inherently participatory, then that lack of involvement results in a de-evolvement, namely, back to a feudal past where the King told you he would keep you safe if you let him have power over you (the so-called "Imperial Presidency").

Our species (yes, I'm going that far!), as a group (society) has gone through a progressive pattern of development: from kinship (nomadic clans), to tribe, to polis, to state, to nation-state, to... In each of these shifts the individual in the group, through a conformism to the assumptions of the group, changed his identification to the "other", each time expanding to include more minds that were not like his. This an evolutionary telos that all of our "things", I would submit, are not powerful enough to impede. That we cycle into a progressive attachment to our "things", well, can't be too good...

Hiend audio, although recreational (pleasure), is also, deeper, a search for the beauty in music (meaning). In a group of minds cycling in denial through accumulation of an attachmnet to things, and the assumed power and safety it provides, the experiences of freedom, beauty, meaning, empathy-to-other etc. become progressively marginalized.

Now, 02pete, don't you feel better that they now have someone else, a much better target, to accuse of "going to deep"!

Keep posting 02pete.

Perhaps the "moderators" have discouraged them?

Unsound, I understand your concerns; as you can see above, I'm hardly one to tolerate censorship. My experience has been that people who wanted to beat up on other people have been deterred by 1)the moderators, and 2) some people, like myself, not putting up with them and calling them on it, on a conceptual level.

On the "deep" thing, I think its important to realize that it does have a chilling effect on some people, especially the way I do it sometimes (as above, not like 02pete's). I try to keep this in mind and not "weigh" those others down too early in a thread, or wait until it seems that others of similar inclination have congregated, or the thread is losing its juice. Generally speaking, on content, as opposed to tone, I've found the moderators to be quite indulgent of me.

If you keep it to the ideas, even deep or momentary tangential ideas, then I think you are just fine; if you choose to use superior cognitive agility to talk someone else down coupled with derogatory language, then you get their attention. If you get personal, regardless of merit of thought, you are paid more focused attention until a pattern emerges on that behavior.

I'm pretty provacative - and I'm sure some have complained when they didn't get their way - so I don't think that's the trigger. Its basically decorum, respect and maturity, and, I would submit, those are qualities that any radical egalitarian would be proud of.

Right on Unsound!

Asa, I'm guilty of speculating on an unfounded premise, but my gut tells me the root of what I consider to be over zealous moderating is money. Either the money that could be tied up in legal problems and/or the money that could be possibly lost in revenue. While I have to respect the fact that it's not directly my money, it still concerns me that freedom of speech can be bought and sold, no matter how indirectly. It's upsetting to think that we might have to resort to strategies to convey ideas in order to share the beauty of music.