2. misc-audio
  3. 173256-139155

Nietzsche and Runaway Audio Consumption

Came across this today. A lot of posts bring up the issue of "how much is enough?" or "when is audio consumption justified" etc.

Does this Nietzsche aphorism apply to audio buying? You be the judge! 

Friedrich Nietzsche: “Danger in riches. — Only he who has spirit ought to have possessions: otherwise possessions are a public danger. For the possessor who does not know how to make use of the free time which his possessions could purchase him will always continue to strive after possessions: this striving will constitute his entertainment, his strategy in his war against boredom. 

Thus in the end the moderate possessions that would suffice the man of spirit are transformed into actual riches – riches which are in fact the glittering product of spiritual dependence and poverty. They only appear quite different from what their wretched origin would lead one to expect because they are able to mask themselves with art and culture: for they are, of course, able to purchase masks. By this means they arouse envy in the poorer and the uncultivated – who at bottom are envying culture and fail to recognize the masks as masks – and gradually prepare a social revolution: for gilded vulgarity and histrionic self-inflation in a supposed ‘enjoyment of culture’ instil into the latter the idea ‘it is only a matter of money’ – whereas, while it is to some extent a matter of money, it is much more a matter of spirit.” 

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1996. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Cambridge University Press. (p. 283-4, an aphorism no. 310)

I'm pretty sure @mahgister will want to read this one! (Because they speak so artfully about avoiding the diversion that consumption poses to the quest for true aesthetic and acoustic excellence.)

128x128hilde45
mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,191 posts
 

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...

 

 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,191 posts
 

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...

 

djones51
4,947 posts
 

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. 

mahgister's avatar
mahgister
13,191 posts
 

Another image of the same object 

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

hilde45's avatar
hilde45 OP
5,003 posts
 

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

More to discover