TW-Acustic Arm

I got it. The secret.
The art of tonearm design is the art of recognizing and managing emotions in materials.

Hello Asa, of course there is a steep difference between a "writer" and an "author".
If you are only familiar with the first one - that's fine.
Regarding the mind, it levels and materialistic "worldview" I strongly recommend reading two german authors' works: I. Kant's "Kritik der reinen Vernunft" as well as R. Steiner "Philosophie der Freiheit".
They give answers to your questions. The once you asked - and the questions you may think about.
Most dragons, as well as most demons, are only reflections by the back walls of once's own eye-lids.

Dear Asa and Dertonarm, I am reluctant to debate the 'materialistic' view of scientific knowlege if this implys 'Phisicalism' in the sense of 'the same meaning' . I prefer to refer in this context to Harty Field's 'Physicalism and primitive denotation' (in :Reference,Truth and Reality). But I will begin with Frege. Frege started,so to speak, from Kant's distinction between 'analytic versus synthetic' in the context of 'knowlege'. But in distinction to all other 'philosophers' before him ,he put the 'sentence' ('proposition' or 'statement') as the 'basic' or primary unit for any logical,etc. investigation. So, according to him, one should never ask for the 'meaning' of an word 'outside' of
an sentence. Only in the context of an sentence has a word
an 'meanig'and reference(' About sense and reference').I.e. also an sentence has an reference: the truth values: the truth or the false. He refused the so called 'corresponence theory' of truth because he thought in the context of correspondence as 'identity relation'. I.e. there is no sence in 'identity' between linquistic (sentence)- and extra linquitic 'entitys'. So to explain this
Kantian 'notions' he used the identity sentence:
'the evening star'= (the 'is' of identity relation)'the morning star'.
The identity relation of 'the morning star = the morning star' is 'based' (Kant) on 'the same meaning' and is analytic. But the identity relation between 'the morning star and the evening star' is 'synthetic'.By empiric discovery we learned that those are the same 'star'. So this kind of discovery 'enlarge our knowlege'. For those interested in the 'sence or nonsence' of this distiction I must refer to Quine ('Two dogmas of empiricism'). I am particulary interested in the (contra) distinction between 'the author' and 'the writer' because our both 'dramatis personae' think that there is some 'huge' difference between the two,eh, say, expressions.
Well B. Russel invented some identity sentences of his own by 'wrestling' and trying to improve on Freges 'fundations' (of math.)
So he invented this:
'The aouthor of Wawerely = ('is' the same as) Walther Scott'.
But:
'The writer of Wawerley'= must be some other person,according to our 'dramatis personae' because those
'expressions' have totaly different meanings. So, to give him a name, John Bolton. Ergo we have two 'authors' or 'writers' of the same book?
I think that this is not sensible and to demonstrate how easy it is to be 'provocativ' and 'eloquent' at the same time I will also quote some Latin saying:'eloquentiea una
sapientiea guta'.
Regards,

Dear Nandric, while I certainly enjoy your post and hold your attitude towards high end in high esteem, I think very few would like to follow us in the direction this discussion is now going.
While the original purpose of either "party" for the ultimate goal of this thread is long lost and the thread as alive as a dead horse, I would nevertheless add a final comment from my side.

My original intend - here and in many other threads I participated in - was, that everyone should at less show a remote interest in the art of deduction in the sense of looking close and with attention to detail to a new product. Without being - positively or negatively - biased in his view by name, image or price tag. I however realized that this in fact is the most dangerous mine-field of them all.
Way too many audiophiles do give individual audio components a status, which they never deserve.
This should all be about transmitting recorded music.
Any high-end component is nothing but a technical device which should - in an ideal world - suit it's purpose and should otherwise "vanish" from the mind and attention.
As this whole game is today a lot about money, buying power and image/status by owning certain (expensive) components this attempt is of course futile.
Looking close, looking for plain results, performance and contend does today interfere in the most cruel sense of the word with the price tag and the status gained by owning a hailed and expensive component.

Well - a brave new world.
The world we deserve - as we apparently don't ask for more and so deserve no better.

Oh come on you great modern philosophers, it is so much fun discussing very high priced items, not only in the world of high end. Look at watches, cars, ships, helicopters, business jets (I hope you are well stuffed with those... :-)

So a rabbit needs to become a grizzly we have to have some respect when standing in front of it. This is the modern world we are all in - or do you like to walk without air powered, gel-filled and steam pressured shoes instead using the simple sandals of Pontius Pilatus...?