TW-Acustic Arm

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.

Dear Thucham& Dertonarm, There is also much joy and fun in discussing in 'general' in this forum. I personaly enjoy to
readLewn,Carr,Dertonarm,Mikelangvine,Doug ,Thucham.etc.etc. for pure,say, intellectual reasons. It is not only about analog gear. There are many 'technical subjects' that are to complex for me to comprehend. But even so I very much enjoy reading about them . There are many inquisitive minds in our forum eager to post their knowledge and experience. We are, I assume, thankful for this shering. But there is no need ,I think, to become skeptical or even sarcastic about our gear. The most of us are very awere about the price-quality relation. I.e. the most of us can't afford those prices. One can of course dream about
winning the lottery and bay what ever one pleases but I don't belive that there are many who realy belive such an 'proposition'. So Thucham don't get 'sarcastic'. I have,btw, no worry about Dertonarm. Hi is 'indestructable'.
Regards,

Dear Thuchan, sorry to burst the bubble, but those plain and maybe quite uncomfortable sandals you are referring to, did conquer europe while covering the feet of the roman legions.
They did it without air cushioned heels and they did it the hard way. With attention to detail, discipline and great engineering (first phonton-bridge over the Rhine, superb aqueducts all over southern europe - some still standing after two milleniae).
So those sandals or the attitude going with them back then would just look great on some audio designers today.
Yes, it is of course fun discussing our toys.
But we are hardly discussing them.
The attention today is too much circled around the toys "per se" and discussion means different opinions. Different opinion about a component means heading straight into the mine-field of hurt feelings.
Quod erat demonstrandum in disputa ...........