Schroder sq and the new talea

Atmasphere: This is from Wikipedia's description of "The Power of Now" - "he prefers Being as "an open concept," something "it is impossible to form a mental image of" and which "does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity."
It also states "the book avoids intellectual discussion and argument. He tries not merely to present the reader's mind with information, which the mind might find interesting, or might not, which it might agree with, or disagree with".

And it says the author hopes it will "play its part in … the transformation of human consciousness,"

Just from reading this description I can see that this book is a product of modern philosophy - it commits all the same errors. For one, the notion of something beyond reality (as perceived and understood by man's consciousness) with no evidence or argument supporting this notion, which implies that man's mind (reason) is impotent and we should blindly accept this "Being". And what does he mean when he states he wants to "transform consciousness"? Humans are entities of a specific nature - as with all entities the law of identity applies (Aristotle)to us - including our consciousness which operates by specific means (concepts) to understand reality. How is he going to "transform" that?

I consider philosophy to be the most important of subjects - it is the forest whereas the special sciences are the trees. But modern philosophy is in a terrible state. As an antidote, I suggest you read Ayn Rand.

Atmasphere, just briefly (...;-) ...) - your remark

Not withstanding the pun, you have it exactly backwards. Thought is the product of the mind. But you are not your mind. Your mind is simply a tool, albeit one that tries to convince that you that it is you. When you experience this, perhaps it will be easier to understand.

does miss the one specific point in the short latin phrase....
The fact that the ego realize that he/she is actually able to reflect/think leads to the realization of his/her own existence. We have no chicken vs egg situation here were it is to dispute which produces what. Thinking is a process of our self while we are "living" in this sphere. Its not about which is the product of what. One just leads to the self-acknowledgement of the other.

IOW, it is possible to silence the mind with a simple technique, and simply Be.

So when you get that thought can be silenced and that consciousness remains, it is *then* that you experience the human spirit- yourself. This is not possible as long as the mind is not stilled.

Well, we have seen a good many politicians - each side of the Atlantic - the past years who proved themselves "true experts" in the described process to silence any thought ( in themselves...). However - if it lead to any positive results for them or us, then I missed it...... I sometimes stood frozen in absolute amazement, but that wasn't really going hand-in-hand with any positive feeling.

And -

I am simply pointing out that if you can still the mind, the creative powers awaken and are 10 times more powerful. If you are to make a better arm, it seems like this might be useful.

well, if I were to exercise Sumi-e painting, I would agree.
But designing a tonearm for me is an act of engineering. It is a technical tool - and as such it needs the full attention and control in the process of a fully awaken mind. But maybe that "creative power" is the reason why we have such a wide variation in tonearm designs. Maybe a bit more focus and a bit less "creative" would be helpful - is it possible ?
Finally - to anticipate a phrase which will be directed towards me before long in a discussion about tonearm design - , I know that "many roads lead to Rome". But only one road leads direct to the center and to the Forum Romanum....

Dgarretson, Atmasphere started with a brief exploration of how the groove is actually made. Why now following this path all the way - it would directly lead to an extensive and maybe complete blue book.
To design the tonearm which really addresses all issues it is helpful to identify all issues first before musing about what bearing principle, armwand, effective length etc is necessary. The demands of the tracking process do lead to the solution. Once all demands are identified the design will determine itself.
This might not be the "creative approach" of an audiophile designer, but it is the approach of an engineer.
BTW - I have made that "tonearm blue book" for myself and have already sold the complete design. So we will see in physical form my idea of a pivot tonearm ( which addresses all issues of the process known to me ) by autumn next year. Hey - maybe that's just in time for RMAF 2011 .......

Nandric: yes, I know that you are a scientific materialist...that's OK too.

When I got up this morning I thought about saying to you that you should just ignore my last post, because I did not want to push you. I wish that I'd had that time - at the last minute I had to go to work - because I regret that you have chosen to respond to me by saying that I lack the needed knowledge to discuss these things with you, and chose to pick up your math-language sword. I actually wish that I could meet you, and Derto, and...I suspect that our words would vanish, into community. At least, that is my hope.

Lew, I can tell that your statements to me on the brain are genuinely tied to your personal experience. No, I have not expierienced that particular, deep pain (I did have lung cancer when I was 28 and lost a piston, but watching the pain in a loved one is certainly more difficult). So, I understand the empathic force within your statement...

I will try to tread lightly in my response. If one assumes that thought and its conscious ground emanate from the brain (the material is the primary causal ground), then it is common that that same mind, when confronted with a possibility that matter is not primary, tends to then cascade into a conclusion that that possibility necessarily implies that the matter does not exist (i.e. your instruction to me that observing the material detereoration of the brain-thing proves that the brain-matter exists, which I agree that it does).

But I did not say that the possibility of trans-cognitive perception, or the state of no-thought mind, implied that the brain matter did not exist. It is not an either/or situation.

There are a few possibilities, I suppose.

There is the possibility that consciousness exists as the causal ground of brain-matter, integrally tied, with that matter as a nexus. Or - causality turned around - that there is the possibility that the brain is the material, causal animator of thought/consciousness, still integrally tied in operation.

I had a theory on it once, that was both and neither of the above, but it is not something I can prove to anyone and it just seems to whip up the pitch forks these days (from the feudal hamlet at the base of the mountain...). And, to be honest, that just wears me out. Basically, once you know what the answer is, you sorta lose the desire to think about it too much more. Or, it could be that I just got too old!! (ask me when I'm dead...:0).

Which brings me to this: its been fun, really. I saw some brilliant people here and wanted to meet them, thats about all. And I truly feel positive towards everyone - yes, Nandric, you too! But I think that everyone has had their fair say, so let's put it down, bow to each other, and promise to meet later.

So, now, will you help me?

I asked Derto, and he was kind in his candid opinions, which have helped me, but I would also like the opinions of Nandric, Raul, Syntax (you are out there, right?) and the others, who know a lot more about tonearms than me.

I have a Graham 2.0 on a TNT4 with a Cardas Heart cartridge. I know, not up to many of your rigs and a bit dated in that context, but I do have the opportunity to upgrade to a Phantom II at a very nice price and would be intersted in all of your opinions. Some have said that there is not much difference, others love the new MkII arm. My arm is rewired with Discovery copper wire (done by the first owner) and I've always thought that, notwithstanding the copper, I was still working against a certain tendancy towards harmonic thinness in the 2.0, so wonder what you all think.

I realize that I have done my fair share of thread hi-jacking here, and this Graham thing is not the Talea topic, but a quick comment would be great.

M-

Concepts and relations, I think that we mostly think as we
are teached to do. In some sence we think as we speak. We
are programmed with our native lanquage and progrmamed with
our education. Is a student capable to question his teachers? Think about 'my' (aka Marx) sheep. We are talking
about 'his qualitys ' as: 'has quality a,b,...c. Even ín
terms of 'tasty'. Aristoteles was I think aware about the
fact that a object 'has' more quality then,say, just one.
But if one quality is assumed to be 'essential' what about
the other qualitys. Well he provided a way out for him self
and us. The other (possible) qualitys are then accidental.
Have you ever heard in your education about those?
We in Europe thought about Aristoteles as about the sheep.
What 'quality' has Aristotele. Well he was 'the truth'. Ie
the greatest mind of all times in Europe. What was our conseption of 'the truth'? well: veritas est auctoritas.
The truth is the authority. So Aristotels dominated our education for more then 2000 years and in some diciplines
still does. I am not familiar with American educational system but if 'it' is different then I don't believe that
American can comprehend his influence.
In my education those 'essences' were everywhere. Say: what
is the essence of collective ownership of the production means(in Yugoslavia) versus the essence of state ownership
in the USSR. Well of course the our kind was much better ,
more social and essentialy more true to the workers.
Why is it the case that we never heard something about those 'accidental qualitys'. Well those were obviously not
important. Ie not essential.
There are some moments in life that the Germans call Aha Erlebnis .say, Heureka ( no idea what the English phrase is).My first was this 'Marxian sheep'. I got the picture
so to speak. Sheep and man are both objects so there is
RELATION between them. Well I am originaly from the Balkans so I know something about this relation. It is
the man who decides what qualitys a sheep 'has'. Ie the
man attrubutes qualitys a,b,c..n to the sheep but his
description of those is : has the qualitys such and such.
But what about the sheep? In what sence are those qualitys
'inherent','essential' or 'atherent' in the sheep on its own as a separate object? Well we are obviously not used to
think in RELATIONAL terms so we are adding up on concepts.
But concepts and relations are different logical tools.
Thanks to Galileo physics was liberated from Aristoteles
in ,say, 16 century. What about Humanoria?
My second Heureka was by reading Quine and his 'fight' against Essentialist. Btw I think or wish that Quine is a
Dutch descendant (see his full name) so we can put him next to Brouwer to tease the Germans.He described man as
a 'featherless biped' and asked the question: in what sence is biped accidental?' And I will add: do we need
some new biology?
Freges new logic (is the 'father of') is the liberation of
Aristotels logic. But it seems to me that this fact is not
generaly known.
Regards,