Schroder sq and the new talea

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,

Yes, programming...

But I don't see sheep as objects, they are not rock-things; love me, love my sheep, love the Earth...most of my final interests, before I quit reading, were in radical ecology and the co-evolution between human and non-human consciousness. BTW, I did my post-doc graduate work at LSE - a bastion of Marxism, or so it believes of itself, at least back then (before the City took over...) - so I'm not sure how far the Euro-centric assumptions go. One has to be careful about those things. Aristotle might have cautioned on this (if he could ever stop categorizing on his way towards looking for essenses; like a mouse running through the holes in the cheese looking for the cheese.).

Nandric, I'm curious. What area of physics do/did you work in? You mention particle/wave physics, so I thought maybe there. Cosmology too? BTW, have you guys found that graviton yet? :0)

And, hey, what about my Graham? Cough it up!

M-

Dear Nandric, man's status as "featherless biped" is not accidental. It is a result of biological reaction to environmental conditions in the time line. The pressure to survive by change. As thus it is a - preliminary ... but status quo - result of evolution.
It freed two of our legs from carrying our body to become finally hands which enabled us to shape the world and move to the top of the food chain.
The apparently missing "feathers" are no loss ( yes, we can't fly just by the abilities of our body, but maybe the birds aren't all that happy about their ability either - who knows ...) - flying is pretty boring and the hands can do so much more.
Aristoteles' inherent quality ( there I go again...) or essence of objects still rules my view of the world.
As concerning the sheep .... well it is the matter of the sheep. In other words - it is the sheep's responsibility and solely right to judge, quantify or qualify itself. Quid pro quo - as we claim that right for us, it is only fair to assign it to the sheep too.

Asa, given the price you are going to pay for the Phantom 2, you simply can't loose. So I just would give it a try and take your chance for a direct first hand experience and comparison of the 2.0 and Phantom 2 on your table, with your cartridge and your set-up.
If it doesn't work out for you in your set-up, - just resell the Phantom 2 and put a few hundred $ in your pocket next to the gained experience and knowledge.
Whatever other people tell you about their experience is always a result of their preferences, their set-up, their individual reception, their taste in music AND sound. These are not transferable in any way and unless you do not know the other person really well and are familiar with their taste and set-up, their recommendations are for you just empty balloons.
Regards,
D.