How much money do you want to waste?

1.machines, audio gear, are examples of rearranged materials, resulting from technology.
2.anti-megabuck cable buyers claim cables and electronics that are equal in monetary costs are not equal monetary and intrinsic values.
3.people in arguement two are objectivists who claim there are absolutes in terms of matter arrangements.
therefore,
4.objectionist are irrational.

I think this arguement is irrational.

Sorry, just stirring the pot.

Note: There is a difference between the validity of objective evidence - the continuum of "technology" from Homo habilis, reaching for a bone and rearranging its matter by carving, to the rearrangement of silicon, etc on a computer chip - and the ATTACHMENT to that cognitive ability, or an attachment to the products of that attachment, namely, the rearranged matter. These are two entirely different kettle of fish. Scientific-derived knowledge is valid for its purposes as a discipline; the exclusive attachment to it by the individual mind is irrational.

When I go deeply into the music and the force of my thinking fades as I let go of my habit of objectifying things I want to see and manipulate, in that state absent objectfying cognition, have I ceased perceiving? Is a perception absent objectifying valid?

An objectivist always believes that when you challenge the validity of an ATTACHMENT to scientific objectivism that you are attacking the validity of scientific knowledge itself and in its entirety. What I am challeging is peoples' minds' attachment to scientific knowlege as exclusive knowledge, its partiality, not its validity in whole. It gives great knowledege about matter, but the listening to stereo is not just about equipment, or producing a stereo soundfield populated with detailed sound sources that "look" like things, but about the mind's ability to seep deeper into the music by transcending the attachment to objectifying sound into a thing. This deepening - and I challenge any objectivist - is characterized by the "letting go" of the attachment to thinking, namely, objective thinking.

Viggens response reveals an interesting bias.

Whenever you say something about the limitations of objective knowledge, those ATTACHED to scientific materialist assumptions claim that you are saying that objective knowledge itself is invalid/irrational in whole. I'm not saying that: I'm saying that the mind's attachment to it is irrational because it denies all perception beyond itself.

Sympotomatically, Viggen, you say that "rearranged matter results from technology", as if "technology" was a thing separate from the matter. "Technology" is not a thing; it is an abstraction. I am saying that "Technology" IS ONLY rearranged matter and the objectivists making it into a thing, as their totem to pray to, is symptomatic of the irrationality described above.

To go deeper into the Music, you must let go of your attachemnt to control the music through your objectifying mind. No objectivist-attached mind who listens to music can deny the validity of this dynamic of the listening mind because he/she is performing the experiment UPON themselves!

And this is why I find the Hi fi microcosm so interesting: because the scientific-attached are finally performing an experiment on their own mind where they have to admit that their attachment to objective knowledge is partial. There does exist perceptive knowledge beyond thinking and the listening experience proves this, empirically, even to the thinking-attached.

So, here's the big question: if even the objectivists must admit that value exists in the non-thinking spaces of their listening mind as they deeply listen to music, then why, when they stop listening and start thinking and talking, are they suddenly once more arguing that nothing exists beyond that thinking? Answer: its the ATTACHMENT.

hmmm... the argurment I previously posted wasn't mine. It's Asa's arguement in simplified form.

I never really attempted to reduce human technology from a linear progressism to a circular attachment. I rather think the two goes hand in hand. On the same note, I deduce it's impossible for people such as audiogon members to listen to hi-fi without their objective goggles on: this isn't a symptom of technological attachment, but it is their intrinsic want to improve their system to result in a no objective goggle-needed enjoyment so long as hi-fi is limited and inferior to reality.

Asa seems to bring up many intersting points tho, not just about audio, but about the overall faults in human nature as concluded by the Buddha and Lao Tzu: Buddha claims human cause pain to themselves when they require attachment to materialism, and Lao Tzu wants us to reduce our objectivity to nothing, wu-wei.

I often thought audio is some sort of western technology meets eastern philosphy type of soup.

First of all, one must agree that no cables in the world can make your system sound better. You pick the cable that can least degrade the sound coming out of your system.
On that basis, different cable design should sound differently in your system. How well you like each difference is entirely judge by your taste of sound, like cooking, some like it sweeter, some like it more salty. Since all cables are subject to electrical reactions, the same cable can sound different in your systems than in another system. Try connecting the same interconnects in different positions in your system, you will appreciate what I have just said. If you hear no difference at all, then, you are one of the luckiers ones who don't need to spend or shouldn't be spending anything on cables !

My point - without saying it - was that you, Viggen, mistated my argument. Thank you for your reasoned response. Yes, there is a relationship between the open-ness advocated in eastern philosophies and the receptivity, "letting go" to objective attachment, that I discussed regarding music listening (or any apprehension of "beauty"). They are the same things. I agree with you that our technology of stereo equipment will never approximate "Reality" (ignoring the fact that no-thing escapes from reality) in the sense that we will never, in an objective sense, copy music playing with a stereo rendition. However - and this is also an objectivist's bias - this contains another implicit assumption, namely, that it is impossible to replicate the EXPERIENCE subjectively. In other words, we should not only be trying to reproduce sound in an objective sense (sound), but also reproduce the dynamic of cognitive fading (receptivity)that occurs both in stereo listening and "real" (music) listening. When one accepts blindly the assumption that objective cues are most important then one, by default, assumes that the dynamic subjective experience can not be approximated to a greater and greater degree that exceeds the objective level's ability to approximate. I am saying that, yes, objective qualities are important - Science is important, objective thinking is important - but an attachment to believing that that is more important than the cognitive fading dynamic is irrational because it denies the nature of the experience in one's own mind as one listens to music. When the thinking-attached deny other potential experiences of reality because they are not objectively derived, they effectively deny the evidence of the listening experience that they themselves are engaged in. This is a denial of their own potential to listen deeper into the music, and into "Reality."