How much money do you want to waste?

1. rationalism isn't the intermediary step between objectivism and subjectivism. It is the root of both. Without rationalism, where are objective and subjective notions from?

2. I have no idea what points you are making, and I read your post atleast 5 times already, ezmeralda.

Clueless, Kant studied to be a lawyer before Hume's writings inspired him to be a philosopher. Since he would probably claim there is no primary or a priori cause that a cable would improve the sound of a system, one would assume he'd go for the cheap radioshack stuff. But, I believe Kant to be an open minded person, or else he wouldn't have accepted the thought that people are born with innate ideas that are not derived from the real world. Thus, he'd still buy radioshack cables because Kant was a poor man.

Ok no more talk about philosophy. Fun while it lasted. But like all good things, it must come to an end. Why? Who knows. Just to answer some of your questions, Anton something, father of surrealism, coined the word surrealism, meaning super real, suggesting the subconscious contains a view or reality that is more real than real reality. Physical and metaphysical in the Aristotleian sense. Sight-seeing is what tourists do. Synthetic ideas is a concept created by kant: new ideas are created by combining older ideas. Anywho, bye!

No cable can improve the sound of your system. They all can degrade the signals coming from your source. Go find the one cable/s with construction and configurations to work best with your system. Once they work in good synergy, these new cables have become part of your good sounding system !

Hey Viggen, it looks like you've found a friend! :) On definitions, yes, I know, but the context of where words are placed changes their meaning, ie words are not things separate from their contextual ground...like objects are not separate from space, or sound is not separate from silence, or thoughts are not separate from the causal ground of silence in the mind from which they arise... somthing I think I've been talking about. Hmmm...

For example, if you place the word surreal-ism, indicating a school of thought, and place it in juxtaposition to a claim of dream-like irrationality, then one assumes that you are talking about something different than Kant's terms, which are mentioned, vaguley, obtusely, in the previous paragraph.

I sent you an e-mail if you care to continue. Cheers.

Incidentally, my question still remains outstanding. This is no "philosophy" here but a very simple inquiry that we all can have an opinion on because we all listen to music:

When I listen and begin to seep deeper into the music and my thoughts fade in their influence, and I stop listening with my thinking and instead listen with a mind without thoughts, am I still perceiving? Is the experience of listening that I am having a valid one, or irrational because it doesn't include thinking about music?

Asa, how did the dogs let you back in this post? = D

In regards to language, there has been a great deal of debate about how it is used in the realm of philosophy since the great Buddha (one of the first major philosophies to cross over to cultures of varied language and metaphysical understandings). Even modern philosophers such as Wiggenstein and Lacan have delved into the importance of language being used to describe topics of philosophies such as sansara, wu-wei, unconditional regard, and a few terms that has been adopted by audio manufacturers such as sunyata and satori. To understand each of these terminologies, one must, or at least I have, read hundreds of pages of primary and secondary texts to get a crutons worth of empathy for the "philosopher".

And you want me to qualify the text I used in my previous posts? I once did that for a 3 page essay because my professor, snob from Stanford, disagreed with my arguements, so the paper turned into a 15 page research paper (he still gave me a B for the paper, bastard).

I haven't received your email yet, so I am sticking to the post. First I must qualify that your questions are fascinating and requires some thought before answering, but I am impatient so here goes:

My assumption is that it is possible to temporarily forget your objectivity. However, your mind never stops doing three things unless you achieve satori sainthood: perceiving, interpreting perceptions and reinterpreting perceptions. You only temporarily perceive without using objective-goggle.

This brings up an interesting new/old audio dichotomy: Objectivity vs subjectivity. But I dont want to get into now.

Welcome back, haha.