How much money do you want to waste?

Yes, Viggen, I agree, until Stage 4 Enlightenment occurs (actually, beyond the initial Satori experience), the force of perception continues (this is beyond this forum, but, basically, thoughts arise and the meditative mind receptively traces this force back to its ground). Yes, any audio "ground of listening" that is attained still contains significant vestiges of this force arising. When you first sit down, it manifests predominantly through thought construction in an objective way, producing an instinct to make sound into objects. This level corresponds to our present stereo language using visually-orientated terms (in us, evolution has produced a predator with visual-orientated physical perception tied to objective cognition, so at the objective cognitive level of listening it is natural that we choose visual terms when decribing that perception, ie transparaency, detail, image, etc.). As you let go of the instinct to objectify perception (closing the eyes sometimes aids listeners because it detaches the visual from our cognitive objectifying tendancy)the "force" of thinking lessens. This lessening of force leads to a state of perception that also has a corresponding language. In this state of lessened force towards objectifying (no longer objectified in structure), emotive imagery becomes more predominant due to the relative absense of constructed thought. This level produces languages that are emotively-based. As one goes deeper, the abilty to capture the experience in language becomes more difficult (language is based on thought and as thought fades, the ability to structure the experience in thought becomes more difficult), but this does not negate the occurrence of the dynamic, nor its importance to understanding how listening occurs. Why is this important? Because until we admit that the experience of listening includes trans-cognitive levels, we will be unable to construct a further language to discuss our experiences. Certainly, as the experience deepens this person-to-person communication becomes more difficult, but that does not mean that we should claim that only objectifying cognition and its corresponding language exist (by categorizing all other voices as irrational).

Presently, this is what science does; attaches to the assumption that there is no reality beyond ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive, formal operational cognition. Although it is irrational to conclude that evolution stops at science's level of apprehension (notwithstanding millions of years of evidence to the contrary showing our cognition evolving, and notwithstanding the reduction of the exclusiveness of such thinking and its accordant method by Popper, Kuhn, Freyerabend, etc.), the scientifically attached continue to adhere to their assumptions - whose only purpose is to perpetuate itself and its attachment to the manipulation of matter.

This is reflected in the stereo microcosm by people claiming that only objectified knowledge of sound exists and is valid. Again, the question: Do you concede that a dynamic of perception exists characterized by a fading of cognitive force towards objectifying? If so, do you concede that these deeper levels are valid towards perception of truth/knowledge?

Simply because deeper levels still retain the "force" towards perception (a force that manifests as it arises in/as all levels of external-orientated perception - as opposed to meditative practice which is interior receptively focused upon the stream of thought-force), does not mean that those levels contain constructed thoughts in objectified form.

Again, Viggen, this is much beyond this here. I have published articles on the mind's perception of music and would be interested in your comments. I e-mailed you asking if you would like to read them and offer any comments. Sincerely, I would be interested. If you still would, send me a FAX or address and I will send them to you. Regards, Mark.

Admittedly, I have little experience comparing different cables but as an electrical engineer, I would have to think that if the cable offers a small enough amount of resistance to provide a good damping factor, capacitance and inductance should be fairly neglegible in a practical system. Unless the cables are hideously poor in design, the differences should be vanishingly subtle. Besides, have you ever looked inside even high quality speakers? There's nothing magic in the way the signal gets transfered from the binding posts to the drivers. Why should external cables provide the missing "magic"?

And so it goes...

Jlambrick: you mean after 80 odd posts of ad hominem attacks and assorted sophistry you have the gall to bring up resistance, capacitance, inductance and evening damping? You should know that you are a lost objectivist. Haven't you read any of this stuff? Repent before it is to late! Next thing you know you'll be spouting mathmatics and speaking in other strange tongues. As an electrical engineer (you've actually made a profession of your objectivism) you are unqualified to opine on the audio mysteries. Put down the pitchfork and pick up some Valhallas.

Now that's FUNNY!! More of that, at least part of it...

Inductance, etc. is "good", just not ONLY inductance. jlambric makes a good inquiry, simply a partial one. His statement, however, that he has little subjective experience, yet,nonetheless,remains fully capable of saying that there should be no differences based on objective criteria (read: scientific)is illustrative of just what I've been talking about; namely, the position that believes objective criteria are exclusionary and dispositive regardless of other types of "perceptive evidence". Moreover, Clueless, your reaction, cloaked (well) in humor, argues my position: if anyone ever says that a scientific/objective inquiry of music is partial, or of anything else, then the objectivists MUST characterize that position as saying that no science is allowed - which, of course, is a mis-characterization. The mystery is why you would say that a discussion on the partiality of scientific inquiry necessarily implies a rejection of scientific inquiry. Why is a discussion of the limitations of science an "attack" upon science? But, like I said, its not much of a mystery. An objectivist can not examine his own premises and asumptions because that would mean he might have to experience something beyond them (see discussion above).

If you are going to characterize something as sophistry, though, it might be best to come out from behind humor when you do it. It's another one of those thorny authenticity/mis-characterization issues. But, it WAS funny, so I guess that makes it OK...