Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Ok, from there, if we agree that amps and wire are both made of varying complexities of rearrangement, and that varying degrees of complex cognitive application are required for each varying symmetry, ie. its takes more complex thinking to design and construct an amp than a piece of wire, then does this necessarily imply that 1) wire is not a "component" or 2)that wire is "less" of a component than an amp (Clueless' conclusion after his experience with less and more complex tools)?

Since we seem to agree that wire is rearranged matter just like an amp and is subject to some consideration, the question then becomes: how much relative to more complex tools that it fits between?

Points to consider:

1) It is important to differentiate between the above reference between "design" and "construct". In other words, a design may be more creative even though the resultant tool is less relatively complex in its construction. For instance, if I build an amp that merely copies a 1930 design, is it a more "complex" design than a design of a piece of wire that incorporates new ideas on electro-magnetism and/or quantum fluctuations? I have pointed out that people attached to the scientific materialist bias cited above tend to default to a position that looks to the construction complexity as opposed to the design complexity in cognitive-creative terms. But since creating the amp/wire begins in the mind, wouldn'y it be more logical, even more accurate, to say that the "complexity" of a "component" begins in its design, rather than in the result of that design as constructed in matter?

2)Ok, apart from 1) above, arguendo, let's assume that the creativeness is equal in an amp vs. wire design. Does that difference in complexity make the amp more important in performance criteria than the wire? Clueless seems to say so, but what if, in performance, and regardless of the complexity in design or construction of either, the wire produces a greater accurate musicality jump in the system?

3) So, given the evident answer to 2) above, namely that performance is LOGICALLY the final arbiter beyond design and construction issues and their accordant complexity, or lack thereof, how important is "complexity" of matter rearrangement (the complexity of the construction of the stereo piece) in determining the importance of any given insertion of a stereo piece into a sysytem?

4) Is there any person who has collected the experience to be able to "construct" a state-of-the-art system who would ever say that wire isn't extemely important in the resultant sound of such system? If, in practice, this opinion is predominantly true for such demographic of users, then what possible validity, in practice, can the position hold that says that "complexity" in construction is determintive? If, empirically, I observe a sample of results ( advanced system constructors who say wire is critical) and I determine that this response/observation is consistent over time, then isn't my ignoring the results of this empiric observation (in default to my assumption that construction "complexity" is determinitive) itself un-scientific?

So we understand this time around, the operative term is "determitive". I agree that a strong correlation exists between design creativity and/or construction complexity and that these "scientific" factors are important to look at. The quetion is, can a bias in this direction as cited above be supported in logical, experential or even scientific ways? Or rather, is a continued adherence to this bias more symptomatic of an attachment to the rearrangement itself, and hence, an attachment to scientific materialist assumptions?

Just some things to consider.

Oops, I just stumbled over Clueless' and Asa's argument. Its late here in Europe and I'm too tired to give it the serious thought it deserves. Will have to pospone it. At first glimpse, it seems that both are right, only their viewpoints are basically different and since I'm trained in neither, I swim in deep water....As far as I can see, Asa's point is philosophical, epimistological, following the lines of theory of knowledge. (Erkenntnistheorie, as we call it here). And from this point of view, he is of course absolutely right and it is an elegant argument to my mind, because it seems not to be concerned with the complexity of both forms of "matter" in question and rightly so, to my simple way of thinking, because "science" only knows what it can know within its concepts and do we really know, all that is going on in a wire, passing a signal, or in an amp, for that matter?

Clueless, as I understand him, also makes perfect sense to me, because he seems to argue on the basis of what is known about the functionings of amps and wires and hence it seems reasonaable to say, that the goings on within an amp are more complex than in a piece of wire.

Funny, though, I still, probably naively, prefer Asa's point of view, because intuitively I sense, that it encompasses both what is scientifically known and what is not. I leaves things open to the searching mind: Both wire and amp are forms of matter, about the goings in and about them, we don't really know very much. Since Heisenberg, Pauli and Jung we know, that the interaction of mind and matter can have an influence on both, where we don't know, what is egg and what is hen and what is doing what to which side. Of course we know a lot about what goes on in matter (Clueless), but since we do not really know what matter is in its essence, having no real Archemidian point outside of it, since yes, we are also part of it, Asa's view - in my naive understanding - puts amp, wire, the observing mind, all creation under the sun on one and the same level qualitatively. This makes for great openeness...also for the curious scientific mind.
Cheers,

You put Heisenberg and Jung together Detof? Interesting. I much prefer Jung as a man. I'm not trained in that as you are but I suppose I've read about half of his collected writing in amazement. An amazing life. Where do you think he stands as a psychologist(if you want to label him as such) in the 20th century if you don't mind me asking?

(Also, I think I misunderstood Asa more than disagreed with him and my point was epistemological in that you have to apply a system of thought where it is meant to be applied. Einstein if you want to know gravity, Q physics if you are subatomic, Newton's calculas if you want to go to the moon and yes, even audio has a certain structure all it's own too.)

Sincerely
I remain,

I still believe that the biggest problem we have in most fields of science is that we cannot get down to the smallest or most basic elements of physical existence. We try to measure what we cannot simplify. We still don't know the beginning or the end but we try to measure the middle.

Gad, in rereading my little piece, the old Latin saying comes to mind: " si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses"... if you had shut your mouth, you'd still be thought bright. But never mind. Now to get a bit off topic:
Clueless, the man Jung is indeed fascinating, much light and much shadow there, very much a child of his times and on the other hand breaking barriers and pushing into unknown territory. Not an easy man, powerful of mind and body and at the same time often rather petit bourgeous in his every day value system. Politically naive and his view on woman has the feminists aflame to this very day. I know Jungians here in Zurich, who acknowledge his greatness in his field, but dislike him intensely as a man. There is reason for both, to my mind. He has been very much mythologised, which is bad. Both sanctified and made a devil of. But he seems to fascinate people to this very day. I know, because I've lectured on him the last 35 years and have seen generations of students both fasinated as well as apalled.
As far as Heisenberg is concerend, Jung himself mentions him in his theory of synchronicity, which I have indirectly aluded to in my last post.
His psychology is still very much alive today, but in very different guises. His theory of transference and countertransference, certain basic aspects in the understanding of psychotic phenomina, his typology, his theory of the collective unconscious have formed rhyzomes in very different fields. So his thoughts live on, often under different names than his.

Nrchy, I feel as you do, since we are part of nature, we will never know the ESSENCE of nature, so in a sense, even a dyed in the wool "scientist" bases his reasoning on metaphysical premises, if he likes or knows it or not. At the same time, these reasonings are not moot, because they advance our knowledge within the boundaries of our fields. What has to be fought against and refuted, though, I find, are the absolutists, who cannot differentiate between essence and outer form as it appears to our searching eyes. This seems to me, given that I understand him correctly, also Asa's point. Cheers,
Cheers