Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Yes, detlof, all thinking is only pointing, at least at it relates to "essense". But pointing is good, as long as you know you are pointing; as long as you know sytemizing cogniton is pointing at "essense". Its great for making widgets though! And, as i said, it can be fun.

Don't beat me up too much on the jung, ok? Look forward to your thoughts, as always.

BTW, on your first 10-3-02 response to mine and Clueless's yapping: exceedingly lucid and diplomatic, in the best sense of the word. I'm jealous actually; makes my rambling look over-wrought, which, perhaps, it is...

Clueless: one thing I forgot (oh God, NO, he says!!): in first post, "irrelevant" was meant to apply in a different way, not to all science, so to speak. My first post was not meant to be rigorous, but actually, to spark dialogue - which, hmmm, it seems to have done. To all of our benefit, I think. Anyway, I can see how it catalyzed you to jump on it and i would have written it better if I had to do it again. Like I said, we pretty much agree on things, just from a little different tangent of "pointing".

Asa, a wire and an amp do not both 'pass energy'. A wire simply dissipates energy and an amp converts energy from one form to another. Thay aren't really similiar.

steve

Asa--your thoughts on Jung - and since you've brought them up here, ( Arnie please forgive us ) and dear brothers in arms here on A. please have patience - here is an attempt at a response:
Reading between your lines, which essentially and as far as I am able to understand them, are not off the mark, I suddenly have the suspicion, reading your criticism of Jung the man, eg.: " his perception was not stable, due to significant degrees of remaining "ego distortion"..... and later again "--J. perceptive applications into theory, that were incongruent with his daily behavior" , that in your value system, you are either "enlightened" or a "predator", and you ( rightly so of course, if I have understood you correctly) fault both Jung the man and his theories as well, of being inconsequential so to speak. You are right, Jung was neither Buddha or Christ. On the contrary, he wanted to make his place in the world, rise from his small beginnings into the spheres of the haute bourgeoisie and heal the wounds which his psychosis struck him, by turning his expierence into a goldmine of concepts and ideas, which not only was a rather successful and heroic attempt at selfhealing but also laid the foundation for "analytic psychology", the fruits of which obviously give nourishment to many. What started with his "septem sermones ad mortuos" and ended with his dream about a tree bearing fruit frozen, which nourished a multitude of people, one may rightly call a descensus ad inferos, a stepping into the darkness, a road to possible enlightenment on the one hand. His making a professorship out of it, his thirst for recognition, his harem of valkyries, the institutionalysing of it, can be looked upon as a predator's betrayal.
I don't know Asa, if my translation of the feeling content underlying your thoughts is correct. If it is not, you need not to read further. Our concepts of man, obviously differ. Perhaps this is no coincidence, that I give SS a chance next to tubes in opening the road to true musicality, because I hold it with Luke,chaper 16 in the New Testament, that you have to predate on the world, not only to feed you, but more importantly even, to hold your deeper inner treasures safe from the world and alive. I do not see a dychotomy in the two forms of perceptive experience, I see it rather as paradoxical form of existence, which everyone of us must live in, suffer in and balance out for us, as best as we can. We will starve,though obviously on different levels, if we only live one side. Jung, who was not a small man by any means, throws a large shadow, as he once dreamt of himself, but there was also tremendous light behind him, to make that happen. Those who knew him, when he was in the last few years of his life, descibe him as a witty, still immensely curious and lively old shaman, with a trickster's twinkle in his eyes. So I reckon, he must have been fairly content with the balancing act, which was his life. Cheers,

Detlof. Yes, you misunderstood me. I did not mean to reduce Jung's contribtions to the evolution of collective consciousness - which I consider significant - through a categorization of either "enlightened" or not. While it is true that one is either "enlightened or not, there are graduated levels on the path towards that level (which is actually the ground of all levels); just like there are graduated levels in traditional psychology from pre-natal to formal operational levels; we can graduate, for discussion sake, the levels that are not presently recognized just like we have already done with the traditional ones. However, at post formal operational levels, cognitive development takes a back seat to empathic identification, or permeability of self to "other". The nature of permeability is acceptance of the world in the now and as permeability increases predatory remnants fade; it is not a separate dynamic. That Jung was at a transitionary level between one level and another (a varying dynamic of predatory instinct and permeability) does not necessarily imply that he was either at post formal operational or "enlightened" and no other levels are possible. The assumption that you are either at the present level recognized by psychology or at some other-worldly "enlightenment" state is a bias of the current paradigm - both scientific, psychologic and Judeo-Christian; it is the dividing of the world into earth and heaven with no path between (which is not what Gautama Siddhartha or Jesus said, regardless of teachings that grew up afterwards from egocentric minds). I would note that if Jung had accepted the current paradigm as it existed around him, he would have never embodied the "light" you speak of, which as you note is exactly what he did do. With that said, "Light" translates all the time, through all levels; that's what moves it along; that's each level's ground. Your given permeability to your "light" is in direct proportion to your seeing of the "light" outside the self (in environment or "other"); again, and not coincidentally, it is not a separate dynamic. If you assume in thought constructs that the the "light" outside is the predator of your self, then that is the world you will live in; your assumption in thought makes it so. "God" is very accommodating that way. That the world may tack you up to a cross for saying that the world is all Light does not make you the predator of that world. No one ever said it would be an easy path...

As for stereo, it does not make you more "permeable" to the "other"; it has no function of self-observation. So, the assumption that I meant that deeper levels of stereo listening are synonomous with post formal operational levels of perception in non- stereo listening modes is, again, misplaced. Listening to stereo does not "make you" able to "see" more. That's why I said this had little to do with stereo, and offered apologies which I hereby renew, and why all reactions to what I've previously said on liatening levels - which tried to say that I was saying that it was "value" judgement - were similarly misplaced.

Now here's the interesting part. It is very clear from our discussions - the integrated form of your thought, the striving for belonging-ness between people, the default to poetic lucidity when rigid formulation looses its power, the awe before beauty - that you yourself are not at the current traditionally recognized level (I think Maslow's authentic level is about as close as traditonal psychology may venture), even though in thought construction you opt for an assumption that denies where you are and are going. Hmmm...

I always learn from what you say detlof. You know, apart from all these words - like mice running through a block of swiss cheese looking for the Cheese! - we never disagree at all. Many thanks for your response.

leme: each is a lattice of energy (energy coalesced as matter) that acts as a conduit for the passing of other symmetries of energy (electric). I didn't intend to imply that different rearrangements do not effect that transference in different ways - directivity, etc. - but that at a fundamental level they are the same and that scientific positions premised upon the manipulation of energy/matter (scientific materialism) are irrational when they claim that they are fundamentally different based on their surface appearance.

Like Muralman, your point MAY be that such a bias may exist in some - which, if you look at my first post was all I was trying to say - but that, regardless, such rearrangements at our hands DO produce different results. And, moreover, we can draw strong correlations in patterns between complexity vs. performance. As I said, I agree, but point out that the experience of listening is the final arbitor.

I know what you mean: that wire is "passive" towards the energy that passes through it, while we have purposely rearranged amp-matter to be "active" towards the energy passing through it should make a difference, shouldn't it? But ask yourself, is a wire "passive"? A designer of wire might say that the rearrangement he constructs directly leads towards performance differences; same with the amp designer. So what is different?

A question: you say that wire only dissipates energy and an amp converts it. Without going into the semantics of the ACTIVE verbs "dissipates" and "converts", if wire only performs a dissipative function, then what is it that ends up at the speakers, non-energy? If all is energy (Einstein, you remember him...), then what could possibly end up at the speaker that wasn't energy?

As energy passes through any other form of energy, it changes, not in nature but how it manifests to us. There is no "perfect" wire. How you rearrange that matter (design a la Homo faber)effects transference and, accordingly, our observations of them, in listening or a "scientific" experiment.

Question: if amp-matter is designed by us to "convert" energy, and wire is designed by us to "transfer" energy (dissipation occuring from both forms BTW, regardless of our design intentions...), then does our design intent make wire "less" a consideration in system construction than an amp? In other words, by differentiating varrying ways we've designed our components to behave - both, as I've shown to be "active" upon the energy they pass - then arent we just right back to the complex/less complex argument?

Here's what people have been trying to say to me:

An amp, by the way it more "complexily" and "actively" acts upon the energy passing through it, is more important than wire in constructing a system.

My response: yes, but less so as the instrument/system increases in resolving power; in systems that are analytically focused, wire is only needed to transfer "detail", but in more advanced systems, wire is needed to transfer both detail and more subtle nuances.

Interestingly, those who argue for analytic systems and are attached to scientific explanations are the same people who say wire doesn't make a difference, attempting to categorize wire-matter as fundamentally different to perfect that argument.

Coincidence?