Greg: I agree with everything you've said. I got into this thread because some people who think wire is over-priced (yes, wire is over-priced, based upon your same reasoning regarding complexity of manufacture)but then, to perfect their argument, try to use their knowledge of science to say that, ergo, wire doesn't matter, or is not a "component"; a reductionism that the rules of science themselves don't allow. I don't like smart people picking on someone else with a body of knowledge (like lawyers do with their acquired vocabulary...)that is then used in such a way that is contrary to that very knowledge. Its obfuscation for the purpose of dominating someone else. The fact that they then call you "bullying" is somewhat ironic.
On the "Guru": yes, if you see the Buddha in the road, or the guru, kill him. Its strange: reality is suseptible to mathematical imposition, revealing truths about matter and energy and their forces, but to know "beauty" you yourself must make that journey, and the guru, ultimately, can not "tell" you, only point in the direction (hence, finally, to "see" you must "kill" your attachment to him seeing for you). We are all pointing for each other here, except when some try to use their scientific intellect to intimidate others who want to see more "beauty". But, different knowledge is state-specific, meaning that when you are attached to some type of knowledge that very attachment keeps you from seeing further possibilities, both in yourself and the world. This is where "science" is: claiming that there is no truth discernible outside scientific truth (materially/externally focused), effectively negating all future possibilities or capacities for truth, notwithstanding its own evolutionary evidence that says all knowledge evolves beyond its own parameters, always its core truths being integrated into the next, and even in the face of its own reductionist method turned back upon itself to reveal it own limitations (Popper, Kuhn etc; the seed for every next level contained in the power of the last). People who claim that only science (read: measurement/quantification externally applied) can tell us if wire has "truth" vis-a-vis a system of "components" are the same people, unknowingly, attached to the above scientism. And that is why scientism is just another ideology coersively attempting not to change towards seeing more - not coincidentally, just like medieval mythological theism attemted to do with the emergence of scientific method and its truth. The guru only points; people must have the courage to step beyond the illusory comfort of their self-limiting ideologies in order to see farther.
Yes, if the Dominus makes the system sing - you see more beauty than with a more "complex" component, thereby rendering it more "functional" experientially - then what do you do? A Van Gogh painting is only a mix of paint swirls - its molecular construction is less complex - but does that make it less able to translate "beauty"? Is "complexity" in matter, although a consideration, nonetheless secondary to the "functional" result in listening of that construction? Even in science, isn't the result of the experiment, observed by the comparing mind, determinitive of the technolgy used to achieve that result? If you contend the opposite, aren't you being, in fact, un-scientific? And if you are claiming to be the bearer of scientific sobriety, while at once violating the very rules you hoist upon others, aren't you being irrational, that irratioinality fueled by you desire to be secure in your set of ideas, however misplaced? And, doesn't the need for security, the desire to be safe from other ways of thinking beyond your own, manifest, behaviorily, in a subsequent attack on all those who might point towards something more?
Wire, amp, price, pragmatism, a balancing that sees what is true in the moment of experience of listening and does not deny that truth, or its possibility, in default to fear of that possibilty - the Middle Path.
