Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

If you don't like it, turn the channel - you know, to Nickolodean or something comparable. Besides, psych, and speaking for myself, I won't "lock" it unless we get some of your deservedly famous humor with the request. You know, that might have done it...

I don't want to drift back into something, but can someone explain to me something that I've never understood.

How can anyone who is interested in "scientific" explanations somehow differentiate one technology from another based entirely on irrelevant variables. In other words, both a piece of wire and an amp are just pieces of matter rearranged into different LOOKING forms, both which pass energy (music signal) through a lattice of molecular/atomic/quantum energy which we choose to call "matter". If you are a true scientific person, then how can you say one rearrangement of matter is the "source" and another is the mere conduit for that source, as if one appearance is somehow inherently more important than another? In a Newtonian way, how are they different?

These discussions always go on and on because a fundamental bias of one side is not recognized, namely, the categorization of one type of rearranged matter (amp) as "technology" and another type of rearranged matter (wire) as, somehow, not technolog-ic. So, am I to believe that amp-matter passing energy is different than wire-matter passing energy? To contend so, merely on surface appearance, is truly un-scientific.

I know it sounds like I'm trying to be abstract, but actually there is nothing more simple: It's all matter and its all passing energy; the "source" is the voice; the source of that voice is the mind; wire and amps are conduits of that mind and, in their fundamental nature, are no different for purposes of comparison (which is where every empiric observation begins).

If you believe that amp-matter is more of a "component" than wire-matter, then you are engaged in an irrational bias. All viewpoints which thereafter proceed from this irrationality are, inherently, irrationally premised.

Nothing is more logical than that.

Sean: yea, I agree. Wire is over-priced. If you can make it yourself and be happy with the result why in heavans would anyone pay someone else lots of money? Makes sense to me.

Clueless: thank you for the effort of your response. Actually I agree with most everything you say. You assume a difference because you make an assumption about what I said that is, er, fundamentally misplaced. I never said that applications of method and observation don't change as symmetries of complexity in matter arrangement change. Of course they do; everyone knows that. What I said was that when applying empiric parameters to varying levels of matter complexity, those attached to scientific materialist assumptions tend to categorize those varying levels not on complexity, or an empiric application of method to that complexity, but rather, limit the categories that can even be compared in the first instance (amp vs. wire) by categorizing wire-matter as something fundamentally different; so different that wire is not "technology" or a "component" and that anybody who receognizes this bias hiding behind abstractions is being un-scientific. We see this all the time in wire vs. amp discussions. Essentially, an assumptive bias runs throughout the relation of science and empiric method and technology that says that as complexity of the rearrangement increases (tools as rearranged matter work in concert, ie. a "machine") then, that rearrangement becomes more technolog-ic, and from that assumption, that the more complex rearrangement is "better". This then cascades into the reductionist assumption that the now "lesser" complex tool is too be dispensed in the categorization (wire is no longer a "component") which allows a complete reduction in its consideration. In other words, the discussion begins with an underlying assumption that wire is not "technologic" in any way and that those arguing from the contrary vantage are somehow being less "scientific" or empirically rigorous. None of this, of course, means that matter that manifests through our rearrangement into varying "complexities" does not respond to the application of scientific empiric method in differrnt ways.

However, I will note that, psychologically speaking, many people who are attached to scientific assumptions that negate matter rearrangement (tools/technology) that are less complex, are also the same people who invariably assume that anyone citing that bias must be also saying that there are not any differences of application to varying symmetries of complexity, even though one may have never said that. In other words, if one cites the categorization bias above, then those attached to defending that bias always seem to come in and say that you are saying that all rearrangement is radically relative, when that was never said at all. That you did this may be a point of reflection...

On "Newtonian" etc., not enough space here. If you want to talk more on this, please contact me directly and I will respond. My name is Mark Bucksath. Again, thank you for your reasoned, well thought response; it was nice to see.

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.

I know this is an audio thread, but, guys who know lots more than me about Jung!! I can't resist an oppotunity to suck some knowledge out of someone else's head!

I certainly can't claim to have read a ton-o-Jung, but my share I suppose.

I see Jung as an individual had had transcedent peak experiences that disclosed to him certain deeper symmetries of perception that are integrated with "normal" cognitive functioning (Piaget's formal operational cognition) but that remain latent (Wilber's Centaur stage of transpersonl developement, which he got from someone else I can't remember); so-called trans-cognitive perceptive levels that are co-existent in operational function with "normal" levels (where ratio-empiric theories come from, BTW). However, his perception was not stable due to significant degrees of remaining "ego distortion" (which I would argue are prey/predator action-recoil reactions manifesting as so-called ego-centric behaviors). This stage of development has certain symptoms: as the cognitive functions move from concrete to systematic (what we are predominantly using here) to meta-systematic to paradigmatic (cognition integrating wider temporalities of human-centered "history") to cross-paradigmatic (temporalities integrating evolutionary span and generally less anthropormorphic) and the mind begins to both reduce and integrate at once, certain perceptions emerge. Namely, moments of perception of connectivity related to matter and change (physical matter/energy's relatiion to experience of temporality), or as Jung described it, "synchronicities". Other possible symptoms of such transitory perceptions are also the ability to watch the mind as it cognitively operates, disclosing archtypal matrices of the mind that, speaking in a collective sense, constitute evolutionarily-formed templates in the mind (and which, if you follow them back, exist after Kant's space/time matrix and Chomsky's language template, or lens, which is a term I prefer).

However, importantly, while these integral perceptions are revealed, and even can be further integrated into a theory on dreams (where the temporal projective force of cognition loosens, revealing "Jungian" archetpes, many times manifesting as mthic-magical images [hence, Campbell also being a Jungian]), these perceptions are not fully integrated into the developmental stage until ego distortions are themselves addressed. Hence, Jung's perceptive applications into theory that were incongruent with his daily behavior...

God! Clueless, please stop me!!! Many many apologies to everyone!

detlof and others who know more about Jung than I do, my apologies for my terminology that may not be the exact ones used by the "Jungian establishment." I think, detlof, you can still hear what I'm saying.

So, what's this got to do with stereo?!!! Well, nothing really, or maybe something. Just let some geeks have some fun for awhile! Be nice, ok...?

BTW, you can see "essense". The assumption that "essense" is unapproachable because you are part of "it" is misplaced and is based upon ratio-empiric perception assumptions. That level says that I can only see (only derive truth from matter mainipulation, hence, science) that is "outside" myself; so, ergo, if I am in it I can't see it. Sounds logical, but the problem is that you don't percieve "it", "it's" essense, with logic, or through the lens of its assumptions. You can percieve "essense"; admit the possibility and from that moment it starts; the denial of the possibility based upon logic exclusively IS the filter to that lens. Saint Augustine said, "close your eyes and step into the dark." The dark is not dark, it is not inherently unknowable, only your assumption makes it so 9argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours...).

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".

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?

Ok, Ok, the subphase pathologies of the scientific ones have taken about all they can muster, so unless someone else wants to prolong Psych's crushing angst as I'm leaving, its time to let the accuracy-attached take their rulers and go home...

Hopefully, we won't have to ask, or defend, whether cable is a "component" for awhile...

Muralman, I was wondering how long you could listen to my posts without saying something; always something about me but never at me (where's 6ch to tag team with you?). Three Asa mentions in one paragraph, the foil for your frustration. I guess when we ended our last conversation and I extended an olive branch by saying "Be well" that that didn't stick too long with you? Hmmm...

Again, I will repeat what I said the last time when you and another member started to get things personal (at the expense of cognitive rigor): If you want to have a "mature, reasoned" dialogue, contact me personally. You have my name and number and, again, there won't be an audience.

However, I know, Muralman, what you mean about $7K wires. I'm sure Natalie would point out that that is an extravagence and hardly justifiable given other wires' performance at lesser prices, a valid argument (then again, someone, say a person from Bangledesh, might then point out to you that your $7K is similarly obscene given another context...). But this doesn't seem to be your argument, because underlying it is a tone, one that seems to both lust after more expensive wire while, in value-laden, absolutist tones, decrying its existence at all. Laced through this is a cavalier cynacism just to make sure that we all know your are somehow above such waste - justified by your all-american nuclear family (which, if I remember from our last thread, was the reason that you gave that you couldn't contact me directly, "I have a family and don't have time to do that" et al, evidently a reason you use in several contexts when, er, handy..).

Wmc, in a deeply mature post, is right, on all of it, but I want to be more pointed. I think its crass to say to someone that because I have more expensive wires you can't talk or contribute; many people with great ears and systems use less expensive wire. With that said, however, there are also people who lack a sufficient point of referrence to make absolutist statements, and their continuation in doing so in more symptomatic of their envy, inauthentically directed, than the issues that they are allegedly engaging in (and a single listen to an audio bud's wire does not necessarily solve this, especially when one's psychologocal orientation in biased towards refutation, never a good thing for empiric objectivity...).

Again, Muralman, I am happy that you like your system. But you need to stop diving into threads seeking to provoke people to make yourself feel better about your decisions, family-based, value-based, or what have you. A dollop of self reflection might be in order.

With that said, I, like others here, will be interested in your reactions to your friend's wires and I look forward to that "reasoned, mature" contribution. In THAT context, and regardless of your analog-less existence, I will incorporate your observations with my own and others - which is really what this forum is all about.

Again, thank you all for indulging detlof and myself, and thank you audiogon for allowing it too. I will TRY not to do it too often (Ha, sure! says the grandstand!).

Subar: what you say, as I noted above, seems to hold more true with less sophisticated systems. As systems become more sophisticated (read: able to replicate not just sound sources with detail, but supplement that detail with deep harmonics in the source and continuous space), wires seem to become as important as other "components".

If I was, say, helping someone put together a $1500-5K system and opted for tubed pre and SS amp - a valid choice balancing several important variables - then wire would be less a priority. I would look at Coincident or Discovery (which sounds good with Pass gear, the Aleph 30 being a nice place to start with such a system). But, say, if I was Albert Porter and was driving Soundlab Ultimates that sang with the Dominus, and I could drop $ on a '86 Ch. Lafite without blinking, and I knew from experience that as a system became more sophisticated the wire became more integral to that sought-for experience, would you decry his use of such wire, or given his experience, tell him that his other components are more important and that he should always look there first to effect such a change? Or, from your vantage of experience, would you tell him that because wire is less "complex" in its matter rearrangement, that he doesn't know what he's doing?

So, we admit that wire IS the same as an amp in terms of its fundamental nature - we can't just dismiss it as if its not a "component". But then, we now have another argument trying to reduce the importance of wire-matter based on an allegedly less "complex" FUNCTION. The problem with that assumption is that it is not true in our experience of listening. Again, the absolutist statement that function importance between wire-matter and amp-matter stays constant throughout all systems is, again, inconsistent with our experience (assuming that you have that experience and have conducted the experiements in listening sufficient for you to make such absolutist statements). Again, I would argue that the default to such absolutist statements that continually seek to reduce wire as a consideration in a system are more symptomatic of a scientific bias/attachment than what we actually see.

What I've seen is those that have less sophisticated systems (I would say SS-based predominantly, where, again, wires are less important because the spatial nuances cited above are not as well replicated)assume that wire is less a priority because in their system it is - of which I agree with. However, they then cascade that assumption, in a void of experience, to conclude that their situation applies to that that they have never heard, and perhaps, are not able to hear.

Certainly, there are lots of scams working out there on wire because its easier to construct IN MATTER, but that does not necessarily mean that some wire in some systems do not perform as a "component", or do not perform an equal FUNCTION as does an amp. To conclude so, in absense of your own experience, in contrast to others' experience with far more advanced systems (like Albert Porter's) who clearly find that wire is indispensible to the proper function of their advanced systems, is not only un-scientific, but disingenuous.

Oh, I just can't help baiting Subararu sometimes. He can take it and dish it out, though; so, clueless, you don't need to ride to his aid, watching attentively from the bushes. Clueless, clueless, how-oh-how do you maintain your delusion of radical egalitarianism? Everyone hears equally, or thinks equally, etc., or is that just an idea you like to maintain, that you're the nice kind-of-guy that thinks so, even though its not true, even though, if you bothered to say what you mean, you would have to admit its not true? Everyone is equal in their potential to hear, not in how they actually exercise that potential. Your assumption of aristocracy - the politically correct foil for your references looking to rile in your aid others so offended - is, in that context, misplaced. But I guess you were too eager to jump out of those bushes to think about that one, eh?

I thought about "sophisticated", but thought that defining it would be sufficient to assuage those knee-jerk reactions to the word. Guess not. When I responded to Muralman and his tone and what I thought it represented, I was very clear on what basis I made those conclusions. This in turn allowed him the opportunity to respond to my observations. In other words, I respected him enough to offer him a response that could be responded to, if he so chose (which he did not). By making tangential references about me personally, you don't allow me to properly respond. But, then again, perhaps that was your intent. My observation of your postings, which I've always enjoyed even though we may not agree, is incongruent with the AUTHENTICITY of your last chosen response.

I remain, amused...and still mildly hopeful.

PS: Clueless, what do you think of the notion that wire becomes more important in a system as the system increases in "sophistication"? Don't react to the word, even though defined; answer the content.

Thank you Judit for your response. I too believe that cables make a difference with SS, and that some SS systems can be very satisfying. I thought twice about throwing that out, so let me rephrase and try to bring it back to the point I was mostly trying to say: Do you think that cables make an increasingly important contribution as a system "component" as that system gets better? If so, then that could go a long way towards explaining why some people with some systems claim that amps are determitively important - to the point of claiming that wire is irrelevant and fundamentally different than an amp, or is more "complex" or more "functional" to keep their point going - while others with more advanced systems, both SS and tubed, predominantly claim that wires become just as important. In this sense, a wire's "function" in the truest sense - to make a system more musically accurate - changes over a system's level of performance as a whole. It is an exponential performance/utility curve.

I shouldn't have mixed it in with the above (mostly did it to pull the accuracy crowd back out of Muralman's "amp section"), but since I brought it up, I'll follow up. At the highest reaches of the present art of system building, I believe that SS has several important limitations, and that these have been constant since its inception (which is why every few years we have to ask whether SS is yet as good as tubes, a discussion, by its existence, that confirms what is being asked). Namely, the realism of space on its own and its RELATION to sound as it projects therein. SS has made great strides in reducing mechanical artifacts in the source projection, resulting in greater "bloom" directly around the source boundaries, less distortive aspects of leading edge transients, etc., but in terms of continuousness and deep harmonic fabric, wetness in leading edge transients, and the deep existential quality of dimension (the terms that HP can't quite find, although he knows what he is experiencing), SS still falls short in the best SS systems v. the best tube systems (NOS tubed). It is my position that these are qualities of sound/music that wire tends to become nearly a necessity in translating. This is not to say - which I should have said better - that wire doesn't also follow the pattern of needing better wire as the SS system increases in performance, but that with the best systems - and Porter's system with Dominus was used as an example for this reason - namely, tube based systems, this phenomenon becomes even more critical because its performance parameters are higher and wire seems to become critical for that 3% performance envelope. Hence, when I said that cables were less important in SS systems, I meant it in a relative sense and in the context of advanced systems.

Actually, I think wire makes a difference in all systems, but can understand why it would be less of a priority in less expensive systems, a point I have agreed with. I also believe it is important in SS systems also, but qualified as stated above. The SS crowd who argues that "accuracy" is most important, have source-detailed systems at the expense of a unitary balance between source and space, believe that "scientific" measurements are primary to listening, are, not coincidentally, the same peoplem who claim that wire makes no difference, or makes less difference because its less "complex", or then say less "functional", etc. AND these people invariably, and again no coincidence, favor SS systems. This does not mean that some SS afficinados have not produced excellent results - musically and in terms of accuracy - in their systems, and that these people also know the importance of wire (which, and I can't remember if clueless has a tube, SS or hybrid system, is a group I believe he falls within - namely, music lover).

Hope that is more clear.

Damn it Gumby, or is it gumbydamnit, I think you may be right! How about a Teres TT, Shelter 501 cart and Origin Live arm mod'd out ($3K abouts) (uh, twl?), with a used NBS Pro series 1 IC ($500) and $3.5K of vinyl?!

I hear ya.

Psychanimal: you crack me up! You chide me, asking that the dialogue end and then, jump right in yourself! Now that's funny! "Mental masturbation"? Well, its a relative thing, I would submit for your ever-continuing consideration.

ernie: thank you for rising to my bait, and with a pretty good attitude. Yes, alot of tube systems are veiled with euphonics and are IMHO boring. But I'm not talking about these, just like I'm not talking about SS systems that commit the more extereme ills of raspy highs, etc. I'm talkng about the best, and best executed, in both in comparison on spatial/harmonic nuance perceived at a deep existential, trans-cognitve level (its not just about the size of the soundfield created, another default BTW to the assumptions of Galileo that form one of the planks of Cartesianism...). Like I said, the Pass stuff is nice, and the Parcifals too - very...precise would be my guess. I think, to perfect your arguments (by the way, what exactly are they...?), you went a little bit far with the "rug" thing. Yes, matter that comes into contact with soundwaves in sufficient proximity to our listening is a consideration, but we are talking about energy transference WITHIN the system as an energy transference/converting system, not how that system may thereafter interact with other energies. Like I've said, when the scientific ones are confronted with the logical inconsistencies and faulty assumptions on the very method which they use to beat everyone else over the head with, they tend to regress (or say thaty now you are regressing to something before science, like mediaval astrology, like Muralman saying that anyone who hears beyond his Apogees and assumptions is an "alchemist"). A little too far; I think you gave yourself away on that one. In fact, I was feeling a little bad about the "disingenuous" bait (see, clueless I am listening to you after all..) - you know, because ignorance necessarily excludes conscious intent - but I'm feeling better about that now. Hey, BTW, how are those cryo-treated outlets doin' ya?

Detlof: right again, what more to be said; mind is primary, all "components" thereafter seeking to capture the musical meaning from one mind into our own.

6ch: there you are, knew you were slunking around somewhere...here's one for you:

The wild geese do not intend to cast their reflections,
the water has no mind to receive their images.

Don't know, go strait - but that doesn't mean you can't have FUN.

Albert: shameless of me to drag you in. Hey, what can I say, no one here would say bad your way, so too hard for me to resist. You know, easy to bang chatty-catty Asa, hard to bang professorial Albert, even though he's the one with/had the Dominus. Thank you for letting me borrow you.

Have a nice wkend all.

Psych, a guy I know got a great deal on a pair of Swans as they were going out of business, just the parts, then put them together. I know they sound very good with triodes (heard them at length at several CES's)and I've had some Dan W. mod'd stuff, before he started the mod business, so I'm intrigued by your new project. You know, if you take those Swans, mate them with a WE300B based SE amp, put a Supratek pre in front of it, you might not chide me so much.... Are you thinking about triodes with the Swans? What model are they, Batons, etc.?

"Condescending" "bullying"? Muralman, can you ever chime in without taking a gratuitious swipe at me, evidently now on behalf of unidentified others. If you want to mix it up a bit, that's fine, but let's do it without the audience and where we can speed it up a little, or alot, its up to you. As I said - repeated here for the third time - and assuming that you can find the time away from your family, which, er, selectively, you seem to be able to, contact me directly and we will have that "reasoned, mature" dialogue I spoke about. Otherwise, keep the gratuitous personal comments to yourself. Say something constructive beyond absolutist statements, step up or put a lid on it.

Has anyone ever heard a Coda sound "sweet"? My, my...when one conducts an experiment, one must ensure that the components used to test the hypothesis are actually able to translate results either way. Has anyone ever, ever heard of taking a Coda SS amp and matching it with Dominus, or the like? Yea, I can see how an Apogee ribbon with tubes in the line can sound better than a Coda amp...

Sub: you pulled the trigger too fast again; seeing what you think I will say, thinking that's what I said, then reaching a conclusion due to your preconcieved bias. While we could have a discussion on the mind as a "component", I did not say that and think it would be out of context and confusing here; I said the mind was in a continuum (a sequence) that included components "thereafter", meaning components after the mind. That's what "thereafter" usually means...I don't know what you mean by "cleaving" external effects from sound. Maybe I missed something; you said you might have ventured afield with the rug thing - the only external effect I "cleaved" - and then say I "cleaved" inappropriately. I took amp and wire and integrated them on a fundamental level, forcing the accuracy-attached to say that it was "compexity" that mattered. I then integrated complexity on wire v. amp, saying that there were priorities at different levels of system sophistication (a point still unchallenged), at which point "functional" became the measure, which then I said that in the listening context (which, again, is the final arbiter) they were functionally equal in most advanced systems (another point that has gone unchallenged), then said that adding the "rug" was self-serving and cognitively disingenuous. Oh well...

Hey guys, I'm really sorry that you had to concede that wire can be important and not always a scam, that you can't continue to swoop into threads with your science garble seeking to down talk those who hear something beyond the measurements. Sorry, sorry, sorry, but maybe you are going to have to admit that just maybe something out there beyond a "Coda amp", or the measurements that say it must be better, or the misplaced, uninformed bias against a piece of technology vs. another just because its appearance, or because it doesn't fit in with science's bias for more moving parts in their machines (a bias originally swallowed whole).

Exasperating...

Yes, I understand that when someone makes people abide by the rules they impose on others, namely "scientific" rules of objectivity, or make them see the faulty assumptions they operate under, in an effort simply to level the field so such people don't go around beating people over the head with their measuring rulers, that they then start regressing from responding to what you've said and try to paint you as a "bully", or "condescending" or an "alchemist" (read: pre-scientific mythologist), or as an aristocrat (the implication of your "common" man comment, although you to can't quite bring yourself to say it...). All of this because someone had the audacity to cite that those who throw around the scientific jargon and arguments don't themselves seem to have a clue regarding the assumptions of their own thought system - the same one they are using in absolutist fashion to talk down others.

I have fun most all the time, but loose hope when people of obvious intellect and intelligence make such unself-reflective arguments - and always trying to use their intellect to beat up on someone who is not an acolyte of scientific measurement. They just don't like a little of their own medicine. And they usually start ganging up when it doesn't go their way...If they get a little perturbed that they aren't able to have their way in an cognitively authentic fashion, or think that now is the time to paint me from the bushes as an "arisocrat", so be it.

Yes, my system is relevant:

First system -

TNT 4 w/ Graham 2.2, Cardas Heart cart, Hovland phono cable, SDS, M'pingo disk on plinth at arm board, BDR Source top shelf, VPI stand for TT modified, Joule Electra LA200 (the one I reviewed in TAS)line stage & OPS-1 MkIII phono, all NOS-tubed, electronics on Magic Sound Production stand with isolation platforms, Cary 805B 50W SE monos with NOS RCA/GE/United 211 outputs, WE300B drivers, Brimar mil-spec inputs with Shun Mook resonators, all matched on dedicated stands (can't remember name, about $2K and outrageously expensive - I got for $500 used, but unbelievably good for you 805 owners out there), ESP Concert Grands & Harps, Quad US Monitors Crosby mods selectively, Electraglide PC's mostly, NBS Pro and AudioNote Kondo Az series IC's, Omega Micro Planar III copper with battery boxes skpr cable elevated, dedicated room with dedicated lines, cryod outlets various, Pentagon integrated CD player (CEC/Timber before that). Most everything custom tweaked by manufacturer because reviewing (you knew that didn't you...?)

Second system: Sony CD (the $3K obsolete one that goes for about $1K used now, XA7Es or something or other), AudioNote Kondo Az to Supratek Syrah (NOS black glass KenRads 6SN7's, Mullard rectifier, etc.) through NBS Pro IC to AirTight ATM300 8W SE amp (WE300B's, Mullard 12Au7's etc.), Electraglide & Discovery PC, cryo'd outlets etc., Spendor LS35A vintage spkr's, Rix Rax custom designed stand, AudioNote Kondo KSL copper spkr wire.

When reviewed, lots of amps, which I like and think are critical to a system - like wire - Rowland, Plinius, Coda, Joule Eectra, Spectral, etc. Tons of wire (too much wire!!) etc.

The Cable Company.

My system is posted right here, right above your post; you rushed in to respond so fast, jumping in together with Ohn (jeez how did I know you'd jump on that...?), that you typed your seconded request while I was typing mine, even though Ohn had only had his posted for a short while. Just can't keep from jumping when you've got company, eh? Hey, what about my third suggestion?

Kill Jung!! Kill Jung!!

Or, maybe not...

Thank you, Ohn. I hear what you say - best to have fun, and I will try to remember that more in the future. Again, thank you for reminding me.

My system is obviously tube-based, and on that basis, may be open to criticism, if not my views. I should have posted it so others could look, but never got around to it. Notwithstanding my admitted irrasciblity in some contexts, and given some people, I try not to trot out the stuff other than the ideas - which everyone can have, authentically proposed - regardless of their components or education or whatever. The problem is when people use science to perfect their lack of experience, or cognitive rigor, at the expense of other people. I was a prosecutor for ten years; running to protect is a bad habit, notwithstanding the fact that I resigned from the "law" many moons ago.

Greg: What I know about Jung could probably fit in a thimble, especially relative to what detlof knows. I know about achetypal awareness, that's about it. On law: barely escaped with my life! Don't let your children go there, to the void of narcissism and the alter of glorified self-interest, whatever you do! Not many lawyers know, from an experiential point of view, about archetypal awareness...

I'm guessin' 'ol Carl J. would be a tube-man...What do you think detlof?! (yes, that's chumming the waters...)

Yes, Albert is usually right, which is why I shamelessly drug him in here, having an idea what he'd say, knowing that the scientific ones would have difficulty shifting to personally attack him (knowing that was all strategically/cognitively left to them)given his demeanor and reputation on audiogon. On a personal level, I'm a much easier target (Stone the witch!!).

Thanks for the system compliment.

Muralman, sent you a response on the Coda. On Sony, yea, it could go, but its pretty musical in a nonfatiguing way. I don't do as much heavy listening on the second system and listen alot when I'm writing. Also, the Spendors are limited so no need to load money there that I don't have -one of the material prices of not being a lawyer (but I've picked up a bad Bordeaux bug! Detlof, save me, a referral please!). Your tubed CD probably kicks its butt (!) but as someone who came through the CD wars (I had 4 PC's and a dedicated conditioner at one point just for digital components...arghh), I'm a little more reticent about CD money out than other things in (incidentally, I DO also feel that way about wire, especially on that system, but it doesn't last because you NEED good wire to make the rest go; you know, Ferraris don't like bad plugs and they let you know it, and not subtlely.). To be honest, given that system's parameters, I'm probably looking at a TT there or speakers first. With the amp's 8W spkrs, speaker compatibility becomes a pain (Coincidents? Any sugestions that equal the mids musicality of LS3/5A's?) so still mulling that over (speakers are a very personal choice as you know) but definetly have my eye on a Teres TT. I'm spoiled and only have space for an integrated there so Audio Aero or EMC-1 would probably be my only itch, and with that 2500-5000 I can go analog in the second system. Different strokes...

Nrchy, what do you think?

Personally, just looked at your sysytem and I wouldn't put Dominus on a Krell Pre & Aragon 8008, and like Muralman says, in your system I believe that spending such money, even used prices on Dominus ($3200?) would be better spent elsewhere. Say, a Supratek pre ($2500), Muralman's Pass amp and some very good IC's like NBS pro series 1's ($500)? I used to help out more on systems than now (I'm a drop out from the audio industry world too), and one time a guy asked what were good wires and I told him that the NBS Pro's were good, which were current at then time. He then told me he had Vandy 2Ci's and I told him definitely NOT to get the NBS (he wanted to keep the Vandys and liked them) so suggested Discovery Signature (pre Sakura, Harmonix, Virtual Dynamics, etc. days) with money for an AirTight EL34 based amp and with maybe an Audible Illusions pre with NOS tubes. The next week he called me after dropping 5K to Fields at NBS retail and said, no surprise, that his world didn't shift on its axis. He sold them the next week at a big loss even though I told him to be patient and he'd get a better price. Another time sold my same 805 amps to a guy and sent him a five page letter and three phone calls on what he needed to do to hear them. A year later I missed the amps and called him. He said he never heard that they made any difference, then he said, when I asked, that he'd decided to put Radio Shack wire on them for spkr wire. I bought them back for the same price. Last year, a good friend with top all Pass analog system and large Planar speakers listened to a 1M pair of NBS Pro that I had and dropped by with. He didn't want to put it in because he said his Discovery Sig did everything, so I left it for three months. When I picked it up he said it was better, but no big deal. He put his back in and his face fell about three meters.

Hmmm....

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.

Muralman, yes, wrong.

A Coda high current SS amp (what vintage, the one designed for the Legacy, as old as the Spendors, not that it makes much difference?), Nordost IC's (assumably the SPM's, some of the most denuded upper mid IC's around), and silver speaker cable into what you described as a badly constructed room, only digital, and you think that is fair point of departure for determining whether a cable such as a Dominus is good value for the money, or has a value at all? Are you crazy?!

Digital with silver through Nordost IC's and an arc welder SS amp hardly known for its harmonics and air into a crap room and you want us to value your opinion, reached conclusively from this one foray into what you assume is a fair and determitive test? This is a system that DOES NOT and WILL NEVER excell at the performance aspects that a Dominus is designed FOR.

And what do you use to compare? A Jolida CD straight into an SS amp with silver wire and ribbons? No pre, just the Jolida running the volume through what kind of volume control? Do you know why 'ol HP just did a survey of the best line stages around and they were all tubes, and, wonders of wonders, he found out that they made a large difference in performance in ADVANCED CD based systems, and even ADVANCED phono ones? (You remember, don't you, Stereophile mags failed attempt about five years ago via the now departed Steve Stone to get us all to go passive? So, other than price considerations, why isn't the world running passive? Hmmm...)

Yes, we can return to the original thread question (remember, I asked Nrchy to respond a little bit ago), but this thread has also been about much more (the bwhite and audieng dialogue for one). But my point is that the alleged objective experiment that you set up is flawed before you even started in the context of judging a piece of wire like Dominus, which IS the context of the question. And since, to support your argument, you are using this experiment and its results, that becomes, well, kinda important - you know what I mean? "By no means a scientific test". Ya, I'd say so.

So, if you want to stick to discussing whether Dominus is the right CHOICE for Nrchy, as I already said, obviously not. But as you said, THAT'S NOT HIS QUESTION. He asks: in a system where components are relatively EQUAL in value, what would I do, given the Dominus experience.

Muralman, let me repeat this so you understand and can respond, which you haven't as of yet: as the system becomes better, wire becomes more important. In other words, with Nrchy's Aragon 8008 he would probably do best with your Kimber, just as you do best with your Kimber, or that the Coda system can't hear harmonic and spatial performance beyond Romex (eeck!). But in Porter's SoundLab Ultimates/Aethetix/Dominus system one can hear a LARGE difference between cables BECAUSE his system excels at subtle harmonic and spatial nuances that a yours can NOT replicate. If your system keeps "increasing in excellence" as you say, yet you continue to regard wire as you did when you started, ignoring this CHANGING DYNAMIC regarding wire value to a system as a whole as the system improves, then that assumption will hold you back. If you've only got $20K, that's fine, OK, but to continue to deny this dynamic based upon your experience, or your system, or the one-time test-not-a-test you present to us here, is, well...

I don't like to comment on people's systems because its, well, crass, but since you seem to think that yours and the one you cite seem to give you some big experience on making conclusive statements, it seems appropriate, if not overdue.

As far as Jung & Buddha not being about choices, the lack of knowledge in that statement leaves me, finally, speechless.

Oh come on Muralaman. I come in this morning and nothing. You say you want "Peace" - which was nice - said you'd thank me if I listed my system publicly and then contacted you - which I did, and nicely, notwithstanding that I'd invited you to contact me three times and you hadn't, and had said I was a "bully" etc. - then you replied, privately, by saying that I was "authoritarian" (read: dictatorial) in my posts, "insulting" and "thin-skinned", and no "thank you" to be seen. So, I take you to task for making absolutist statements in your last post - once more revealed in your position that, somehow, your friend has been converted by your faulty, one-off experiment on a flawed system against your pre-less, mid-level CD system - and not even a burp. Actually, psych was right; it was bread on the water, bamboo across the back, 6ch's koan-like utterances, a bear trap for your ego, so I applaud your restraint. With that said, my points in content remain outstanding.

Thank you detlof. I will call this morning first thing.

Nrchy: I didn't mean to say that you didn't or couldn't hear the difference - I think you DID. But, many people don't and I didn't think it was such a good idea to just say to Muralman that he should just get a piece of Dominus and he'd find out. Nor did I think it would be fair because I know that Muralman wouldn't do that and the expense and hassle would be prohibitive for him given that he probably wouldn't be interested in purchasing it. Yes, a piece of Dominus can be heard on many systems of all different levels, and it can even "do" more in more advanced systems. Again, whether it is worth $7K is a matter of financial relativity. I couldn't afford it, but that doesn't mean that it might not be a valid choice under certain circumstances.

Which leads me to this. Yes, I hear you, Gregm. A way to look at it is symmetry breaking. If you are flying above the earth at a lower altitude, the coastline looks like a jagged line. But higher, it looks more like a staight line. The higher knows the lower, but the lower, if it claims that you can't ever go higher, claims the coastline is only jagged (knowledge is state-specific). Interestingly, if you say to the low flyer that he can remember being lower and the coastline was different then too, so why can't he believe that it might be different higher than he goes, he continues to illogically say, no, there is no higher; thus, by his attachment to his level of sight he limits his own possibilities; the "donkey" sees two equidistant stacks because of the assumptions he brings to them. All the flyers are equal in their potential to fly - they all are in the same type of planes - and it is only your limitation upon yourself that limits how high you can go. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within and all around but men do not see."

Psych, house in the woods, house in the woods, house in the...but the same world is there too, albeit a little quieter (my choice also).

Psych, well now, that is a different consideration, one of pragmaticism and relativity. If a wire is "extruded" - and I take you to mean that because it is less complex in its manufacture then it should be priced less - then what of the situation where someone builds an amp using old design theory that doesn't sound very good vs. someone who designs a wire with new technological know-say, say, electromagntism, that sounds great?

Here's what I think the real problem is, and one I sympathize with: many people believe that the "technology" or design creativity behind wire, regardless of its complexity in structure or lack thereof, does not justify the price vis-a-vis other more complexly constructed "components." And, that wire being so expensive - while admittedly being important in a system, and perhaps even increasingly important in systems as they advance - nonetheless, the DISPARITY in value of construction vs. maginal utility of performance is so imbalanced as to be suspect. Moreover, since wire makers seem to rely on scientific theories ("Golden-stranded") that appear less to do with science and more to do with marketing over-priced wire, this suspicion becomes heightened. In this heightened state, therefore, we should be on guard towards over-priced wire that claims that it will transform your world.

Sounds like a valid argument to me, pragmatically speaking. Yea, if a guy is taking advantage of a good product by hiking the price, then we should perhaps look elsewhere. The problem with that argument is that this is not the country that you live in; capitalism is premised upon the assumption of infinite greed, with the further assumption that lessened demand will result in corrections to over-priced product. Its not robbery to take money from people who pay, which why some people here did not take that tack, instead choosing a "scientific" or "empiric" approach. So, if its not the seller's fault - given the theory of our economy - then it must be the buyer, which is what the real motivation for what alot of people are saying but not saying: not that wire isn't a "component", not that "complexity" is determitive, not that the capitalist system is flawed (which, er, could be your next argument, another kettle of fish), but that people who buy such wire, regardless of its subjective performance even if true, are STUPID for spending that much.

But again, its relative: would the Bangladeshi think that your stereo purchase is STUPID in his/her context? You see what I mean?

I don't spend that amount on wire because I don't believe in a system premised upon infinite greed and don't respect the wire maker who takes advantage of the flaw of that assumption - I simply don't want him to get the rewards of an allegiance to the assumption of infinite greed. I don't think its a good way to set up a system - encouraging everyone to prey upon each other mentally because you won't take the courage to think of something better - so I CHOOSE not to buy it; my philosophy and orientation determines that choice, not an inauthentic "scientific" argument. That doesn't mean, however, that its not great wire in performative terms.

Psych:

Yes, just based upon construction costs, but a capitalistic system is based upon supply and demand dynamics; the system should be based upon cost IMHO, and competition forces should drive prices down, but with "unique" products cost of construction is negated, ie a painting. This is where the mega-buck cable manufacturers fall in performative terms, or so they would contend. The question then becomes: is the performance worth it to you, in the context of such an economic system? Again it is relative. Reject the premise of the system, the capitalistic God, or reject the idea that mega-buck wire is unique. Saying it is not unique may be an argument, ie mega-buck cable is not sufficiently different in performance terms than cheaper stuff, but unless you make that argument, you can not point to construction expense as the determinitive factor in determining marginal utility, or value of use (read: performance). A factor to look at, but one that becomes incresingly irrelevant as demand increases and you have uniqueness of product. The mega-buck cables prices suffered from both, as did all components. Specifically, in the 90's the Japanese SE market propelled prices exponentially higher, and particularly in wire like Purist and NBS that excell at stae of the art tube systems; the Nordost Valhallas/SPM's which are consumed by bothe SS and tube afficionados came later. We are still suffering from this escalation. And although I may consider its escalation artificially high based upon irrationally high demand, capitalism doesn't care about irrational demand or not; it absorbs infinite greed, buying or selling.

So, again, you are left with the idea that people are stupid to pay so much. But then again, our economy is premised upon the climb towards such objects, the incentive to become "somebody" through acquisition. If you want to argue that some buy mega-buck cable simply to say they are owners, adding to their idea of themselves, that's a valid argument because surely it occurs. But again, is it determinitive of value in terms of performance?

Yes, agreed, extrusion of metal is not as complex form of construction as an amp, either in terms of matter arrangement or labor or means of production. But if that technology performs better, regardless of those factors, and IF it cost you nothing, which one would you pick?

You see, its the COST OF PURCHASE that bothers people, the $7K, not the construction cost. But if you were to make that argument, then you would have to argue that the cost of other "components" in a stereo is also not justified based upon construction complexity, ie. a tractor would have more absolute "value" than an amp because its more complex. You know why that doesn't sound right, like comparing apples and oranges? Because value is not to be considered in a vacuum but considered in terms of a tool's USE. "Use" describes, in stereo terms, its performance - so there you are back to that.

Then, you are left making the argument that construction costs do not justify that level of performance, the DISPARITY thing again. But again, that's relative based upon income and you desire (your demand).

Is a Van Gogh worth $54 mil? Should wire be considered tha "unique", or since the NBS's of the world have been caught up with by the Virtual Dynamics of the world, is the disparity not justified.

I would say incresingly less so, and thankfully so. But yet, the Dominus does "do" something in state-of the-art systems that people who have them say is critical - the space and harmonics thing. Is that true, or are the Porter's and HP's of the world merely hearing things?

Muralman, don't say nasty personalized things to people that you are afraid to be heard. If you talk with different degrees of nicety depending upon your audience vs. anonymity, well, we're back to that self-reflection thing again. I told you, given my accepting of your "Peace" gesture, that your continued nastiness in private was "tactless" and told you, on that basis, that I wouldn't talk to you privately any longer. Yes, I can see why you wouldn't want to talk about it. Now, insinuating drunkeness, that's petty - and I would say, once more a symptom of what I've been saying about your credibility and inability to put your views forward authentically, shifting contexts when it suits or when you don't want to respond in a forthright manner. My, what a memory.

On your system, once again you are putting words in my mouth, even though I've told you before differently and you know so. Specifically, I have told you before that I respect the Pass stuff, and your own amp too. I've also said that I liked your Jolida, especially with the NOS tubes - a nice 'lil piece (and a very good buy at $900 and a good choice IN THAT CONTEXT). But again, my citing of your system and its limitations - which you still have not conceded or sufficiently addressed beyond a quote from your neighbor, and now saying that any speaker not ribbon-based is inherently inferior and implying that all tube gear by its nature can not get you close to the source - is the point, and especially given the context of your absolutist statements concerning wire like the Dominus (even though now you seem, in between statements of converting others, to be backing away from).

This was never a thread seeking to warn "budding" audiophiles away from the evils of over-priced wire, nor did it ever exclude consideration of wire such as the Dominus; in fact, discussing Dominus and Dominus-like wire was its main thrust. It was an in-depth discussion of many issues, many of which you engaged in. To now claim, after your assumptions and empiric methodologies have been questioned, that it was always something else is, again, a manifestation of your inauthenticity.

Yes, I can loose my patience, but most always with people who act like you do, publicly or privately. Its a disappointment given your intellect and intelligence.

Now, shoo shoo, fly away.

Hey, hand 'em over!! No really, isn't it somewhat entertaining while we wait to see if this thread will resusitate? I don't think Muralman's ego-skin is pierced too much by me, that's someone/something else's job, not mine. Its just when someone goes back months to mine through threads to find a place where you said you were hungover, so sorry (after the other person had apologized first for their fall off the deep end, which, in all, wasn't really bad), you only had three drinks but because you had lung cancer at 28, yourea lung-less wonder and your body doesn't metabolize alcohol too well and it made you sick the next day, so someone takes that and tries to say, or insinuate, that you are a drunk, or were drunk when you posted. And, of course, all after the above.

Now, who owes who an apology? Did Muralman really loose his last post in the mail - the dog ate it, as it were - or did he just need the time to dig through a ton of my old posts looking for a place where he could call me a drunk, and by the time he got back the thread had moved on?

Hmmm. That irritates me, yes.

Oh, by the way, I want international rights on that videotape.

I know what Carl J. would say about "Muralman and me" (soon to be a major motion picture directed by Michael Moore): heys youz, lighten up on the mining of the bad guy archetype! Hey, detlof, a question: is the devil archetype embedded in the "sub-conscious" before the angel one, or after? In other words, does the devil only exist as a recoil from the loss of angelic bliss, or anticipation of loss, or were they imprinted at that evolutionary epoch, deep within the brain, deep within the consciousness, at the same time? And, what is the relationship between brain physiology - say, the triune brain theory - and the matter originations of archetypal awareness/effects of its prism? Have the matter-attached behaviorists tried to highjack Jung with a matter-focused brain matter theory? You see, I am thinking of jung.

Oh my GOD!!! Clueless, stop me!!

Where is Muralman?!! I must be loosing my touch...

Unsound, yes, incidious, it must be stopped, stone the witch(es). Yea, BTW, isn't that a cable hanging loosley around your neck, you know, lookin' kinda like a noose? :)

Gregm: interesting point, thank you. I knew it was too much to mix the material relationship of Jungian (or is it Neo-Jungian?) archetypes together with the idea of bliss/not-bliss, and their sequence, if any. Ok, let me think... Each "coexist" you say, like in an integral, dynamic relationship where ones existence necessarily implies the other? I think that occurs as the dynamic in oscillation between the two (as prey recoil from the fear of loss, and as predator grasping towards the potentiality of bliss, or absense of loss). So, at the deepest level of consciousness, is a binary oscillation bewteen seeking bliss and avoiding its absense. But isn't that always about bliss? Isn't a predator created (in human consciousness) by the fear of becoming prey in the first instance? So, which is first, or are they both merely reflections of each other, each manifesting different to the eye based on their relationship to fear? Tao Te Ching says that this is the spinning wheel (hope and fear are still rungs on a ladder;the amoeba's binary instinctual program of light/dark, prey/predator, eat/be eaten, etc.) and that you can, by seeing this oscillation within yourself and, thus, seeing below it, step off the wheel, or step beyond it, realizing that it was powered by your own beleif in it. So, if that is true, then the oscillation spins as you describe, but its existence does not exclude the possibility of transcending it. What is your true face? Hope I understood you and not too confusing here.

Psychanimal: yes, it can become a spinning wheel if you get focused on the things of audio too much, switching too much. But what I found interesting is that you think your wires now have a greater performance envelope than the electronics. A materialist who thinks only amps are components might say, how can you tell that; if the components aren't translating? How can you tell its the wire? Of course, under the same reasoning, then how could we ever tell if one piece of electronics is superior to another? BTW, I like Tice wire, good value, good harmonics, should respond well to the cryo in its weak spots.

Detlof: what is Jung's true face, even if he doesn't see it? Love and fear at once; how Old Testament of him. It looks as if Carl J. couldn't escape his demons, so he just said they must "co-exist". First Rule: don't limit the Tao/God/Jehovah with two faces - that's a binary thing. When you listen to beautiful music what face do you have, predator-face or prey-face, or no-face? What is your true face-not-a-face? But you know this, don't you (the answer you have, before you started to answer to yourself)?

Detlof: yes, consciousness states are corrolated with material parts of the brain, although they are not bound by it. I was just wondering, since I pretty much stopped reading all the technical stuff a few years ago, if there was anything new. Not really important, though, just curious. You have better things to do than listen to me yap, I know. But thanks anyway. "Greater truth"? Why do psychologists always want to be scientists, or have a knee-jerk reaction to wanting to seem "scientific"? I think before one practices psychology one should know what it is. If you want to conduct experiments on things, go be a scientist (unless, of course, you can get to categorizing a rat as a thing...). Since the practice of psychology - therapy - is only as good as the therapist, it always has struck me as disconcerting that the one "treating" is more interested in the efficacy of his/her method than seeing through his/her own ego to see the fallacy of that attachment. Hmmm. Detlof, I am confident your are a very good therapist (read: healer).

Yes, paradox. Did he see it, merely touch it and tell others, or live within it, comfortably, stably? At the end of the power of the thinking mind is paradox of mind; as paradox is lived within, reality reveals, in the case of Jung most famously, infinite succesive temporalities (temporality being a foundation of hypothetico-deductive cognition; cognition operates upon reality through a comparative temporal construction). Linearity releases its grip and temporality becomes flux, revealing deeper symmetries of change. Jung's "synchronicity" (read paradox: coincidence not coincidence) is a perception that is temporally-based as much as "normal" thinking. In other words, temporal perception has not faded into paradox - it only looks that way to the temporal-linear mind - but has evolved: it sees "synchronous-ly" and the same way it always did at the same time. One level transcends the last, meaning that it moves beyond AND at once includes. I was wondering whether Jung co-existed in this way or merely had peak experiences of that level of perception that he then told people about, erecting an analytic structure to (partially?) describe it and (his innovative extention) apply it therapeutically. Was his perception trans-temporal, so to speak, moment to moment, or now and then with reportage thereafter?

On bliss/not-bliss paradox and transcending of its oscillation (not just seeing it from afar and reporting it to others), given your description of Jung's recoil and ego distortion vis-a-vis others, I would find it - and I say this with utmost respect - highly doubtful that he had transcended that oscillation in a stable sense (that matrix being much, much deeper than even the archetypes, much less transitory destabilzation of linearity producing "paradox"....detlof, see my personal message on that already sent).

What does this have to do with audio? (jeez, tee'd up on a teeball stand and everything).

I can hear the knives sharpening, the bushes rustling...Oh come on guys, its wide open, take a shot!! Muralman, Subaru et al what am I possibly going to do without you, my foils? (Script reads: high pitched moan, flying monkeys looking on [how about that for an image, detlof!]): I'm melting...I'm melting...oh, my world...

You only have to click your heels three times. You always could go home (ignore the thinking machinating man behind the curtain...). Stop thinking about equipment, that mine is a "component" and yours is not, that experience is secondary to my experiment upon it, etc. and click your heels... chop wood, carry water.

6ch what do you think?

I know, Unsound. I was just joshin' ya. But its still there, you're still here! Run for your lives, its the thread that ate Detroit!! My condolences...

Hey, SO, cable IS a component, even with Muralman's Apogees, even though he's not sure, and yes, scientific measurements are important, but to believe they are primary to the experiement of listening is itself heresy to the Cartesian God, and saying that Dominus is mis-spent money when you yourself spend $7K on a system and there are still (the last time I checked) Bangledeshis is somewhat hipocritical and revealingly self-serving, and, hopefully, enough scientific-attached guys with puny ________ have seen this and will think twice about beating people over the heads with their rulers (is there an archetype for that, detlof?) - until, of course, they get re-juiced by WWF (or is it WWE now?) and their, er, other needs (the puny part) - so, you know, it was a good thing, no?

Oui.

detlof: yea, I know, part of me wants to say, yea, he did, then another part says, nah. Stable is usually pretty obvious, although I would suppose that Victorian remnants/attachments were a real bug to get past back then - big conformist pull of the exterior assumptions upon the individual mind. As I said though, there are transitionary zones, so to speak, so 'ol carl may have spent more time there than not. His "visions" of archetypes in the collective subconscious and especially synchronicity (archetypes can be constructed cognitively easier with less direct experience, but synchronocity is not deja vu, and requires, in order to percieve it as he did, more direct immersive experience) are both symptoms of the next level of consciousness emerging in him. Where such perceptions become stable, continuous and co-existent and integrated with "normal" cogntive-based perception is not a bounded line at that stage (at certain higher stages, symptoms can enable greater discernment of stage stability).

Order/Chaos: where does one begin and the other end? When water swirls in "chaotic" turbulence, where is it order-ly? Humans impose a cognitive construction that is binary and dualistic upon "Reality" (and, being the accommodating, maternal reality it is, it is suseptible to such imposition...). Dualism breaks reality into points of reference in which to compare over time, or comparison of data-events over the stream of change ("time" also being a construction), but that does not mean that at deeper symmetries of perception, that at once integrate those above, that the cognitive differentiation between order/chaos is not seen for what it is: a wonderful tool of the mind, a great gift, but still a tool. If 'ol Anna F. wants to break up reality into chaos face (evil) and order-face (bliss) thats ok, but it doesn't exclude its integration. And yes, recoil from the instinctual in one's own mind - seeing it as the beast - is merely a manegestation of one's fear from seeing oneself. Which, of course, keeps all of you Jungians in business! [that, and, of course, the yawning nihlism of the simultaneous recoil of the human mind from everything not it-self; recoil from instincts inside - seeing it in Judeo-Christian terms as the beast/sin and earth as sin-place - and recoil from all outside the ego - categorizing non-human minds as things/products (science and capitalism, respectively). Its ONE BIG recoil, inside/outside at once, not separate. You see, capitalism, scientific materialism and Judeo-Christian doctrine aren't all that much in disagreement afterall. Hmmm, I wonder what that means in evolutionary terms...?]

Subaru, oh thank you for keeping me company! Yes, becoming downwardly mobile is always a worry...

Oh darn, detlof, and here I thought I was getting stoked for a good book burning! Went out back to the garage to get my rake and everything (mutter, mutter...)

Nrchy, I hear ya, though; that's why I questioned the "stability" of Jung's insights as a permanent structure. I think you have to understand, though, that like Jesse Helms, who likes to bandy about the Nazi word when convenient, fascism is used in many academic circles in reverse order: you accuse another of being a "Hitler", or a follower, or even an adherent of Nietsche, and suddenly the argument becomes that nothing you say has merit. Academics are, and rightfully so, sensitive to such associations that lead to censorship of ideas. I don't think you were doing that necessarily - I'm just havin' fun - but one has see how this can be misinterpreted (oh, I think detlof was just having fun too)

Besides, and trust me, detlof knows more about Nazism that you or I will ever know.

Gregm, nice stuff.

But, light/dark is still a dualistic perspective. If you see dark as separate from light - assume that that is the last truth - then that will be the truth for you (reality, again, is very accomodating that way...). Beyond ying/yang, light/dark, order/dis-order is Light; Shiva the creator/destroyer arises from the ground of what is. Don't get lost in manifestation (says Lao Tzu way, way before me). If you believe Light is separated into light/dark in its most fundamental nature, then you will invariably move towards the dark, because, that perspective's recoil from the Light is ITSELF the dark.

I liked your point that Jung might have been pulled towards a tacit collaboration with totalitarianism out of his "fascination" with the dark. I would suggest that this was his karmic path given his assumption of dark/light as the primary focus and assumptive perception. Then, given his trans-cognitive peak sight, then coupled with the alleged attachment to darkness (power of perception coupled with narcissism - remember the attachment to darkeness outside is reflective of attachment to darkness inside) AND the rise of the zenith of totalitarian nation-states as the collective swirling about him, is such a pulling attraction not understandable? He got pulled back towards the Matrix in his fascination for it. But it was a mirror...

What do you think, detlof? i'm way out there now, aren't I?!! Help, throw me a lifevest!!

The light/dark is a mirror; that beneath it is not.

Detlof: fascinating, beautiful. Yes, the circle is closing (you felt that coming, uh?). I take back what I said: you are a teacher AND a healer. Who do you heal next? (its a mirror...)

6ch: you are being disingenuous, as detlof intuits. Let me explain why.

When we discuss the "what is" - the ground nature of "what is" - we are always limited in grasping it because language is dualistically-based (see the dualism reference above? How can I even say "ground" because that implies something not the ground and the Ground is all, nothing outside of "it" so where is the not-ground?). That's why I used Campbell's quote about twenty posts ago, namely, that "reality" always needs quotation marks around it because even the word does not encompass what it referring to; it only points (did you see the use of that quote above and a whole post on pointing?).

You said to me (in response to my using a pointing metaphor of a "mirror" to describe the relation of dark/light within, the self's belief in it thus creating it, and the dark/light it sees outside): "It is not a mirror".

As my response makes clear, I was talking about the light/dark, not its manifestation origination. You can always say that anything in language is not "it" and that would be correct, but the point is that we are talking in language. I could have just as easily said back to you "it" is not a not-mirror either. In other words, while you are trying to teach - and, yes, that is your presumption - you yourself are using words to tell people not to use words. When I say "beneath" you know that language binds me - the "it" has no location because it is ALL location, and, hence, the word "location" evaporates without its referential ground - so preying upon that - acting like you don't know what I am pointing to so you can be the teacher in your mind again - is disingenous. I could easily say to anything you say it is not-that, couldn't I?

If you answer, I hit you with bamboo across back. Go straight, don't know. Or, if you want to open your mouth and engage in dialogue accept that limitations of that dialogue - which, as I've told you, is also part of the "it" - and say your opinion WITH REASONS. Again, stop reading so much "zen".

On Jung: why did he not listen to music, or rather, why was he afraid of listening; afraid of the "purity"? Could it be that the same thing he recoiled from is what draws us (and then, draws us to talk together like this)? Music is "beauty" to many of us. Did Jung recoil from "beauty"? Did that action of his mind have anything to do with his "fascination" with "darkness"?

Let me propose an answer. Maybe not THE answer, but it may lead us somewhere.

As some of you know, I've taliked in these posts before about levels of listening, saying that when you first sit down you listen with your thinking mind that you bring from day-to-day life. This thinking mind controls reality - or so the mind assumes - through its objectifying (the basis of comparing in Time mentioned above, ie comparative rationality, hypothetico-deductive cognition). This results in "seeing" sound as an object and trying to control that sight by making sound sources into objects. Hence the reliance on "accuracy, detail" etc to bound sound into objects more. But as the listener falls deeper into the music - its meaning of "purity" - the thinking mind fades and "lets go" over control of the experience. Hence, the word "falling into the music" to describe the loss of control. But is it a loss, because isn't "beauty" gained in ever-more deepening ways? Could it be that it is only an assumption of loss from the perspective of the thinking mind that wishes to control? If the thinking mind's need to control emanates from the need to survive (fear of not-surviving - the "darkness"), the isn't falling into the music a "letting go" of that thinking mind that merely wishes to keep thinking?

With Jung, was he afraid to fall into the music because he "thought" that his loss of control would bring on the "darkness", act as its further catalyst? And, in seeing the "purity" of music - what it might do to his idea of himself, his thinking mind - wasn't he mistaking the "beauty" of music for a presumed "darkness", while that darkness was, all along, only his fear of falling into the music itself? Was the "darkness" created by his assumption that it existed?

As I drift into the music, letting my thinking mind fade ints its need to assert, the emotions are left; released of cognition, the emotions stand in relief (hence, emotionally-based language always used to describe this state). They become diffuse, fluid in that release, and wec experience music in yet another way, from another perceptive perspective.

Did Jung mistake the "beauty" of music for "darkness" in his fear of going their? Was the "darkness" only his fear of letting go itself?

Cheers! to you too, 6ch....:0)

oh 6ch, and here I thought you got it: whack!! The sound of one hand clapping across with bamboo. :o)

3 cents, 500 posts, 123, 555678, 54.32? What is your Face?

:0) 3 :0) 500 :0) 123.......

On the Jung guys, the historical stuff, really enjoying it and learning some things too. Thanks for your efforts.

Clueless, our "experiement in secular democracy". Uh, I didn't know we'd had one yet...The "overturning" of the "Newtonian Mechanistic world". Uh, when did that happen? Yes, Jung confronted his "darkness" in many ways, and many ways not. What we need to see about Jung is that he saw deep into his own mind and, conversely, the collective. As you go deeper, the "darkeness" of, what Tibetans call, "difilements" increases. You have more "centered" consciousness in which to encounter that darkness (instinctual self) as it becomes darker. In this way, the "what is" - being so accommodating as it were - enables just enough center to handle each new way of darkness, Some waves Jung stood before, some he turned away from. When he stood - letting the darkness blow through him like wind - he saw things to tell us about; when he turned away, he rejoined the world of other-against-other. Like the existentialists, he looked "below" (ok, 6ch?) the thinking mind, seeing that he/we are something more, saw the archetypes, but did not see below them. Intuited his "ground", but ultimately defaulted to light/dark. This is the Path we all take, whether we know it or not. Jung injected into the collective mind a catalyst of thought based upon his visions - that karmic energy is still here in this moving thread....

Clueless!! I'm sorry, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.

Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.

On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say.

Clueless!! I'm sorry, really, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.

Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.

On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say.

Detlof: thank you for sharing your knowledge on Jung. I've enjoyed it very very much. I don't know that much about him, but thought if I kept at it long enough something would get going; or, form from that karmic energy. Very happy; learned much!! Heard smart people talk about meaning, hey, that makes me feel good. Pretty basic, really.

And, yes, clueless, the ideas aren't important, but the comaraderie is. Detlof pegs me good. I only challenge, never attack, inauthenticity. Dislodge it, so to speak. That said, I never thought you were being inauthentic in what you said just now. The opposite actually. So even though we may disagree now and again in ideas, its "good" nonetheless.

Clueless, you are a part of that/this karmic energy. Don't you know, that's why we are all here?

6ch: I guess I don't understand how you can respond to me with a smiley face, and then, once you've had a day to let your mind go over it, come back with a response that's not so smiley. Who needs the mirror?

An enlightened being not interested in what others say (all thought presented in dialogue is "opinion", but need not be judgement) and taking a day to work himself up just to say he's not going to say anything. Hmmm.

6ch, you want to be the "Zen Master" you've read so much about. If you can't be that, then you quit. Its your mirror.

Thank you all, you too 6ch.

Clueless, sorry that you couldn't respond to my olive branch. Try not to save that feeling for the next thread.

Closed.

Unbelievable...I'd want to be an anonymous bidder too!

Peace.

Gregm: on normality, waves rise, waves fall into troughs; challenge of assumptions rises, challenge subsides. Could this "normality" - the calm trough we are now in, closer in understanding - have existed without the rising? 6ch is right, there are many ways to cut a chicken, and although it would not be my chosen metaphor, both ways are part of the rising; as I said to clueless, we are all part of the wave, both up and down.

Do I get caught up in darkness? Yes, I still do. Each wave of a person's "development" involves rises and troughs. Each trough, so to speak, has its own pathologies, its own uncovered dark seed of karma, ever darker as you proceed into your own past and the collective past of all within all. People think, or like to imagine, that its a continuous blissful ascendancy, and yes there is bliss, but when the attachment to wherevever you are - and there are attachments all along the way - is seen as an illusion there is then the next desert before the next arisement. There are many deserts and during those times (and for me, this time is one of them) the darkness can catch me, pull me in before I see it, see that it is only me forgetting where I am. I am not at a "place" that is beyond levels; that is the non-dual ground of all levels. Not in a stable way. OK?

We have learned here, all of us, and sometimes there is tension with that. But I think we all meet here because we share an appreciation for a certain reflection of beauty we call "music". That coming-together is always stronger than the pulling-apart; the rising is never apart from the falling.

6ch: I don't go through my old threads often, but couldn't find one that I've talked on recently, so went to "my page" and noticed in the list that you and Muralman seemed to have the last word on a lot of my old threads, but, somehow, your responses are recent and there's a big gap between my response all the way last year and yours within the last two weeks. I see multiple times around 10-12-02, right when Muralman was perhaps mining through my old threads looking for the drunken accusation, where you also appear. I know you and Muralman were "tag teaming" me at the time on this thread, and Muralman was more rev'ed up and resented my mentioning his private demeanor, but seeing you there doing this caught me by surprise, especially given how you've presented yourself here.

Were you going through my old responses? You said that you are only here to find out what I "know", as you put it, so why would you do that? Is it a coincidence that you and Muralman seem to have done this at the same time?

Please explain. I'm open to a reasonable explanation, particularly given that we seemed to have come to a calm place here. Notwithstanding, if this is the case, you need to tell me why.

6ch, I've contacted you. Please see that before answering the above.