How much money do you want to waste?

Maui wowie, actually ;)

You can't tell a blind person about the color purple; he/she lacks a point of reference. And, as all good objectivists know, our thought processes are dualistically-based and require a point of reference to have any validity, logically speaking. The best analogy I can think of is to imagine yourself in a plane flying at a certain altitude. You look down and the coast line appears as a jagged line. Then you go higher and the coast appears more smooth. Its still the same coastline, but you are seeing it from different symmetries of perspective. The person traveling higher has seen both views, but any person traveling below, and always staying there, their assumptions about reality bounding them to that altitude, don't believe that a higher, more inclusive and expansive worldview exists. They are conformist to those assumptions ("...from what I've been told.")and that box of assumptions is a comfortable place for them to live without the introspective trauma of examining their world independant of others' formulations ("they be dragons over the horizon..."). Applying this to the issue at hand, we can say that some people hear at a particular symmetry and others at deeper symmetries. Those listening minds attached to the shallower perspective MUST deny the deeper levels as if they don't exist because, otherwise, their assumptions (always in these discussions, scientific materialist biases)would have to be reflected upon. This is why, psychologically, such assertions from such people are so dogmatic and rigid. You can not have a reasoned dialogue with them because, in doing so, you threaten their world. Or rather, what they desperately want the world to be. This was the case when the mediaval world view that resisted the Cartesian, and it is now happening as the Cartesian resists the next paradigm. Its evolution. Its just that in high end audio, because it concentrates opposing worldviews in the experience that neither can escape from (music listening), we see the butting of heads easier, and more often.

Of course, that doesn't mean that to ME - maybe not to a Czar - that a particular piece of technology is not "over-priced", but again, that is a different discussion as to whether differing perceptive symmetries exist (I own a NBS IC and still think its over-priced, even relatively speaking, but the subjective listener in me loves the altitudes).

I hate to do this, but lets get straight on this relative price argument that objectivists are always using to bolster, inauthentically, their arguments. In each of these arguments we always see the phrase, "its over-priced" (and then they say, because its over-priced, its irrationally over-priced, so anyone of the opposing position is per se irrational, so, therefore, they don't need to be listened to. You see how the cascade of logic irrationally goes?). Implied in this position, however, is a denial of market forces and the assumptions of our economic system. Capitalism assumes infinite self-interest that translates into "whatever the market will bear". So, what actually is the problem that these people have with "over-priced" cable (that, nonetheless, is supported by the market): that they don't actually believe in the infinite assumption of our capitalist system? Or, is it really what I've been saying: that their reaction actually stems from their assumptions on objective grounds and they only mix in these arguments when its convenient and because they have that right air of political correct-ness that will keep anyone from saying something about it? You see, here's the thing I don't really understand: have you EVER really seen a scientific, materialist attached, yellow ribbon-tying objectivist who is in favor of changing the capitalist assumption of infinite greed?

Yea, admittedly we subjectivists have our own little buttons. FYI: CK sent me a gratious message. Now, THAT's the self-esteem that makes dialogue possible and FUN (!). Boy, is it refreshing. Dialogue, while pointed and confident in its given position, should always maintain some sense of play, I think. Maybe I'm wrong. As I told him, he was just a foil here, albeit a necessary one, IMHO now and then (for the reasons I stated above).

Alan, when you make conclusions, you must state reasons for your conclusions and, specifically, which conclusions you are referring to. It is important that when you reject something - and claim that the arguments made are insufficient - that you say WHY they are insufficient. Otherwise, you are contributing nothing other than your own unsubstantiated charges - which then, of course, become part of the tired-ness that you supposedly decry.

Excellent point, Mvwine. Looking to objective evidence does not make you an objectivist; the attachment to the assumption that objective observations are the only way to validly derive truth makes you an objectivist. Interestingly, it are not only his assumptions that the objectivist is attached to (specifically, these assumptions derive from Bacon [knowledge of matter = truth], Galileo [knowledge of matter can be enhanced by seeing reality as a mathematical machine, or linear matix, decribed by quantifiable data, ie size, etc.] and Descartes [reducing matter into progressively smaller parts gives greater truth]. Rather, the objectivist is also attached to his fear of his assumptions absense, or a denial of knowledge that is beyond scientific thinking (labeled with the abstraction "ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive formal operational cognition", presently recognized by psychology as the end-point in cognitive development). This is why science categorizes all knowledge that is not "scientific" as irrational; it must be, otherwise, science would be forced to examine its own premises, and why traditional psychology, allied as a rubber stamp for science, denies any level of cognition beyond the abstraction above (even though 5 million years of progressive cognitive development argues, empirically, the opposite future potential...). It is the attachment to the assumptions outlined above, and the recoil from a possibilty beyond them, that makes someone an "objectivist" (which, at its base, is an attachment to matter, or objects).

I would point out to you, however, that your assumption that more quantitative data necessarily will reveal greater truth is based upon the above assumptions. In this century - and something, characteristically, objectivists don't know, or choose to ignore - is that these assumptions have been thoroughly deconstructed. That's another discussion if someone wants to have it.

If I put a watch into the ground, in a thousand years it may be "priceless." I have a beer can at home that is "worth" $5K. Is it worth it to me? Yes. To my girlfriend? No, she thinks its insane.

Now, here's the interesting thing: in all technology what we are taling about is the rearrangement of matter into various forms, by bending, carving, heating, slicing, dicing, etc. And, our "machines" are only these pieces of rearranged matter rearranged together. This may seem "out there", but its actually the simplist way to cut through the abstraction that we pray to, namely, "Technology".

The second interesting thing: What these guys who decry price are really saying is that the given rearrangement that people are paying for is not justified because its not a complicated enough rearrangement. In other words, if it looked more like a complicated "machine", as opposed to a wire that doesn't move like a machine (or amp), then they would be more comfortable with the price.

Is Van Gogh's 'Night Sky' uncomplicated because it is not "technological", even though, it too, is only a rearrangement of matter?

But hold it. The objectivists who say that we should look at only a circuit tracing to determine if sound is "good" are the same guys saying that the rearrangement isn't complicated enough. In other words, if you believe that science is right and we should only look to the interactions of matter to see our truth, then why are these same guys saying that one given rearrangement of matter is "better" than another?

Rearrangement is rearrangement is rearrangement.

Scientific people who are attached to one type of rearrangement over another? Hmmm, now who is irrational?

Question: How can a mind attached to the concept that the manipulation of matter (and the observation of that interaction, er, "scientific method")will give us all truth also say that one type of rearrangement (and the manipulation that leads to it) is intrinsically better than another (in a value-laden way)?

Now, bite your lip, but here's the psychological current repressed beneath all of this: If you want to argue that we should not be using our relative wealth to buy expensive rearranged pieces of matter when people in sub-Saharan Africa do not possess enough edible matter to sustain the matter of their bodies, well, then that's another argument. An interestingly point -and symptomatically, I would say - that has not been delved into, especially by minds that like "Science" that produces "Technology" that makes wonderful matter-products, that we, in our post modern western capitalistic world, consume (consume like matter...)

Now, that should stir the pot!! (Now, did I use the word "Now" too much..?

Note: There is a difference between the validity of objective evidence - the continuum of "technology" from Homo habilis, reaching for a bone and rearranging its matter by carving, to the rearrangement of silicon, etc on a computer chip - and the ATTACHMENT to that cognitive ability, or an attachment to the products of that attachment, namely, the rearranged matter. These are two entirely different kettle of fish. Scientific-derived knowledge is valid for its purposes as a discipline; the exclusive attachment to it by the individual mind is irrational.

When I go deeply into the music and the force of my thinking fades as I let go of my habit of objectifying things I want to see and manipulate, in that state absent objectfying cognition, have I ceased perceiving? Is a perception absent objectifying valid?

An objectivist always believes that when you challenge the validity of an ATTACHMENT to scientific objectivism that you are attacking the validity of scientific knowledge itself and in its entirety. What I am challeging is peoples' minds' attachment to scientific knowlege as exclusive knowledge, its partiality, not its validity in whole. It gives great knowledege about matter, but the listening to stereo is not just about equipment, or producing a stereo soundfield populated with detailed sound sources that "look" like things, but about the mind's ability to seep deeper into the music by transcending the attachment to objectifying sound into a thing. This deepening - and I challenge any objectivist - is characterized by the "letting go" of the attachment to thinking, namely, objective thinking.

Viggens response reveals an interesting bias.

Whenever you say something about the limitations of objective knowledge, those ATTACHED to scientific materialist assumptions claim that you are saying that objective knowledge itself is invalid/irrational in whole. I'm not saying that: I'm saying that the mind's attachment to it is irrational because it denies all perception beyond itself.

Sympotomatically, Viggen, you say that "rearranged matter results from technology", as if "technology" was a thing separate from the matter. "Technology" is not a thing; it is an abstraction. I am saying that "Technology" IS ONLY rearranged matter and the objectivists making it into a thing, as their totem to pray to, is symptomatic of the irrationality described above.

To go deeper into the Music, you must let go of your attachemnt to control the music through your objectifying mind. No objectivist-attached mind who listens to music can deny the validity of this dynamic of the listening mind because he/she is performing the experiment UPON themselves!

And this is why I find the Hi fi microcosm so interesting: because the scientific-attached are finally performing an experiment on their own mind where they have to admit that their attachment to objective knowledge is partial. There does exist perceptive knowledge beyond thinking and the listening experience proves this, empirically, even to the thinking-attached.

So, here's the big question: if even the objectivists must admit that value exists in the non-thinking spaces of their listening mind as they deeply listen to music, then why, when they stop listening and start thinking and talking, are they suddenly once more arguing that nothing exists beyond that thinking? Answer: its the ATTACHMENT.

My point - without saying it - was that you, Viggen, mistated my argument. Thank you for your reasoned response. Yes, there is a relationship between the open-ness advocated in eastern philosophies and the receptivity, "letting go" to objective attachment, that I discussed regarding music listening (or any apprehension of "beauty"). They are the same things. I agree with you that our technology of stereo equipment will never approximate "Reality" (ignoring the fact that no-thing escapes from reality) in the sense that we will never, in an objective sense, copy music playing with a stereo rendition. However - and this is also an objectivist's bias - this contains another implicit assumption, namely, that it is impossible to replicate the EXPERIENCE subjectively. In other words, we should not only be trying to reproduce sound in an objective sense (sound), but also reproduce the dynamic of cognitive fading (receptivity)that occurs both in stereo listening and "real" (music) listening. When one accepts blindly the assumption that objective cues are most important then one, by default, assumes that the dynamic subjective experience can not be approximated to a greater and greater degree that exceeds the objective level's ability to approximate. I am saying that, yes, objective qualities are important - Science is important, objective thinking is important - but an attachment to believing that that is more important than the cognitive fading dynamic is irrational because it denies the nature of the experience in one's own mind as one listens to music. When the thinking-attached deny other potential experiences of reality because they are not objectively derived, they effectively deny the evidence of the listening experience that they themselves are engaged in. This is a denial of their own potential to listen deeper into the music, and into "Reality."

Oh yea, for those of you who just HATE this kind of talk, I will, on your behalf, rename this thread, "How much time do you want to waste?" :)

Yes, Viggen, people screen their world thorough a lens of subjective interpretation. Kant told us this many moons ago and Kuhn showed us how it even applies to the subjective lens of a scientist conducting scientific method (favoring confirmation of existing scientific truths as opposed to refutation). What I am saying, though, is that as one "seeps" into the music and the mind releases the attachment to objectify sound, the lens of subjectivity necessarily fades. In other words, "subjectivity" is composed of several prisms of interpretation. The surface lens composes the sense of subjective self and is structured of thinking about the "self". It is this level of cogniticizing that I am saying fades in its influence over the preceptive mind as a whole and this DYNAMIC precipitates greater receptivity to the musical message (their are other perceptive lens that do not fade, such as Kant's a priori space/time lens, which is why, in the deepest listening experiences we are more sensitive to spatial discontinuities in the stereo rendition at that time and less sentitive to "detail" that bounds perception of sound as an object, i.e. why with SE amp's detail seems less important an issue when you finally seep into the music and the more natural spatial presentation, in terms of its existential correctness, becomes intoxicating.) Subjective interpretive matrices CHANGE as that same mind, in whole, releases its instinct to objectify that which it experiences, including music.

Yes, in order to catalyze this experience, at least in stereo, the (objective) stereo piece must be used, but that does not mean that the objective is separate from the mind that created it or arranges it in a system. In fact, the subjective is causually prior to the objective; the mind that chooses a component is prior to the arrangement of that technology-component in his technology-system (just as the inventor's subjective mind is prior to the objective creation). Objective is casually dependant on subjective; they are not separate, except in the mind that wishes to make them separate (as in, the mind that desires to separate reality into objects).

Regarding neurosis in audio, yes, many people's ego structure (reflection of their self to their self) requires that they compete with others. These are the same people who are atached to the objectifiacation of reality, then carried into their stereo experience. All listening minds are not the same, however - regardless of our knee-jerk egalitarianism to the contrary. Pointing to this type of mind as what I am talking about misses the point. They may be the mean, but I am talking about a different subjectivity that is not tied for its identification on its powers of objectifiaction (hence, able to release that level of subjectivity easier and seep into the music).

Yes, I agree, the notion that the subjective sound - the "absolute sound" - of live music is transferrable into all subjective experiences, stereo included, is a nice marketing idea, but it is not realizable through objective means, IMHO (somthing I once told HP when I wrote for him in another lifetime). But, it can be replicated in subjective ways: the beauty I experience, beyond thought, when enraptured by the sight of the sunset, or her face, or the beauty in the music, is the SAME beauty. At deeper levels of perceiving - as the sense of subjective fades as its delf-defining objectifying fades - the experience of beauty converges into one. This is why, regardless of our self structures, we are all drawn to music, or the sunset, or her face. There is no-thing more "Zen" than that.

As I said, though, you must be willing to engage the experiment - to let go of you self - to confirm what i am saying. Until then, you will only interpret the experiences that exist beyond your-self as non-existent. That's the way the "absolute beauty" in all of the above has set it up.

Thanks for your response, sincerely.

And so it goes...

Viggen, I think we would, at this point, have to talk in person to carry out this conversation; the connection is breaking down because it would take too long in this medium to define what you mean by "metaphysical" vs "physical" vs. "super-real", "surrealist", "sight-seeing", etc.

I stand by my view of Kant, however; outlining a space/time interpretive matrix in the mind is the essense of a discourse on the subject-mind, or subject-ivity, regardless of its ultimate failure in displacing Hume and the progeny of British empiricism in Western culture.

Again, I don't know what you mean by "synthetic" structures in the mind. We, Homo sapiens, possess a space/time matice in our mind because life emerged into a reality of space/time dimension (or, more accurately, Newtonian reality is suseptible to a space/time embeddedness by a mind and our forebears adapted to that potentiality in reality, if you can follow that). This existential-orientating matrice is inherent in all minds, human and non-human. As such, I don't know how one could characterize it as "synthetic" in any way (unless you are saying that it is self-created delusion...but this is unclear. I haven't heard of anyone displacing Kantian space/time theory this century, but you never know...).

As for space/time reality projected by a stereo being "semantic[ally]", I don't know how that stereo recreation, in terms of the mind's subjective experience, is related to the construction of language.

On the breadmaker analogy, this is exactly what I've been talking about, namely, the assumption by objectivists that a subjectivist mind that creates a stereo from perspective of catalyzing the fading of objective thinking is delusional per se (assumably, you mean one who adopts this perspective exhibits dream-like irrationality by using the term "surrealist" [which, actually, is a school of aesthetics, i.e. Tanguy, Dali, etc. so, again, we are having trouble defining our terms to each other]). A mind that compares one experience to the next IS conducting an empiric experiment, the only difference being that the listening experiment can only be confirmed to himself. This does not imply delusion (or, fraud, as your King's clothes analogy implies). As for believing that a stereo piece comes before the mind's desire for the beauty of music - a position that claims that the intent to create a "technological" instrument is subsequent to the creation of technolgy - well, without the mind no piece of technology would exist. That I would think even a mind attached to the technology would have difficulty denying.

Anyway, we have tried people's patience enough (I can hear the rumble of the townpeople rising over the hill, pitchforks in hand. The what-cable-for-Kant comment has a point, and I LIKED IT!). Thank you for the FUN. At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. If you want to carry this farther, please feel free to contact me. Mark.

Hey Viggen, it looks like you've found a friend! :) On definitions, yes, I know, but the context of where words are placed changes their meaning, ie words are not things separate from their contextual ground...like objects are not separate from space, or sound is not separate from silence, or thoughts are not separate from the causal ground of silence in the mind from which they arise... somthing I think I've been talking about. Hmmm...

For example, if you place the word surreal-ism, indicating a school of thought, and place it in juxtaposition to a claim of dream-like irrationality, then one assumes that you are talking about something different than Kant's terms, which are mentioned, vaguley, obtusely, in the previous paragraph.

I sent you an e-mail if you care to continue. Cheers.

Incidentally, my question still remains outstanding. This is no "philosophy" here but a very simple inquiry that we all can have an opinion on because we all listen to music:

When I listen and begin to seep deeper into the music and my thoughts fade in their influence, and I stop listening with my thinking and instead listen with a mind without thoughts, am I still perceiving? Is the experience of listening that I am having a valid one, or irrational because it doesn't include thinking about music?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're right, Zaikesman, there is no problem. Matter is configured in infinite variabilty and, sometimes, objective means - or rearranged pieces of matter, or, "technology" - that we create is capable of detecting a difference, which, if we are bright enough, we can correctly pattern and anticipate change, which leads to our varied action in creating our next piece of rearranged matter, er, a stereo piece. Scientific inquiry is valid within its purview - the examination of matter - but the stereo listening experience, and the "evidence" that this mind collects is presently beyond our objective contraptions to discern in toto. When a machine can replicate the human mind's emotive response, and our being's existential response (and, some would argue, our essense's experience of ineffability), and then take that experience and create another piece of rearranged matter that catalyzes that experience, then I suppose we won't have to talk about the subjective mind any longer. However, until the Age of Valhalla for objectivists arrives, the mind remains primary to the objectivist experience that, itself, originates from that same mind.

Your use of radical objectivism to expose an objectivist's own bias is interesting, though. I try to stay away from using either radical objectivist (all matter is relative) and radical subjectivism (all opinion is equal) because it undermines any claims of meaning. Interestingly ploy, though.

I'm sorry, I just have to do a quick tabulation. For having the temerity to think, and to, heavens forbid (although I don't think heaven is forbidding it...), discuss the partiality of the ratio-empiric, hypothetico-deductive, formal operational lens of the human mind, I have been labeled:

1. irrational
2. surreal
3. "attacking" etc., etc.,

and now,

4. a "Trekkie" (read: dysfunctional loser)

and,

5. an alien.

When I said that even talking about this subject would bring the priests of science out from the woodwork in inquisition, I didn't think that it would be SO EASY.

And so it goes...

Anyway, Detlof, a three foot Grafix (sp?) is (was, actually) more my speed.

Quick! Stone the Witch!!!

Well, I didn't think of it at the time, but "Priests" may not have been the right choice; not that it isn't accurate, but that, in using such noun description, I would undoubtedly raise the ire of those attached to Judeo-Christian doctrine and their earthly acolytes.

On the other hand, Hearhere, I'm not sure that's "you", because you seem to be saying: if, Asa, you say that empathy is the goal (being-to-being permeability), then why do you stimulate recoil in others by punching their buttons with such loaded terms? Is that an accurate synopsis?

Well, apart from assuming a sense of humor- perhaps, in retrospect, a misplaced assumption - the term is, again, accurate. Actually, it is borrowed - verbatim - from a description by Henryk Skolimnowski, former Professor Emeritus of philosophy at the Univ. of Michigan at Ann Arbor and founder of Eco-philosophy, of the advocates/acolytes of scientific materialist assumptions in his book, "The Participatory Mind". If you study the similarities between the denial of the Cartesian (scientific) differentiation of Judeo-Christian doctrine of the medieval Catholic Church with the differentiation of science by the deconstructionists (and my integrative ideas above), you will see very similar reactions of marginalization and resistance - which accounts for the appropriateness of the analogy.

As for the question I've been waiting for, phrased as an assumption, here it is:

Hearhere states that it is "baseless" to believe that people listen at varying degrees of "feeling". The contra assumption of this statement, inherently implied, is that all people listen at the same level of "feeling". Simple question: in everyone's experience, do people feel to the same depth in terms of empathic identification? If so, then we have a whole area of knowledge assuming such differences - called, PSYCHOLOGY - that must be "baseless." I know that Judeo-Christian doctrine says that all people are equal in their degree of "sin" (which, I understand, actually means "to miss the mark" in aramaic, somewhat an illustrative coincidence here...), but are minds actually equal in their willingness to open to the other person, or the Music? For the record, I am not talking about "feeling" per se, but depths of awareness (differing emotive response being a manifestation of differing awareness levels). And, yes, I am saying that people possess differing abilities to address and access these symmetries of awareness. However - and unlike Judeo-Christian doctrine that says all mind are sinful while on earth inherently - I am saying that all minds are equal in their ability to open to the Music, stereo or not. While that mind may deny that such depths exist, and, therefore, give up the gift given to him/her of seeing beyond his idea of himself (cognitive structures), the mind never gives up the potential to do so. All are equal in our ability to orientate our will (not our thoughts) towards transcending an attachment to thought.

It is an egalitarian delusion in the States that all people are equal, a denial that stems from our desire to see ourselves as "democratic" (read: the assumption that everyone is equal in their freedom, even though, I might add, this is mutually enforced freedom: under the Lockian assumptions that underly our system, I only respect your freedom because you respect mine - it is not empathically based). However, no one is equal in the cognitive ways that we measure our stature in western culture (IQ tests, aptitude tests, etc. which differentiate individuals based on cognitive agility into socio-economic stratas). Nor does western culture say that we are equal in our abilities to "feel" (i.e. psycho-pathologies). Do you think Hitler was equal in his ability to "feel" the others' suffering?

To claim differently in the name of political correctness, while summoning the loaded-ness of the word "Priest" to support one's assumptions, is disingenuous. And, again, folks, this is what I've been talking about: whenever such scientific materialist assumptions are questioned, the "Priests" of those assumptions attack in disigenuous ways with political correct rhetoric, while - and this is important to see here with Hearhere - making strong accusations without ANY substantiation.

Hearhere, when you say "baseless", on what arguments, properly laid out so that a fair response can be made, do you mean? HOW are they "baseless"?

People who are attached to assumptions do not want to engage in reasoned response, but rather, resort to an attempt to rouse others to shout the heretic down. The exposing of such motives is not an "attack", because, remaining in denial of your potential does no one any "service".

I repeat: Burn the Witch!!! Or even better (and, no, I do not equate myself even remotely with this level of evolvement), let's all get together and take that guy who makes "baseless" statements on the current assumptions of being-to-being empathy - a guy somehow saying that we can all get to the Music without Caesar's help - and take him to the edge of town and nail him to a cross! Yea, now that's a proper way of dealing with such "baseless", "surreal", "irrational", assumption "attacking" persons!

Questioning scientific exclusivity does not mean, implictedly, that a costlier cable is necessarily better (see my response today under thread "Snake Oil"). And, yes, based on conformity (the desire to conform one's assumptions to the assumptions of the collective culture at any given time), some people do find the need to buy things/objects that other people who collect things/objects covet. Interestingly, those people who conform their views to others regardless of subjective experience, are, SURPRISE!, the same people in western culture who conform to the assumptions of science - which, not coincidentally, is also attached to objects. It is not a coincidence that people who are very good at accumulating things in our society, generally rising in socio-economic strata and gaining increased buying power (or people who are desperate to, but lack the ability or luck), are also many times the same people who buy cable that is over-priced because its the next-best-thing to get. Hmmm...

On wine, if, after tasting them, you can't tell the relative quality differences between a '97 and '98 Beaucastel Chauteneuff du Pape - even that close of a comparison - then yes, you should stick to sparkling grape juice...

Hey, look at that, I slammed superficial rich people and supported wine - a notorious "rich guy" activity - at the same time! I've become a moving target! Oh hell, just stone him anyway, one of the rocks is bound to hit...

Since I've been so upstage, and pbb fessed up, my cables for you to puruse/pick apart:

NBS Pro IC's
AudioNote Kondo KSL spkr wire
Hovland phono cable

Yes, very expensive, too expensive for me, actually, but they sound great in their context. In other systems they may sound bad, whether that context is an improper system synergy or another listener that can't hear what they are doing because...well, enough of that.

Interestingly, an Electraglide Fat Boy Series I sounded horrid on the Supratek pre and a $100 Discovery PC that I found sitting in a 5yr old box sounds great. So you never know.

Here's how it goes between the objective and subjective in the pursuit of the Music:

Look at the objective factors (material used, construction, configuration); compare those against technology that already seems to show a correlary between configuration and performance; if no correlary, then still keep an open mind because it may be a new and better invention or approach, but also keep in mind the objective incongruency; conduct empiric experiments by inserting the cable into the system and listening for details in an objective way by thinking, then by deepening into the music through by allowing your thinking to dissipate, always remembering that the later observation necessarily requires you to live with the cable longer before reaching a conclusion; compare these results with previous cables that you've listened to in same context as a control; decide, based upon the evidence that you hear, absent any desire to conform to others' expectations or prior pronouncements, which cable allows you to "connect" with the musical message in the way that you are most able.

When you forget about "music", the subjective and the objective evaporate in an "event" of music that is absent both.

The search for the truth, even through objective means, is not attained by a limitation of possibilties, but an openness to them.

Good luck.

Well, well, now we see the recoil, don't we? Let's update our tabulation: "surreal", "irrational", "grotesque", etc. and now a demand for an apology on behalf (self-annointed)of all objectivists throughout all the world (and, assumably, throughout all time).

Why are you afraid of ideas?

If I say that a certain orientated mind hears deeper into the music, then, per se, I am being "insulting" to, well, an occupation? Is that what you are saying? How can you say that you believe that different minds hear to varying depths of "feeling", but then also say that one mind can't hear deeper than "an engineer"? This is a logical incongruency.

I ask you to tell me why you think that my ideas are "baseless", and you proceed to omit doing so, then demand that I "prove" my ideas through referring to what others say (demanding objective eveidence, symptomatically), and tie it all together with an emotional, politically correct demand for an apology on behalf of all "objectivists", including, assumably, all "engineers".

Are you a crusading for all "engineers" who have been harmed by ideas that say attachment to objective thinking is partial? Who has been harmed? The only minds "harmed" by ideas are those who believe that their ideas are who they are, and when confronting another idea, for their self to survive, must censure that opposing idea? Descartes, the father of empiric method, said, "I think therefore I am." This is incorrect. It is, "I am, therefore, I think, sometimes." You are not only your ideas. As such, an opposing idea does not threaten your survival.

OK, again, what, specifically, is "baseless" in the above theories? I'm still waiting.

I'm also confused by your statement that there is no difference in sound between one cable and another, but then you say that the "total experience" of music goes beyond sound. If the sound is the same from any given configuration of matter (an assumption that is entirely against the evidence of science), then how can one hear something different and, therefore, have a differing experience?

As far as objective proof for my ideas, alas, the "what is" wants YOU to conduct that experiment for yourself without looking to someone else to tell you what you are "hearing". The problem is that you do not want to let go of the scientific passifier that tells you that if you only believe what others say, then you will be safe in your mind of ideas. The "what is" wants you to go deeper though. But first you have to stop believing that you are a sum of your objectifying thoughts. And stop looking to the "we" you refer to to tell you the sum of potentiality that is waiting for you in the Music...