Over? The question remains whether the topic of the "tangle" (the whole entanglement of a 4-way tele-friendship or tele-foe-ship--about which, at least, we have more knowledge) between asa, Bwhite, sead, and I should have been brought to the light of day, or whether it should have remained secret. In principle, I made it public: to give those outside the "tangle" another context in which to judge our assessments of OTA. The value of publicity, that is, of broad daylight (the basis of popularity, openness, res publica, and politics) essentially goes along with my (questionable and questioned) testimony. Not referring to the heart of the secret, not testifying was also a critical possibility for me.
This testimony has led to some passionate discussion. The reason I have not immediately responded to asa, Bwhite, and sead's latest posts, is that I have been trying to understand the cause for asa's persistent need to identify "influence" with the "nefarious," the "underhanded" despite my persistent attempts to avoid this negative connotation through a polite use of "influence", and a respectful--perhaps obsequious--relation to his audio knowledge and writing. A certain passion for free determination haunts many of asa's representations of Bwhite's choice of AN / NBS cables, as a major expression of asa's esteem for Bwhite's independence. Here "influence" is seen as abusive with regard to possible liberty or freedom of choice. In my more classical and sociological understanding, influence does not enter into a dialectic of determinism and freedom. I know that in the West (esp. in the USA), one sees influence as a negation of freedom, because one thinks that influence is not absolute, or that one could or should have the courage to combat it. (As an example of how this ideological notion of freedom of choice functions in US liberal-democratic society, the failure of Clinton's healthcare reform program--perhaps the only significant, though negative, event in Clinton's presidency--bears wirness to the material force of the notion of free choice: the medical lobby succeeded in imposing on the public the fundamental idea that, with State healthcare, free choice (in matters concerning medicine, hospital accomodation) will be somehow threatened--against this purely fictional reference to "free choice", all enumeration of "hard facts (in Canada, health care is less expensive and more effective, with no less free choice, etc.) proved ineffective.) To get back to our discusssion: each time that I have tried to suggest an influence between asa and Bwhite, with regard to the acts that led Bwhite to AN / NBS cables, asa has rejected this influence. Thus even a portrait and story of their tele-friendship has been drawn up and the new concept of guidance has been proposed by Bwhite ("Asa, through the forum, guided me ...") and leadership by asa ("I don't like leading people (and, "leading" is not a word that lets you accuse me of underhanded-ness..) to waste $ when less would do..."). Of course, one can always see a sort of vicious circle of determinism at play here: the more asa rebels against others taking his "guidance" as a sign of influence, the more his passionate rebellion is seen as a confirmation of his influence. But I think that Bwhite's indefatiguable passion for testing cables (as well as so much other audio equipment) can be considered as a figure for his independence. And let us not forget how Bwhite himself concuded the above post: "I would have eventually found the right cables - I just might be a lot poorer." What this means is that asa's conferring a formal freedom of choice to Bwhite does not make any difference: given the freedom, Bwhite would have done the same thing even if he was denied it: found the right (AN and NBS) cables for his system, except he would have wasted money doing it (doesn't your dealer provide test cables for free Bwhite?). This does not means that asa's reminder and bestowal of free choice on Bwhite does not make any difference: he will continue to rationalize Bwhite's free choice because he is unable to endure that he might have led someone to waste money on expensive cables ("I don't like leading people ... to waste $"). It must naturally please asa to hear Bwhite claim that asa "saved" Bwhite money. However, there was once an open question whether 47 Labs could have saved Bwhite even more money. The answer seems to be: with his system, and his ears, no.
As far as the most recent exchange between asa and sead is concerned: antagonism four months ago, antagonism today. Through all the mutations and changes in the forum, the conversations and discoveries that have abounded since we began, the memory still remains, the insistence and persistence of hostility; it still remains as it remained four months ago. Remaining, it was probably there the entire time. There is a memory of insults, accusations, provocations, etc. It remains, in the imperfect past of incompletion, and it is difficult for me to translate the feelings of disappointment as I read some of these latest exchanges than with the question: for how much longer? for how much more time?
Sead: perhaps it is because your Pataphysics has attained such a perfection of play and lightness that you give such little seriousness and importance to this discussion--which has little to begin with perhaps. You seem to raise the question: Should we kill ourselves over this discussion? And answer: No, it is not a serious discussion. But, I would add: precisely THAT is your seriousness. To better exhalt Pataphysics, it is better to be a Pataphysician without knowing it--which we all are here to a certain extent. Humor wants humor with regard to humor. This discussion must be null for you. In it, everything has become vanity, artificial, gaseous, even schizophrenic. The sulphorous and sumptuous smile of Ubu renders everything useless and has the freshness of...
In order to ask your pardon for having made things go on so long, in order to end without ending in great haste, and so as to not let complaints (which will always surface in any passionate discussion) go on too long, one must know how to put this to an end: "C'est desormais assez discouru sur ce point." (Amyot)
