Schroder sq and the new talea

Kostas_1, classical economics is helpful in explaining valuations on luxury goods like tonearms, insofar as the theory of marginal utility accounts for diminishing returns. However esoteric consumer behaviors relating to tonearm purchases requires a more complex model than rational behavior--perhaps something from evolutionary economics building on Veblen's idea of conspicuous consumption and conspicuous leisure. Yet as everybody around here knows, there is not much that is socially conspicuous about audio consumption. Valuations are formed in the privacy of one's living room and socially in a small virtual community of mostly shallow ties. The virtual gathering might appear to be just another form of country-clubbish exclusionary bonding, were not manufacturers and enthusiasts dancing together around the maypole of the thread after sharing a sweat lodge at an RMAF demo. We've come a long way since Frank built his first arm without a lathe...

Dear Nandric, indeed - that phantom "best tonearm" will haunt us all for the rest of our journey through high-end audio.
And yes, I think any given tonearm - no matter of concept or design - can't be universal, but has ( or should ...) be seen and judged only in direct conjunction with the cartridge mounted.
The dynamic-mechanic spring-mass system formed by these two partners is the key (assuming that all other parameters and the quality (inherent or not ...;-) ...) allows the two to show off what's possible.
But even then will will never universal join in praise.
Personal matters, opinions, taste and preferences will keep this game "open" forever.

Dgarretson, I also thought about classical ecomicis in this
context but 'the old one'. Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc. They
made the distinction between 'value in use' versus 'exchange value'. The so called 'theorys of value'
were all over the place then. Ricardo was the only one who
was searching for the 'absolute measure of value'. His 'corn model'of economic process is still the best 'reduction'(of complexity) that I know of. Ie the whole process is explained in corn terms. Back then the usual explanation of the difference was: water and air have
tremendous 'use value' but no 'exchange value'. No idea if this helps but to my mind we should avoid mixing expressions like 'valuation', 'desription' and 'prescription'. Dertonarm uses obviously 'physicist'
approach: the objects have the qualitys they have, we can discovere them but we can not ascribe to them qualitys they
dont have. But this should be put it seems to me in dscriptiv terms and not in terms of valuation. Valuation without a subject who values is a strange construction.
Marx stated this in the context of 'use value' like this:
the humans value those things because they need them but to
a sheep it may look very strange that his 'value'consist in
the fact that he is edible by humans.

Regards,

I still believe that true value in the sense of the word has nothing to do with declaration or point of view of people but with its inherent quality.

This seems inherently contradictory. There is no 'objective' viewpoint to be had; we are all humans and assign value and create stories about 'quality' in an arbitrary fashion. Rome did not prevail because of a sword; it prevailed, and that's all there is. Once you assign reasons, you are making up stories.

With regards to Frank's comments, The MP-1 has a phono gain of 66 db. The line section adds to that. I know of no cartridge that the preamp does not work with, it has a loading strip on the rear to accommodate any load needed. Frank's comments about compatibility are simply incorrect.

When used with a LOMC, the volume control will be seen to have 2-db steps. The difference in gain Frank was referring to was the fact that the outboard phono section he produced for the event had a different gain structure. If the phono section was the tiniest bit brighter, you would have run into this problem no matter how many notches existed on the control, due to the way the ear detects sound pressure.

Further, Stig's (Lyra) comments on this forum some months back bear repeating (I confirmed it the process of trying to build an accessory that could tell you what the right loading for a cartridge is): the simple fact of loading a LOMC cartridge has entirely to do with ultrasonic behavior of the preamp and little to do with the cartridge. IOW the value of the load is not critical **if the phono section is well-behaved when ultrasonic noise is injected into the preamp**.

The bottom line is if you are used to hearing big differences with loading, what you are hearing is caused by the phono section being susceptible to ultrasonics, **not** a change in damping of the cartridge.

Dear Ralph,
The cartridge I was using was not a LOMC, but a LOMI cart that likes to "see" a capacitive load of 400-600pF and a resitive load of 4,7kOhm. I had asked Thom if it was feasible to use the Atmasphere "all the way", but got a negative answer(or so I understood). Should have asked you, but didn't see you around that day. My bad, sorry.
Could you please explain what exactly you meant by "a phonosection being susceptible to ultrasonics"?
When loading a cartridge that's connected to the phonoamp via a transformer, both the upper end of the frequency response and therefore phase response and the gain of the transformer are affected(see graphs on intactaudio.com -
http://www.intactaudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=945&sid=efdd3b82186d4bfef1d24cdbbd192f9d)
As far as I understood Thom, you rely solely on tubes(12AX7) for your 66db of gain. While I don't know how you get this much gain out of a tube input phonostage other than through paralleling input tubes, I take my hat off if you did so without paying a noise penalty.
The prototype phonostage had a gain of 40db, the prepre in use provided an additional 30db(4,7kOhm load). I'm sure the clicks on the volume control are 2db apart for "regular" use. Where I ended up having to set the volume(Joel chose to start out at rather low volumes, fine with me though I had preferred to raise the playback level by 3-6db), the clicks seemed farther apart. But even if we had both used the Atmasphere preamp, 2db steps are too coarse for level matching/a valid comparison.
As said before, lots of things to be learned here. Next time we'll do better :-)

Cheers,

Frank

Dear Atmasphere,

I still believe that true value in the sense of the word has nothing to do with declaration or point of view of people but with its inherent quality.

This seems inherently contradictory. There is no 'objective' viewpoint to be had; we are all humans and assign value and create stories about 'quality' in an arbitrary fashion. Rome did not prevail because of a sword; it prevailed, and that's all there is. Once you assign reasons, you are making up stories.

"Rome prevailed, and that's all there is. Once you assign reasons, you are making up stories." ?
Oh yeah ?
Sounds to me like the G.W. Bush way to simplify existence and the world as much as possible, so that ultimately nothing is left that can't be either bought, explained to a 3 year old child or bombed ....
I took the example of an outstanding ( if historical ) technical device with superior performance - rooted in superior knowledge of its creator, unique materials used and recognized both in its time and by history.

This sentence should be something every audio designer would like to see written about himself and his creations - right ?

Now the point should be clear.
It was to illustrate just that specific point - not to discuss Roman empire's history nor the reason for it's military and strategic success.
Finally and just BTW: Rome did not prevail of a sword alone, but in military history the roman gladius I was talking about is long recognized as one of the very few truly outstanding ( read: graced with inherent value ...) weapons in history.
In a line with the english longbow, or the japanese Katana.
It "helped" to shape the world we are living in today.
There is such thing as inherent quality - the fact that it is so rarely found today is sad, but no proof for it's absence in reality.
I for one do look for inherent value in audio components.
That these birds are so rare is not my fault.

Atmasphere, If you are right then physical science is not
possible. Frege stated that science needs the sence as well
as reference by its statemens. Every single particle physicist knows the 'meaning' of Higs particle. Ie the contribution of this particle to the theory. But non of them knows if this 'name' has a reference. So we in Europe have build this colider for 2 billion Dollars in order to
(possible) answer the question about reference. If we do not succeed then the whole theory will colapse.I need not to defend Dertonarm, he is much smarter then I, but his
opinion is in accordance with physical science. One can
dispute his wording (inherent value of objects) but not
his physical inclination. The nature does not care about our feelings nor about our thinking. The arrogance of homo
sapince is self-deceit. Our 'mother náture' don't care about us.
Regards,

We use 12AT7s for phono gain. You can't get bandwidth with 12AX7s.

Installing the afore-mentioned values on the loading terminals of the preamp would have done the trick.

With higher impedance cartridges like this, the loading does become more of a damping issue, as higher impedance cartridges do ring much like transformers and have to be damped in a similar way.

With LOMC, the impedance is so low (50 ohms, often a lot less) that the artifacts of ringing are entirely ultrasonic, often well in excess of 100KHz. They can be sometimes quite surprising in amplitude, if a tuned circuit (depending on what resonant frequency that might be achieved with the inductance of the cartridge, capacitance of the cable, and aspects of the input of the preamp itself) results. If you think about this as RF being injected into the input of the preamp, it can be easier to understand. If the preamp has a problem with that, the loading resistor may become quite critical, as it interacts with the resultant tuned circuit.

We get around the noise issue by use of a differential balanced phono section (which was the first of its kind ever done), which employs very effect constant current sources. It can have as much as 12 db less noise than an equivalent single-ended phono circuit.

Thank you for your reply Ralph! Now everything makes a lot more sense to me. LOMI carts indeed can't be compared to LOMCs based solely on their output figures. But with correct loading one can achieve an incredibly wide bandwidth(flat beyond 70kHz +). Not that there is any usable info imbedded in the grooves(nor was it ever present on the master), at least one sees no nasty (MC)peak between 15 and 30kHz and the phase shift near the upper end of the audio band is minimal.

Have a great weekend,

Frank

One can
dispute his wording (inherent value of objects) but not
his physical inclination. The nature does not care about our feelings nor about our thinking. The arrogance of homo
sapince is self-deceit. Our 'mother náture' don't care about us.

Yes. I think we are on the same page here- life does not care what we think of it ('Rome was successful due to a fabulous sword'), it simply is. When we make up stories about life and life does not agree, well, that is the source of all human suffering.

So I maintain that Rome prevailed. I would think that it is because they *recognized* the value of that sword, but not due to the sword itself, as, IMO, Rome was successful out of its policy. But that is the reason I made up. Life says simply: 'Rome prevailed.'

Actually, I was just holding Dertonearm's feet to the fire- I like to *think* that I have good taste for quality as well, but somewhere in the last decade or two I became aware that as a human I am remarkable fallible; that the perceptions of my senses can be misleading as can my beliefs. That does not stop me about my tasks, now days I am committed to but not so attached to the outcome thereof. So when Dertonearm is talking 'quality', **even though I seek the very same** (assuming that the value of 'good' is attached to that quality- I hate to buy junk) I find that the conversation can take on an absurd quality very quickly. Like me going on like this :)

Welcome home Frank, and thanks, for the detailed follow-up.

At the end of the day, the key takeaway, while not what everyone hoped for, was a very good one, nevertheless. New and old friendships were made / rekindled.

I agree with you, 100% about the volume control coarseness, which was exacerbated by two factors: (1) too much gain in the amplifiers for the speaker/room situation. This resulted in “living too low" on the dial” where the steps are larger, and (2) the change in cartridge / phono stage which resulted in a larger than expected gain mismatch at the point of entry into the line stage.

I agree with you. At 6pm on Saturday, our choice was to either kill the session, or to proceed with a "flawed" one (flawed according to expectations of a more direct comparison). We went full speed ahead, which I think was the right choice.

Ultimately, setting a deadline (rather than a goal) of 24 hours ahead of time for completing a test setup would have helped mitigate this. We could have (with Ralph's help, for example) reduced the gain in the Atma-sphere M-60 amps, to result in a more clockwise rotation of the volume dial, where the steps are less coarse. This would have helped level matching to a degree. Then, there’s the issue of loading that Ralph brought up ... easy to do a day ahead of time, but not so easy when it’s “show time”.

So, with the reality of a show, and all of the interruptions and potential catastrophic events, what's a fellow to do? I know that you were really slammed for time, and unable to run through your simulation as early both of us would have liked. Similarly, I was working on an equipment change that didn’t land in suite 1130 until 3am on Friday morning. Such is the reality of shows, and matching gear in unfamiliar places.

Perhaps the answer lies in some sort of hybrid approach for any future sessions - something you alluded to: to increase the population of "candidates".

This would allow us to put a hard deadline for any "entries", of 24 hours before "show time". If something hasn't been fleshed out by then, it doesn't get into the session. It sounds a bit harsh, but would serve as a means of "thinning the herd".

With that understanding, there will be no perception of a hidden agenda, and we can all get on with the business of playing with all of these toys. Heck! I don’t have a pony in this race ... other than my turntables (grin).

Cheers,
Thom @ Galibier

Good Morning, Everyone

While I was not at RMAF, this thread has inspired me to comment. Each of you has contributed to this discussion's vitality and I have learned a great deal. Thank you.

I want to address aspects of Atmasphere's, Dertonarm's and Thom's entries, first via the Gladius metaphor, and then in a discussion of inherent quality.

We, interested in audio, exist in a [tiny (and some would say insignificant)] moment of time. The gladius was developed --I use this term because that sword was the result of accumulated learning applied to technology-- in a moment of time as limited in knowledge as is our own. *In its time* the gladius was a tool of the highest sophistication, bettered by none.

Throughout history there have been such devices, and they are the consequence of fortuitous factors coalescing at a peak of development. They are the product of their context, and could not have evolved earlier. And they fall prey to the progress of time, as we ourselves do.

Dertonarm's use of the gladius metaphor was most insightful, clearly illustrating the superiority of *a device that was applied to enforce a belief system*. The Romans' intention was conquest, like many before them. The gladius was not their only superior war tool, but the single-minded focus on exporting their way of life was the driving force of their success. In a synchronic sense (during the same time or era) the gladius was an indispensable tool for implementing a culture-wide intention. Underlying the Roman's enforced cultural imperative --do it our way, or the 'gladius way'-- was their assumption that they were right.

Skip forward a millennium or so. Much of what the Romans discovered has remained, eg. the "Roman" calendar. Is the gladius still a viable tool of "cultural enforcement"? That is, did the gladius' superiority survive diachronically (outside its era)? Clearly not, but the metallurgy that created it has greatly evolved. What was extraneous or outdated in the Roman cultural model was discarded, leaving a distilled essence of the rest. At this time, however, the tonearm was still Fred Flintstone's proverbial 'beak of the Pterodactyl'.

Flash forward another six centuries, noting that the interval has diminished. There are people discussing the merits of material selection for building devices of peace --tonearms. (and parrying in words about its best design implementation)

Today's technology offers new materials that mitigates if not solving inherent limitations of the old. For the modern era, substitute carbon fiber for gladius iron. Yet some of the lessons learned in creating that iron remain in the [updated] lexicon of metallurgy. We continue to build upon our cumulative knowledge base.

New materials are irrelevant unless their properties are marshaled toward a goal with *intention*. The tonearm will not improve in perceived value --the value to the designer and to the end user-- without the intention of improved performance. The goal, for many of us, is an increased authenticity, a greater simulacrum to music as we perceive it in live performance.

As to value and how it is determined: something is worth what a person is willing to pay. We could digress into a discussion of currency value, what sweat equity means today, etc. however all of us who have time and money to aspire to audio delight are privileged --simply admit it.

Let's take authenticity to live music as the premise upon which we select our audio components, though there are certainly other premises at work. Perceived value is highly individualized, no less than a preference for John Coltrane over Zoot Sims.

Now we're down to what you and I prefer. Even if our tastes are currently similar (synchronic), they will likely develop and change over time (diachronic), just as the pool of materials available to audio designers. So is value, too, a moving target?

The noted photographer Ansel Adams was challenged for the price of his photographs, the critic claiming he could make the same photograph in the same sixtieth of a second. 'A sixtieth of a second and forty-two years,' Adams responded.

Ansel suffered from his own success [in marketing as well as photography]. His prices went up so fast in the 1970s that he lost money:by the time he caught up on past orders, the value of his prints had risen. The point here is the speed with which perception can, in a 'good market', change its valuation of an esthetic experience. So, again, time is a factor in determining value, just as those forty-two years seasoned the soul behind Ansel Adams' eye, enriching his product. Parenthetically, Edward Weston never sold a photograph for more than $25, and one of his was the first to bring a million dollars at auction.

Now to the 'if a little is good, then more must be better' approach. I'm a fan of complete truth. By this I mean not leaving out *essential* details. 'Moderation in all things' is a common but incomplete saying, in my estimation. Though not as absolute or pithy, 'Moderation in all things, including Moderation' is more truthful. All work and no play makes Jack [worse than] a dull geek. If one doesn't occasionally go a little mad, then moderation is merely a diet of deprivation. So 'if a little is good', then it's likely to take more time to make less be more effective.

Mies van der Rohe, the Bauhaus architect who flourished in the US, proclaimed 'Less is More'. While *he* knew what he was saying, taken out of context his aphorism is food for dischord [!]. To reach the point in design that 'there is nothing inessential remaining' takes a combination of experience (however it's accumulated), very hard work, patience and persistence. Most often More [work] leads to [what appears to be] Less, hence my comment about complete truth.

This More/Less diatribe applies to authenticity in the reproduction of music. When there is Less [artifice from an electronic component], there is More [music that can survive the process of reproduction]. This is at the heart of our present endeavor. As the history and present state of our hobby attests, it takes time to get the Sound Absolute: we're not there yet and Edison patented the first recording and playback 'system' in 1878.

Some time ago, we named ourselves homo sapiens, or in loose translation man who knows or is wise --by extension, man-who-is-right. I think part of our problem lies in the assumptions behind this, our first self-designation. We *don't* know, clearly, because we are still learning. What leads us to know what little we do, is curiosity. For that reason, I submit that we rename ourselves audio homo curioso in the interest of putting aside the incomplete truth, the assumption that we know something, or that what we know is right.

If we approach things from a point of view that we do not 'know' but have *some* knowledge upon which we seek to build as we learn, then we stand first, to better cooperate, as we have in this forum, and second, not to be afraid of our ignorance, but to see it as a positive force guiding us in our inquiries.

In retrospect, perhaps Dertonarm's gladius metaphor was prescient in our evolving definition of audio, its terminology, and knowledge in general: just when we think we know something, like the meaning of the gladius as it pertains to audio, we realize the need to acknowledge the *contemporary* meaning of 'moving iron'.

Stepping on the shoulders of learning from the past we can reach higher in our quest to understand our present with the humility that inevitably comes from knowing that there is yet more to learn.

Best,
David (Audio Homo Curioso)

Thanks for defining synchronic and diachronic. I am a better person for it.

Dear Lew, I have no idea what you mean. Anyway Davids
contribution wich I very much enjoyed and admire is not
about 'definitions'. He uses lingustic theory (from de Saussuree on) as á 'conceptual fráme'. Ie the diachronic and the synchronic linguistics to show the historical as well as present 'state of affair' in our knowledge and
'technology' in their mutual dependance.I realy don't like
to fight about words ( I am a foreigner) but I noticed that
David used the expression 'inherent quality' while Dertonarm used the expression 'inherent value'. I think that the word 'inherent' in both expressions is superfluous
and deceptive. Those are remainds of Aristotelian 'essences' one outdated 'theory'.Dertonarm uses obviously 'value' and 'quality' as synonym wich they
are not and David 'forget' the difference between the 'pure'- and 'applied' science. The objects have the qualitys they have independent of us (aka objective) so we need to discovere them before we can use them. It is of course impossible to discovere qualitys wich are non existant. And if some quality yet unknown to us exist then in some object. But 'the value' without valuation and valuating subject is a strange construction.

Regards,

Dear Cdk84, allow me to - briefly- address a few points in your excellent post.
Furthermore I want to take the opportunity to clarify once and for all 2 misunderstandings.
First, I took - explicit and for good reason ! - the example of that specific gladius made from superior alloy, solely available to and from that celtic-bavarian tribe. I did so ONLY to illustrate the point ( apparently futile ...) of the concept of "inherent quality".
Only this specific version of the gladius and only to illustrate the point.

Roman history in particular and military history in general is my side passion since almost 40 years now. Of course, neither the gladius, nor the light pilum with it’s predetermined breaking point, nor the most versatile roman evolution of the static spartan/makedonian phalanx, nor the Marian reforms, nor the inability of Rome's rivals to form endurable alliances was the solemn reason for Rome's "imperial success". There were other much more important reasons which evolved out of roman inner society, pragmatic modern thinking with a secular sense to reality, certain traumata in their early history and a most astonishing ability of the roman upper class to adapt to changes and of their engineers to assimilate every single smart technical idea they found - wherever they went.
As long as roman society was able to adapt to the changes of time they prevailed - and they (certain circles in the roman patrician families) knew the importance of that ability to change very well.
BTW - the roman gladius is referred to in ancient times (and by the romans themselves ) as the "spanish sword", as it was “found” first among the celtic tribes in Iberia during the punic wars... and thus it had it’s military impact only in conjunction with the large rectangular scutum used by the roman legionary and the very special way of close combat and teamwork in battle.
We can discuss that in length and to my great amusement, but we are already boring our audiophile fellows.

Inherent quality.......
If - I know it is hard for everyone - we can leave aside the aspects (rather: terms..) "price", “market”, “commercial product” and "what you pay for it" for a brief moment, maybe then it becomes clear, that something like an “inherent (product) quality” of a tool (tonearm, longbow, shoe or gladius..) exists.
We all are so "encaged" in our everyday life and surrounded by marketing and price in everything (everyone of us in the “1st” world is confronted with 5-6000 sales and marketing advertisements every day), that it becomes hard to leave that omnipresent sphere even for a moment.
20 years ago I graduated with a master degree in marketing. Cum laude. I know what I am talking about and have learned - and used - the mechanisms and tools of marketing well enough. Knowing the “enemy” inside out opens up the horizon and perspective.
If we can not accept “inherent quality” ( at least as a perspective..) just because it doesn’t necessary shows so on the price tag, we are fooling ourselves.

Dear Nandric, maybe it is more than problematic to draw any line between "value" (which has become a foremost economic term) and "quality" (which today is corrupted by reality too) in the bright light of the day.
Does "value" indeed need a receptor and his/her individual matrix of preferences, likes and dislikes?
If it does, then of course it is and will always be a subjective perspective and thus a futile concept.
But if "value" ( here in a tool or product) can ( and will ...) be recognized beyond preference and sympathy (both always personal and subjective), then it is inherent - i.e. an essence.
REgards,
D.

I meant, dear Nandric, that the Talea and the Schroeder are just tonearms.

Dear Dertonarm, We all are, I assume ,familiar with 'concepts' from our education. Thy were somehow always 'split' in two then four, etc: You know: thesis versus antithesis, value in use versus value in exchange,
real estate versus movables,etc.etc. So I may think and
ask: are there also 'extraherent' qualitys or values in objects?
Since Frege we are not searching for the 'meanings' of
words in isolation but only in the context of a sentence
(proposition or statement) with the question regarding the
contribution some word makes to the meaning of the whole sentence. BTW Frege also proposed to treat a 'concept' as a function with one argument and relations
as function with two or more arguments. Well my I ask what
kind of contribution the expression 'inherent' adds to the
meaning of whatever sentence? To my mind the content of such a sentence qua information will be the same without expression 'inherent'. Then there is the objective fact that there are objects wich we know without knowing all their qualitis as well as objects
that are unknown to us. But according to your 'philosophy'
even the unknown objects must have 'inherent values' and
'inherent qualitys'. As I stated before the objects have
qualitys they have independant of us while 'the value' of
any object whatever is dependat on the 'value' we put or
attribute to them. I already mentioned Marx sheep and its
'use value' without mentioning 'value in exchange'. This animal has both (to us)I am sure. Is this sheep entitled to say to a elephant: 'you are a worthless animal'?

Regards,

Just tonearms, yes. But viewed as tools to reach a higher state of musical enjoyment and all that that may entail for some of us, well that is something more, no?

Dear Nandric, are there "extraherent values" in objects ? I think there are. For instance the eagle of a roman legion, the "Oriflammé" of the french kings (the war-flag of St. Denis), the stars and stripes of the USA - any banner of a nation. These are objects which draw their "value" not because of their inherent (..;-) ...) quality or composition, but because of the impact they have ( to selected people in certain periods of time) and a kind of immaterial socializing power to a community. As such, an "extraherent" (interesting term by itself) quality or value is always depending on human perspective.
Which would be my answer to your question what kind of contribution the expression "inherent" adds to the term of "quality". It separates from the antipod "extra-..." and so defines the value and quality "emerging from its own self" (or material/design-related "essence" ) in opposite to the quality applied by people and/or their perspective.
I guess the sheep is in a lucky position - due to lack of perspective and it's (assumed...) self-contend, it won't muse about the worth or value of an elephant (as long as the elephant doesn't step on all it's grass ...).
Regards,
D.

Dear Dertonarm, Because of our educational system with,say, the concepts and their opposites there is this
'system' expectation: if there are 'inherent qualitys' in objects what about the 'opposite' kind? So to give them a
name I constructed 'extraherent' kind obviously with some succes because you grasped my intention direct. However your examples of 'extraherent' kind are subject of the discipline called semiotik. This discipline investigates
all kind of symbolism in the contex of symbolic interactions between people.Ie an important symbol of
nation A has no meaning whatever for nation B. There are no
universal kinds. Scietific statements on the other hand are
universal. There is (no more) German versus Russian science. All knowledge we have is regarded as 'public' in
the sence that it belongs to us all. But what about your 'extraherent' qualitys or values? Even in one single
country like China there are many different symbols that are not common to them all. So your 'extraherent' qualitys
may depend of many,many different situations. Aka to many
variables ,so to speak. So to answer any question about your 'symbols' one should ask : wich one have you in mind
and for wich society? But this is not much of a theory as
we may have expected from your conviction.

Regards,

On the deconstruction of gladius & scutum I'll defer to Henry James, whose modern perspective on Romans and intrinsic quality & universal valuation(embodied in the ideal of perfect marriage) is captured in the symbol of the Golden Bowl. Perhaps the Imperium is closer than we know...

"The Prince had always liked his London, when it had come to him; he was one of the modern Romans who find by the Thames a more convincing image of the truth of the ancient state than any they have left by the Tiber. Brought up on the legend of the City to which the world paid tribute, he recognised in the present London much more than in contemporary Rome the real dimensions of such a case..."

"Oh, marble floors!" But she might have been thinking—for they were a connection, marble floors; a connection with many things: with her old Rome, and with his; with the palaces of his past, and, a little, of hers; with the possibilities of his future, with the sumptuosities of his marriage, with the wealth of the Ververs. All the same, however, there were other things; and they all together held for a moment her fancy. "Does crystal then break—when it IS crystal? I thought its beauty was its hardness."

Her friend, in his way, discriminated. "Its beauty is its BEING crystal. But its hardness is certainly, its safety. It doesn't break," he went on, "like vile glass. It splits—if there is a split."

"Ah!"—Charlotte breathed with interest. "If there is a split." And she looked down again at the bowl. "There IS a split, eh? Crystal does split, eh?"

"On lines and by laws of its own."

"You mean if there's a weak place?"

For all answer, after an hesitation, he took the bowl up again, holding it aloft and tapping it with a key. It rang with the finest, sweetest sound. "Where is the weak place?"

She then did the question justice. "Well, for ME, only the price."

Another one that come to mind is the Coke bottle discarded from an airplane that becomes an object of religious veneration for a primitive tribe in the "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Finally in Antonioni's "Blow-Up", David Hemmings fighting off concert fans to take possession of Jeff Beck's broken guitar neck-- a prize that is immediately devalued by being discarded on a street corner before indifferent passers-by.

As Lewm said, it's a tonearm.

Another one that comes to mind is the Coke bottle discarded from an airplane that becomes an object of religious veneration for a primitive tribe in the "The Gods Must Be Crazy." Finally in Antonioni's "Blow-Up", David Hemmings fighting off concert fans to take possession of Jeff Beck's broken guitar neck-- a prize that is immediately devalued by being discarded on a street corner before indifferent passers-by.

Two wonderful films! One hysterically funny, the other intellectual and enigmatic. And both very apropos.

Best regards,
-- Al

I see many insightful comments on the Romans, many true at their symmetries of perspective, and equally true there, but I did especially appreciate Derto's mention of assimilation.

In my mind, one of the most evolutionary innovative actions of the Roman collective was the integration of other collective minds' ideas, or thought constructs - a more difficult turn at the time than now, relatively speaking, I suppose (remember, that from the progression of kin to clan to village to polis to state to nation-state, the evolutionary movement is from greater exclusion of other minds towards greater inclusion; which can also be seen as a collective movement from greater recoil to the Other mind to less recoil; from less empathic identification to more). This will towards inclusion of others' ideas by the Romans seems to be a lessening of recoil towards the Other, albeit a limited one from our perspective. Maybe that was a current below the eddies...? (before you feel that recoil, ask: is the eddy separate from the current; is one more "true" water than the other?)

I see here much learning, dazzling actually - about linguistic deconstruction, Aristotelian stuff, murmurings of radical subjectivism, searching for Unicorns, etc. - but I have one question:

What is trans-cognitive knowledge? And if there is a perception beyond formal operational cognition, then what would it see?

Would it see deeper symmetries of "quality" or "truth" or "beauty"?

And would those that are not yet ready to go there still say that "that" does not exist, could not exist? Arguing for their own limitations, don't the minds holding on to the past against change, seeing it as always a chaos, necessarily have to say to each other, to themselves, that such see-ing is indeed where dragons be, as the illusion of the Nothing-ness yawns (Was that enough bread on the water, or did I go too far?!).

If you "will", please, tell-me "what" "this" "means:"

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

M-

"What is trans-cognitive knowledge? And if there is a perception beyond formal operational cognition, then what would it see?"

This question is addressed by the crack in the bowl--a complex metaphor suggestive of the failure of knowledge and the symmetries, elsewhere in James a mutation of liminal inter-connectedness into spiritual vampirism. Gladius and scotum as mark of quality or as glandular pustule of the Roman venerium?

Asa,'what would IT see?' Ie what a perception beyond,etc
would see? Metaphors are, I thought, meant to explain or 'enlight' something in a lucid way. You obviously
constructed one but whay should we explain your metaphor?
A metaphor is supposed to do this by itself, so to speak.
To my mind our eye can see, our ear can hear, etc. But what
our brain does we can only 'quess' with the help of produced sentences by the brain in casu.Ie I have no idea
what your 'message' is.
Regards,

Dgarr, I say "bread on the water" and you bite, saying, a progression towards Spiritual vampirism. You make an assumption; that trans-cognitive knowledge is a product of a failure of knowledge. That is a bias to categorize all perception beyond one's own as a negative, as a No-thing-ness, as the place of dragons. It will keep you from going places...

As for Latin, I do not speak it, so you will have to tell me if I missed anything. Here is a story. Many years ago, I looked into a PhD in philosophy at the Univ of Chi & they said fine, but wanted me to learn a dead dialect of Greek. Studying primary souces is good, as those things go, but it takes a lot of time away from actually be-ing a philosopher. I then looked at their syllubus and the last thing they had on psychology was Freud! No Jung even. My, my, how the logical positivists have plied their way...

Everyone, here is my request: stop telling me what other philosophers told you about what they saw. That is looking into a mirror. Tell me your philosophy/meta-narrative, or better, just what you *see.*

Nandric: thank you for asking me back, and not in semiotics, etc., which makes my old head hurt these days!

You also make an assumption, again, one symptomatic of an attachment/bias (I do not mean disrespect in saying this, its just the most concise way of saying it...). You assume that a metaphor/symbol, in order to convey knowledge to the "brain," must do so in thought-constructs, which we then use to talk to each other in sentences. Yes, that is knowledge too. But I have a question: when you are not think-ing, who/what are you? Do you disappear when you are not-thinking? If not, then the silence between thought-constructs, like the silence between notes, must be prior to that construct. And, if prior, then actually its ground.

When you are deeply listening to the music, and the attachment to cognitive/objective grasping and control has faded into an open silent ground, do you cease perceiving meaning in the music-constructs greeting you from your stereo?

I would love to take credit for the Geese metaphor, but it was written many centuries ago by someone who knew more than me and is, in fact, not a metaphor - that is another assumption. That is part of its trap, for the mind that grasps to see its knowledge in terms of only thought-constructs (and even though, illogically, that same mind experiences musical meaning from a symmetry of consciousness that is absent of thought). It is actually a koan, meant to produce silence in the mind. How? Because the harder your thinking mind tries to wring its meaning through cognicizing, the more cognitive turmoil it catalyzes. It is a letting-go exercise, or a putting-down exercise, however you want to shake that rattle.

When you stop shaking the cognitive-attached rattle, what can you *see*? If you can logically concede that a knowledge may exist that integrates all cognitive knowledge while at once transcending it, are you not, as minds on a knowledge search, at least obligated to be open to that possibility?

But to the cognicizing mind, attached to the mirror, this feels like a death, with concurrent recoil.

The recoil is from the possibility of a deeper symmetry of perceptive consciousness, one that is equally all of our potential.

As I said, argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours (another stolen quote).

Now, I have to go clean out the gutters. Wish me luck...

Good Luck.

If you are not thinking, then you are present. This is not possible with thought; your thoughts are trying to convince you that they *are* you, and seek to place you in the past or the future; neither is a place where anything happened or will happen. Happening is only in the present.

So life is, as the Gladius is, as these tone arms are. We as humans attach the 'value' to such things, and the 'meaning' thereof. As a designer, one likes to think that the value and meaning is built into the design, but when that design makes its way into the world, like any fine art the values and meanings attached are rarely that of the origin.

Hello Ralph. Yes, thought is necessarily dualistic and temporally bounded, but I truly believe that there is correspondence between your designing mind and the mind that listens, and I think it can be more than a simulcrum of your original intent, or vision. I know this in your case because I have conducted the empiric injunctive of listening to your preamps. Their musical-ity (defined here as the ability to catalyze the mind to deeper symmetries of perception of meaning), I would kindly submit, is not a random occurence. The MP-1 is one of my favorites, for many reasons; some of them to be explained in words, some of them ineffable.

True, from a mechanical perspective, the creation of technology, or tools, is nothing more that the manipulation of matter into various forms, and it is certainly a tough row to hoe to embue the creative mind within that material creation...and yet, you keep on.

Funny how that happens...

M-

Asa, I was not saying that trans-cognitive knowledge stems from a failure of knowledge. Rather, in literary terms at least, there is merely a caution that any attempt to rationalize full absorption of the Other contains inevitably parasite potential that indicates "a crack" in the original notion of perfect symmetry. With respect to gladius, its quality(sharpness, hardness) cannot be entirely separated from its value or purpose in the context of its use in the service of imperialism. Similarly(but without the martial implication)a tonearm's quality cannot be separated from its value or purpose as a transcriptor. However, unlike the Gladius, there is enough deviation in theory, design, execution & measurement of tonearms(unlike the simple kill-shot of Gladius) to mostly confuse distinctions between quality and value, and to relegate judgment to opinion. For example, while debate continues regarding long vs. short pivot arms and even shorter linear arms, there has really been no success in ranking all of the variables of these divergent designs. As there is no reasonable prospect of synthesis, there is probably no possibility for a sine qua non of tonearms. And yet audiophiles yearn for this convergence, probably from the false assumption that these are at bottom simple devices.

To The O.P. Vertigo.Has your question been answered ????

Before I studied electronics, I used to wonder why no one had adopted the strategy of building a perfect circuit using perfect parts, so there could be no doubt among end users that the product was "perfect". Now that I know something about electronics, I fully realize that there is a large number of ways in which to design a potentially great phono stage. And once that's done, the choice of parts with which to build said phono stage constitutes yet another determinant of the outcome. There can never be any such thing as a perfect anything in audio, as is true of our other very earthly pursuits. Because this is the way I think about it, I may appear dismissive, when I say that the Talea and the Schroeder are just tonearms, albeit very fine examples of the tool. For that matter, the Gladius was just a sword. (By the way, my perception was that the gladius was a factor in Roman dominance in part because its short length, relative to the battle swords of the opposition, allowed it to be particularly maneuverable and therefore lethal in hand to hand combat, not per se because of superior metallurgy.)

As to what my brain is doing when I am not thinking. I can't know, but I do know that it is doing its most important work on unsolved problems, when I am thinking about something other than those problems. That mysterious process must have been at work for Schroeder and Durand when they conceived their respective products and probably still goes on for them. For any of us in creative pursuits, it is always going on.

Dgarr. Thank you for your response. This is, of course, the problem when we try to bound ourselves in literary terms; as in, the linguistic, academic regression that has occurred over the few last decades.

On this literary bug up our brain: Using the thinking mind to dissect metaphor/symbol/sign, etc. can certainly yield interesting sights and can point in some directions, as it has. But considering the moribund state of philosophy as a discipline, much less a search path, I think what we might actually might have been learning lately, collectively, is that this deconstruction is attempting to tell us to have the courage and creativity to move on to the next little road.

Of course, it does make for lots of nice, little published journal articles... ;0)

Lewn, nice post. But, you know, you can know. Your "mysterious" is not as far away from your waking world as you might, well, think.

Atmasph: I glanced at your post again, really like it. The intent thing is interesting. Heidegger looked at a painting of some old shoes by Van Gogh and was sure it was a proletariat-tinged in meaning, but Vincent's letters (to his brother Theo, I can't quit remember) show that it his intent was something else.

When I look at a painting, I first see its composition, the brushstrokes. This is when my cognitive processes are most engaged and I see its meaning in more objective terms. This is the same that we do with our stereos; we look for detail and value the objective when we first sit down (and which is the level that produces our audio language). As we sit and listen and our thinking mind calms its waters - as our waking day, prey-predator oscillating attachment to cognitive control fades - we experience the musical meaning from a deeper, but not separate, symmetry. And still, deeper, as the thought currents become relatively still, from another.

Atmasph, a submission for your consideration: perhaps Heidegger got it objectively wrong on the meaning at the shallower levels of perception, but, perhaps, the meaning at the deeper levels was wholly translated to him? When you create a preamp-tool-art, perhaps the objective intents that you envision are never quite translated in just the way you saw them, but perhaps the ineffable that you embue in that matter/energy contrivance does become more wholly translated. Perhaps, the deeper you go in perception, the more of meaning is translated? Of course, the thinking mind doesn't like this idea. I mean, the sum structure of your ideas about the world, the egoic structure, wants to be everything, right?

Atmasph, I would submit that the experience that makes your preamps like the Van Gogh painting is the meaning that is more wholly translated by it (not to consciousness, but in an event with it) at the deeper symmetries. Maybe this is why people want it but can't say exactly why.

Goldenguy: yes, you have a point...but its a big sandbox.

M-

Asa, ...'try to bound ourselfs in literary terms, as in,
the linquistic, academic regression,etc.'
I had no itention whatever to discuss with you any issue
at all because we seem to be from differnt planets. But
your disapproval of linquistics and the progress made
since,say, the German philosophy including Heidegger is
impossible for me to swallow. When Wittgenstein asked Frege to comment on his Tractatus the first question Frege
asked was: is this meant as a literary or scientific work?
Frege has drawn the separation line between the two. Litarature as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. Ie their sentences need not the truth conditions. So these sentences may have whatever meaning they have but they do not need the reference. However scientific sentences need both. In the other post I
mentioned ,uh, the 'value' of Higs particle. We in Europe
spend 2 billion Dollar in order to discovere if this particle exist. I don't believe that anyone will surch for
Pegasus while any poet or writer is free to write a intersting story about the beauty of his wings. There is no sence in science to askribe or 'attribute' whatever qualitys to a non existent object. Even in mathematics you
can not ask the question about peculiar qualitys of sets without any member. But 'your' Heidegger was able to write
a book about 'nothing' or 'nothingness'. The German expression is 'Das Nichts nichtet' and I am not able to put
this in English. I hope Dertonarm will help , his Englisch
is much better then my. I speak 5 different lanquages and
know how difficult literary translation are. I regard Serbo-Kroatian and Dutch both as my 'native' lanquages but I would never dare or try to translete a literary work from one to the other. But there is no such problem at all in translation of scientific works. That is why the science is the same in any part of the world.Why should this be so you think? Well choose your favourite.
Regard,

Nandric, I too have difficulties with Heidegger's philosophy, but mostly on the grounds that philosophy itself is never knowledge. Philosophy is/are merely reasons, and as such, entirely made up to justify a behavior.

IMO vision is what makes a thing like a great tonearm possible. It is hard to say what the source of the vision might be. But you see this all the time in great art, great technology, great accomplishment. A musician may have poor technique, but if he has vision it can take him places that his technique never could. If you see a great tonearm, it is the vision behind it that made it possible.

Vision and intention are the things that make for greatness. Philosophy is the thing that we make up along the way to explain ourselves; in the face of simply Being, philosophy vanishes, but vision and intention remain.

Nandric, thank you for your response. Yes, I saw you out there. That's why I threw the "regression" in there, on the water. I didn't know it would be you, but you are the smartest at the academic lingusitic stuff, so I figured it wouldn't be long. :0)

Yes, I agree, science and mathematics are their own languages too. And, yes, writing and mathematical languages have different referent rules, etc., but that does not mean that they are not still both bounded by the dualistic operation of thought construction.

Deconstruction is an interest in dicing up things. As far as it goes, such dicing up interests is a good thing, as I think I said, but there has been a prolonged over-reliance/attachment that has led to a stagnation. Maybe a little reintegration is needed in our stew. Or maybe, just maybe, a search for the ground of these cognitive constructions (I mean, we've looked everywhere else, right?).

And here's the new flash: Change does not evolutionarily favor no-change mind!

Yes, Nandric, there is a relative language issue between us, but, you know, we are on the same "planet" because we are both HERE NOW. Do you *see* this/me?

On Heidegger: I did not put him in with the regression stuff, purposely; he's in a lower paragraph on the art stuff that was meant primarily for Atmasph. Although, since we are there, did he ever really see what was below the signs and symbols? The cognitively attached mind defines the absence of things - matter-things, thought-things, sign-things, symbol-things, etc. - as a No-thing-ness.

Nandric, again, the same question, no textbooks: what/who are you when you are not thinking? Does it feel like a No-thing-ness place to you?

The same question: what existed before the Big Bang?

A trick question: the "what" that existed before the Big Bang, where is it now? Is it still HERE, NOW?

On the progression on literary deconstruction - sure, the Bloomberg group is as fine as a place to start as any - but, didn't Wittgenstein change his mind later? Isn't there early Wittgenstein and later Wittgenstein?

Here's the koan: can you answer the Big Bang/Mind-beneath-thought questions above without reaching for more Wittgenstein...or Russell, or Popper, or Kuhn, or Freyerabend, or....whoever who is not-you.

When you saw the Early/Later Wittgenstein, did you inflexibly reach?

You said, "Litarature [sic] as art may treat about beauty, or what ever but
is not about the truth. "

Are you saying that the perception of beauty is not a perception of Truth?

Is that because you can not cognitively locate (or dice up) a Beauty-thing?

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

M-

Atmasphere, Your Quine (assuming your are American) is a
philosopher, logician and mathemtathician. He made very important contributions to i.a.the philosophy of lanquage.
Since Frege this ,say, discipline is a scientific undertaking. I admire Quine very much and made much effort
to understand his work (mathematics not included). But he
has made many contributions to linquistics wich is certainly a science. Where would you drow the line?
I myself am sure that the results reached by the modern philosophy of lanquage belong to knowledge. I am not Popperian but look at his,uh, conceptions reg. refutation,confirmation and objective knowledge.
He btw borowed 'objective knowledge' from Frege ('the third world') Now deed you ever heard about confirmation or refutation of literary works? There is no problem at all to provide for arts of any kind. This is our cultural heritage that we all care for and admire.
In the same sence as scientific knowledge belongs to us all
this applys for arts. But they are to me different categorys. The arts don't belong to objective knowledge.
The word 'objective' in the 'conjunction' should point at
this fact. Ie they lack confirmation and refutation in scientific sence.

Regards,

Asa, Nandric, Rudolf Steiner found for himself - and thus for us... - the fixed point in philosophy and supplied thus the fix point so desperately longed for by Immanuel Kant.
In his "Philosophie der Freiheit" (philosophy of freedom) he identified the process of thinking as the fix point per se.
An interesting approach which stroke me directly when I first encountered it decades back at the age of 17.
Certainly worth to muse about in the context of the last 15 posts in particular and in general anyway....;-) ...
To meditate about this "concept" might give to many answers to many questions.
BTW - Nandric, the 2 billion dollars you quote at cost for the particle accelerator in the soil underneath Cern are misleading for americans. It is 2000 billion dollars in fact ( a "billion" in american english is the same as 1 Milliarde in german/dutch - strange side way in mathematic ).

Is there such thing as "non-cognitive" knowledge........ intuition?
Personally I like to see pure and straight intuition as being exactly that - non-personalized and objective knowledge NOT blinded/fooled by an individual matrix.
Or maybe the commonsense "sphere" surrounding mother earth and named "aether". A kind of extra-spiritual universal master-brain of human experience past and present. In the sense that it compound ALL human souls/spirits and their gained knowledge which is non-focussed on life and individual existence. Postulated by Rudolf Steiner ( again...) and believed by anthroposophy to be available to every human soul.
Wished it was.

I want to note, that I am very positive surprised by the posts which up the past 2 days. Seems after all, that there is true life on earth and that there are actually many audiophiles who see way past the platter of a turntable ...;-) ......

Finally - that specific ars germanicum "gladius" was just an example for "inherent quality" - nothing more and nothing less..........

Nandric, I hope one would not attempt to refute a literary work but simply enjoy it for what it is. We certainly do that with a fine wine :)

Philosophy is much the same idea- it is not knowledge (although it can and does get applied to knowledge- for example my philosophy is to use differential circuits as much as I can), but can be amusing nevertheless along the way. As such, Bill Wattersonhttp://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/ (Calvin and Hobbes fame) does as well as the best I saw from my college days...

Asa, No discussion but some hints regarding Wittgenstein.
You can find (Google) by Frege the corresopndence with Wittgenstein about Tractatus. To my mind very painful for
'the greatest phylosopher of the 20 century'. Regarding
the later Wittgenstein you should use your own 'seen' and
try to 'see' with your mental eye what will be involved in
reserching 'lanquage games' in,say, China.

Regards,

Dgarretson, the wide variation we see in pivot AND linear tonearm designs has - IMHO ... - one simple reason. There was so far never a tonearm designed with an all complete blue book.
I have so far not seen a tonearm which really addresses all issues going with the dynamic process of guiding a cartridge through the groove of a record. We have a good number of good designs which all do come close - some more, some less, - but none is complete.
The roman gladius evolved during centuries and changed - depending on changes in battle tactics, associated equipment, wealth, availability and new alloys.
As did all weapon in human history. That specific ars germanicum gladius was just an example for "inherent quality/value" in a superior tool ( in its time frame ).
BTW - have you ever fought or used any sword of times past? Try fight - or simulate to do so ... - with norman shield and sword of the 11th/12th century. Most of us won't be able to handle it at all - because of the sheer weight and poor balance - for a minute.
The gladius I was referring to, was the result of a complete - if never written - blue book. That "in-mind blue book" was the result of experience, clear view on the topic and most undisturbed by personal preference or image.

Tonearm design will evolve further. In very small steps. But I am still confident, that we will see a tonearm design one day in the not so far future which does address all issues. Yes, the debate continues about short vs long, pivot vs linear etc. - a complete blue book would end that discussion. Lucky us, we don't have that blue book ...;-) .... for the true audiophile it would be the worst case scenario.
It is much more fun to debate about almost-perfect-designs then to fall victim to a complete solution which would - shudder... - end all discussion.
But since we talk products, that will never happen.
Even a "perfect" tonearm would not be widely recognized as such.
Because many people would refuse to accept it.
Even a "perfect" tonearm would only have its share of the market and would have still a few competitors.
As the product's success is always a matter of market request/call.
The market NEVER asks for a perfect solution.

And - there was no "simple kill-shot of Gladius" ....... that wasn't its only nor prime purpose.

DT: 2000 Billion in the USA and anywhere else in the universe = 2 trillion, or 2 times ten to the 12th power. Do you really mean to say that the CERN accelerator cost $2 trillion?

Atmasphere, I would not dream to 'refute' any literary work whatever. Poppers refutation and confirmations are about the truth of theorys. Refutation if they are 'false',
confirmation as a kind of temporal state. Ie he does not
believe that a theory can be proven but well refuted.
So confirmitaion is for as long as the theory 'stnds'.

Regards,

Atmasphere, I forget to mention the dramatic aspect by
CERN. If the existance of Higs particale is not proven
then the whole theory will be refuted in Poppers sence.

Regards,

Nandric, thank you for both of your responses. I don't understand some of what you said - I assume it is just more category errors between us through different languages - but I can't quite understand what my mental eye is supposed to see in China, or what language games are in relation thereto. Please help, really.

BTW, when did "hints" not qualify as part of a discussion? Did you really think I would let go of my new bone so easily?

Yes, Wittgenstein is seen as a very smart fellow, well recognized. But, cognitive speed is not cognitive agility, or that agility fluidly accelerated by a seeing beyond it.

BTW, I do not *see" with only my mental eye.

Ahhh, and there it is: he thinks that he *sees* something that no one else does....(Stone the Witch! :0)

So, if you will not answer my no-mind questions, I will ask for you: What in the hell does this Asa think that he is see-ing, the bastard? What is this fluidity-to-cognition thing anyway?!

Derto, thank you again for your private tonearm advice. And also on your hopeful post above, which is far from your reactions on the vagaries of capitalism in the high end. Your observations about instinctual greed amplified by our micro-culture are, of course, accurate, but I still like this part of you. We can yell at the Wind - trust me, I've done more than my fair share of intellectual sword play - but, in the end, the most you can do is be a catalyst for change, for the Other (human-other, non-human other, earth-other). Its not up to only you (a catalyst assumes a nexus btween your mind and another's, as opposed to make-ing that other mind see, which ia a causal prey-predator relation). Tough thing to see for the cognitively-endowed, but there you have it...On the other hand, maybe that is what we are supposed to see with that power; realizing the experiential, evolutionary limits of that power.

Derto, posit: If you were "God" and you had someone as smart as you are, wouldn't you want his own smart-ness to show it the limits of itelf, and in that moment, point to something else?

Could be...

M-

Dertonarm, were the ubermensch tonearm to emerge from its cave like Zarathustra or reveal itself as the Golden Bowl of Manna, it must have zero length and track without a pivot point, have variable mass and damping separately selectable in both horizontal and vertical domains, and maintain perfect tangency.

Asa, If you persist I will try to answer your question.
But look first to this question:'what kind of man is your
sister?'
Now your questin:'what are you when you are not thinking?'
You deed not stated as your premisse: Cogito ergo sum.
To make you question managable for my way of,uh, seeing
I must rephrase your question. Say: in what state is your
brain when you are not thinking?
Well I assume that this is the case when I and my brain are
sleeping.There may be some dreaming activity but I dare not
to mention Freud and his Traumdeutung. Besides he also
stated that there are three of us in each of us: ego,superego and it. I hope you deed not meant this 'it' in your 'what it see'? I personaly would be only interested in what the super ego has to say. This state of
affares would of course be a nightmare for the logicians because of the identity relation. No entity without identity and then no supstitutio salva veritate without identity. But worst of all no quantification theory. As Quine put it: quantification and substitution go hand in hand'.
The second possibility is dramatic one. But for the sake of argument I may be in coma. In such state of my brain I
would be not able to answer any question whatever. My doc
should speek for me. He also should comfort my family
stating the hope regarding awakening. If ever.

Regards,

Nandric, you seem focused on your brain, al la the material (as you see, I too can speak in other languages, yet seemingly, only prepositionally so...).

I am not asking what is the state of your brain - its electro-chemical state - when you are not thinking. I asked what is the state of your consciousness, its nature, when you are not thinking?

Do you think that your brain - the material matter - is you, or definitively defines your consciousness?

Descartes: I think, therefore, I am. Well, at least I know this much Latin! If this is what you believe then tell me so, clearly.

I would note that many people who are attached to linguistic deconstruction also want that discipline to be a science - it makes them feel, I suppose, part of the post-modern materialist milieu. I would also note that these same types of minds define all consciousness as necessarliy emanating and bounded by the material, or the brain, because they are focused on looking for the truth only in the material, like the brain.

Saying that I persist, you mis-speak: I did not push you. I have only asked you one question. Again:

As you watch your own mind when it is not thinking, who are you, i.e. who is the watcher, that witness?

We know that you are not in a coma in this non-thinking waking state, so I assume your reference to dream states and coma was merely a jest.

What/who are you when you are not thinking? If you can not see a thought-thing, does this then feel like a No-thing-ness.

Psychology stuff? Yes, I know about that...

Answer, but not with BRAIN:

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

M-

Dgarretson, Zarathustra was no "Uebermensch" ( as wasn't Nietzsche ...;-) ....) and in the fact of the german sense of the word he neither postulated him.
What you listed as the needed features of the "uebermensch tonearm" is exactly the common problem I was talking about - it is a far from complete listing ( and thus an incomplete "blue-book") . There a few very important issues not mentioned in that short list. They are missing in that list and they are missing as a complete package in the tonearm designs we have encountered the past 5+ decades. They aren't addressed as a whole because they aren't all recognized.

Lewm, I am very sorry to correct you on this, yes of course in british English billion has traditionally meant a million million.
As it does in German and most anywhere in the known (limited...) universe.
However, - not in the US of A.
The american meaning of billion (i.e. "a thousand million" ... ) has long become standard in technical and financial use ( and often produces misunderstandings in international use...) in the USA and it is now more or less used it in all circumstances.
Another fine example how simplification of language can turn against its purpose.
To put it in simpler words and to avoid any further misunderstanding: the particle accelerator (or "atomic smasher"...;-) ... ) built in central europe near Cern consumed in its genesis the total sum of approx. 2 million millions dollars. Which is about double the current ( if I remember right) fiscal deficit of the United States. A lot of money spent just for the hope to get an idea what really happened during an infinite short moment approx. 10 thousand million years ago .....