Reactions to HP's review of Antique Sound Lab amp?

Zaikes, a pattern: every time you and I get to the point of discussing the nature of the silence of the mind as ground to perception, even in the context of musical perception (the concept that not all knowledge is your thinking, which, in turn, constitutes your "I"), as on the other thread, or begin addressing a solution past bitching, as here, you recoil and quit, and each time you leave in a way that seeks to characterize the discussion at that point - and, hence, the ideas approached - in a negative light, ie bitching.

You assert that you are, effectively, an anarchist, then concede that all anarchy may be bitching, but then, rather than look beyond that bitching, instead characterize the conversation that might lead you there as itself bitching - which is, of course, a convenient way of never discussing anything on ground itself, which itself is a logically strained means of trying to stay with the assumptions that you maintain, your "core values". Turning away from a discussion of ground, which, in your mind, operates as a denial of ground (remember, nihilism?) - tell me, how can that ever be "utopian"?

I know, I know, everything you said before was relevant to the thread, but now, I'm just getting toooo abstract and off the topic, and you are too busy being the one who listens to the music to really bother and you just now have to get back to that, and for the sake of everyone else listening...my, my.

Gadzooks!
I apologize for having started this thread.
It's become a diarrhea of polysyllabic words and a constipation of ideas.
jp

I'm sorry 914nut, that's not what I intended, and I basically swore to Asa once before that I wouldn't play this again. Asa, this what we do: I chat on Audiogon for enjoyment and occasionally relevance, and I regret to have to say (again) that past a fairly lighthearted point with the kind of stuff you like to get into, I receive neither. To me, you take me much too seriously. To you, I'm sure I don't take you seriously enough. I have a tough time following you anyway, when you revert to your shorthand about objects and subjects and whatnot, but when I try - and respond - I get hit with non-sequitors that I understand even less, and seem as if what (you apparently think) I say makes you testy. You know that things you like to say made me testy in the past, but honestly, I really do think I'm over that - it's not worth it. However, I reserve my right to pick up my ball and go home whenever my expiration date on having fun has been exceeded, whether it's with you or anybody else. I'm sorry if we're not ideal playmates, but I think we can still get along fine if we are judicious in our engagement. You know perfectly well what sort of conversation I don't prefer to engage in, so you should also know that it will be a losing proposition for you in the end to try and take things too far in that direction with me. Just the way it is. For the record, I find that this sort of mental masturbation, enjoyable under many circumstances as it may be, ain't particularly pertinent to the audio pursuit, and it's tiring to type. It hijacks threads by default, and makes them harder for others to peruse profitably. Please don't take what I'm putting down here too personally, I'm sure we could engage in a more durable fashion under different circumstances - or maybe not, but why care? We're strangers to each other here, so there's no reason to take the chat of others to heart too much. My attitude towards you will remain magnanimous no matter how you insist on misundertaking me, but just so there's no question, I actually do respect you as a contributing member, and truly appreciate it if you feel the same about me, because I do try, and I think you do too. (And oh, I never said I was an anarchist, and in fact people who fancy that they are annoy me greatly.) I don't want to discourage you from responding to this in any way you see fit, but would suggest that you do so offline, and am stating publicly now that any further response, in this particular conversation, from me to you will certainly be offline.

Again, my apologies to all still reading, please continue on-topic discussion without me.

Zaikes,

OK. Thank you for you well thought out response.


Yes, I know that I pushed you pretty hard this week. But I've always thought you could take it, know that you can, and we both know cognitive agility is not the issue.

As you know, Zaikes, there are always minds that you can find in ally, like 914Nut, who will say all kind of things to keep from taking just that extra step, the one that looks at the source of the music, or Music. Their "I" will cite irelevancy, impatience, disrespect to others reading, obfuscation (non-sequitor), lawyer reference, moi reference, magnanimous posture, retreat but not retreat, misunderstanding, ideas not worth effort, why care, you ruin life-fun and its only fun (is that really true?), and on and on, all negative energy directed back as you leave.

All that I asked you - Socratically moving you to where you could find none of the above excuses not to answer - was what is the nature of the silence in the mind where we hear deep musical meaning from?

What could be more relevant?

I know you are not quitting, you have a ferocious heart, but I will tell you as you go (back to where?) that I never considered you a "losing proposition". That's why I stay with you so long. It was always "communion"...

Take care,

Mark

I looked back through HP's Hurricane review last night - admittedly I only skimmed it last week - and I am beginning to see what you all are saying as to the unbridled conviction. Stronger than I thought in toto, and particularly up front in the text. Did anyone notice that the review started out, almost starting out too much, with the "philosophy" angle, as if it was what was being talked about and not the amp?

A theory too much in search of an empiric result?

I told HP about these ideas ten years ago concerning envelopes of dimensional space carrying varying energies, and, hence, experienced by the listener differently in a dynamic sense (and, in conjunction with discontinuousness - lack of "symmetry" as I put it at the time, in print for galley, but strangely not published...), so I know what he is try-ing to get at ten years later. I just wonder whether the observation has more to do with the mind's try-ing rather than what that mind is able to perceive...

So, boys, is that "entertaining" enough?