Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Detlof. Yes, you misunderstood me. I did not mean to reduce Jung's contribtions to the evolution of collective consciousness - which I consider significant - through a categorization of either "enlightened" or not. While it is true that one is either "enlightened or not, there are graduated levels on the path towards that level (which is actually the ground of all levels); just like there are graduated levels in traditional psychology from pre-natal to formal operational levels; we can graduate, for discussion sake, the levels that are not presently recognized just like we have already done with the traditional ones. However, at post formal operational levels, cognitive development takes a back seat to empathic identification, or permeability of self to "other". The nature of permeability is acceptance of the world in the now and as permeability increases predatory remnants fade; it is not a separate dynamic. That Jung was at a transitionary level between one level and another (a varying dynamic of predatory instinct and permeability) does not necessarily imply that he was either at post formal operational or "enlightened" and no other levels are possible. The assumption that you are either at the present level recognized by psychology or at some other-worldly "enlightenment" state is a bias of the current paradigm - both scientific, psychologic and Judeo-Christian; it is the dividing of the world into earth and heaven with no path between (which is not what Gautama Siddhartha or Jesus said, regardless of teachings that grew up afterwards from egocentric minds). I would note that if Jung had accepted the current paradigm as it existed around him, he would have never embodied the "light" you speak of, which as you note is exactly what he did do. With that said, "Light" translates all the time, through all levels; that's what moves it along; that's each level's ground. Your given permeability to your "light" is in direct proportion to your seeing of the "light" outside the self (in environment or "other"); again, and not coincidentally, it is not a separate dynamic. If you assume in thought constructs that the the "light" outside is the predator of your self, then that is the world you will live in; your assumption in thought makes it so. "God" is very accommodating that way. That the world may tack you up to a cross for saying that the world is all Light does not make you the predator of that world. No one ever said it would be an easy path...

As for stereo, it does not make you more "permeable" to the "other"; it has no function of self-observation. So, the assumption that I meant that deeper levels of stereo listening are synonomous with post formal operational levels of perception in non- stereo listening modes is, again, misplaced. Listening to stereo does not "make you" able to "see" more. That's why I said this had little to do with stereo, and offered apologies which I hereby renew, and why all reactions to what I've previously said on liatening levels - which tried to say that I was saying that it was "value" judgement - were similarly misplaced.

Now here's the interesting part. It is very clear from our discussions - the integrated form of your thought, the striving for belonging-ness between people, the default to poetic lucidity when rigid formulation looses its power, the awe before beauty - that you yourself are not at the current traditionally recognized level (I think Maslow's authentic level is about as close as traditonal psychology may venture), even though in thought construction you opt for an assumption that denies where you are and are going. Hmmm...

I always learn from what you say detlof. You know, apart from all these words - like mice running through a block of swiss cheese looking for the Cheese! - we never disagree at all. Many thanks for your response.

leme: each is a lattice of energy (energy coalesced as matter) that acts as a conduit for the passing of other symmetries of energy (electric). I didn't intend to imply that different rearrangements do not effect that transference in different ways - directivity, etc. - but that at a fundamental level they are the same and that scientific positions premised upon the manipulation of energy/matter (scientific materialism) are irrational when they claim that they are fundamentally different based on their surface appearance.

Like Muralman, your point MAY be that such a bias may exist in some - which, if you look at my first post was all I was trying to say - but that, regardless, such rearrangements at our hands DO produce different results. And, moreover, we can draw strong correlations in patterns between complexity vs. performance. As I said, I agree, but point out that the experience of listening is the final arbitor.

I know what you mean: that wire is "passive" towards the energy that passes through it, while we have purposely rearranged amp-matter to be "active" towards the energy passing through it should make a difference, shouldn't it? But ask yourself, is a wire "passive"? A designer of wire might say that the rearrangement he constructs directly leads towards performance differences; same with the amp designer. So what is different?

A question: you say that wire only dissipates energy and an amp converts it. Without going into the semantics of the ACTIVE verbs "dissipates" and "converts", if wire only performs a dissipative function, then what is it that ends up at the speakers, non-energy? If all is energy (Einstein, you remember him...), then what could possibly end up at the speaker that wasn't energy?

As energy passes through any other form of energy, it changes, not in nature but how it manifests to us. There is no "perfect" wire. How you rearrange that matter (design a la Homo faber)effects transference and, accordingly, our observations of them, in listening or a "scientific" experiment.

Question: if amp-matter is designed by us to "convert" energy, and wire is designed by us to "transfer" energy (dissipation occuring from both forms BTW, regardless of our design intentions...), then does our design intent make wire "less" a consideration in system construction than an amp? In other words, by differentiating varrying ways we've designed our components to behave - both, as I've shown to be "active" upon the energy they pass - then arent we just right back to the complex/less complex argument?

Here's what people have been trying to say to me:

An amp, by the way it more "complexily" and "actively" acts upon the energy passing through it, is more important than wire in constructing a system.

My response: yes, but less so as the instrument/system increases in resolving power; in systems that are analytically focused, wire is only needed to transfer "detail", but in more advanced systems, wire is needed to transfer both detail and more subtle nuances.

Interestingly, those who argue for analytic systems and are attached to scientific explanations are the same people who say wire doesn't make a difference, attempting to categorize wire-matter as fundamentally different to perfect that argument.

Coincidence?

Asa, thanks for your beautiful and and immensely kind and touching response. We will have to move to private conversation to go further. Please give me time. I have so little. A fond wave across the oceans,

At last I have entered into the "wire" realm; a place of no interest to me. I feel... Not inspired.

So I look around myself, feeling like a babe in toy land. Teasing myself with such a glorious thought; allowing oneself such largesse as to spend 7 K on wires. I am so jealous. Really.

Of course, there are a lot of other things in audio alone I can spend 7 geeze to improve my audio enjoyment. Things I don't have, like a truly great turn table, the perfect cartridge... Wall to wall Persian carpet (room treatment).

I really shouldn't have walked into this candyland. You see, I'm on a married man with kids in college budget. How serendipity. It just dawned on me, my entire system is worth seven thousand. Now, how about that! What's more, is it is a music system that I bet would bring tears to nearly every one of you; yes, perhaps even you, Asa.

In the next few days, I will have visited one of our audiogon contributors, an audiophile. This man has wires for his system that would make Asa blush. He has gone so far as to rewire from breaker box to dedicated outlet with "8 awg teflon wrapped silver core wire." The "metal matter (Asa)" trail ends up with venerable 1980's Spendors. His front end is more costly and reportably superior to mine, and his amp may just be superior as well. I don't know what to expect.

Hmmm, 7 big ones, and probably more. I pray Nrchy and Asa aren't right.

Of course, in short time, the same gentleman will visit me for a listen to my WIRE POOR system. I hope we can both relate our observations. I'll be happy to, at least.

Muralman1, I see your point, but we're all on different budgets for different reasons; we all have different levels of audio experience; we have different levels of interest, and even that varies form topic to topic (i.e., analog vs. digital). Yet, I don't know of any A'gon member (and certainly not Asa, Deltof or Nrchy who started this thread) who outwardly boasts about his/her expenditures just to impress fellow members. (That would be sad, indeed.)

It helps, however, to communicate details about your own system(s) to establish your point of reference. Many members who have $5-10K systems (or even less, and like yourself, are happy with the results they've achieved) contribute meaningfully to this forum on a regular basis. Knowing that someone has experience with $50K and $100K systems (whether their own or through other listening experiences) helps me (the reader) to gauge that particular contributor's perspective. Whether I wish to emulate that person's spending pattern is an entirely different, and intensely personal, matter.

I'm not in the market for $7K wires either, but the topic of this thread is of interest to me in general terms, and although the depths of the philisophical exchange between Asa and Detlof is not of particular interest to me, it was easy enough for me -- and others -- to skip over without the necessity of hurling insults in their direction!