Ok this will be a good thread.

Asa, as always, you pose some most difficult questions, and I have come to expect this.

I once had a calculus teacher that always gave problems on the test, that included material we hadn't been taught. Everyone failed the tests, but he then graded it on a curve, judging by our abilities to use our previously learned information to approach the problems. Nobody got the answers correct, but he was evaluating our insight into the problems, not looking for the answer. In some ways, I find your approach to be similar. It is always interesting.

Regarding your question about "exclusivity as an originating oriention", that is an interesting question, isn't it? Can we be exlusive, or must we be all inclusive, and are they, in fact, the same? I would, of course, say that they are the same, but at different degrees of focus. To relate to your airplane analogy above, the man on the ground is not even seen by the man in the plane,and the ground appears to be almost stationary to the man in the plane. The man on the ground sees the airplane as moving very slow. In both cases, the actual relative speeds are the much higher, but the points-of-view make things appear different. So this is a case of relative point of view, is it not?

And as we know from quantum physics, the relationship of the observer is a factor in the evidential manifestation of the event. Much like Von Schroedinger's cat. Is it still alive in the box, or dead? The current school of thought is, that it exists merely as a probability wave until the observation is made, at which time there is a manifestation of a single point on the probability wave(for that given relative point of view).

As such, we may look at this phenomenon as a continuum, with events manifesting as observation points, or we may look at it as observation points occurring out of a continuum. Like the particle and wave theories. When we view a particle, we know little of its wave behavior. When we view a wave, we know little of its particle behavior.

It's point of view.

So, now that I have prefaced this with some background for my statements, I do say that exclusivity can be taught as an originating orientation, and still not be ignorant of the inclusivity of the overall context.

To put an eastern philosophical slant on this, one cannot take a step without putting his foot down somewhere. While it can be known that all ways are possible, one way must be chosen in order to move from your spot. One hand clapping is a koan, but two hands clapping is an event. The first is an example of the wave, and the second is an example of an observable event. They are not mutually exclusive, but exist in different ways. The all, and the one. The "all" is inclusive, and the "one" is exclusive. Are they apart? Are they separate? No, they are not, but they are used in different ways.

To go back to science for a minute, movement is defined on a vector. When movement is desired(taking a step), it is possible to take a step an all directions, but only one at a time. When the one step is taken, the direction is an event. That is exclusive. Prior to the step, all directions were possible. That is inclusive. The same, yet different.

Now, for teaching to take place, there must be a defined vector, because without it, there is only "all". "All" can also be defined as "nothing" because the probability wave of "all" is continuous until an event is defined along that wave somewhere. When a student needs to move(on a vector) from his current state, to another state(higher learning), a step must be made, thus defining the direction of the vector. His teacher evaluates the direction of the vector, to show him whether his step was closer or further from the teacher's instruction. So, there is a constant interaction of inclusivity(all), and exclusivity(one) in the learning process. The consecutive steps toward the desired goal along a particular vector can be called learning. It is a process of selecting certain points(events) from the changing probability waves(contiunuum), to effect the desired result.

So I do say that exclusivity as an orientation, is consistent with the teaching approach, inasmuch as the exclusivity is an inherent part of the inclusivity that it is "plucked" from. The consecutive selections of these events from the continuum, that can be called the "learning process" is actually forming a wave of its own, with events selected from other waves, and is only possible by a sentient being,that is capable of effecting his own changes on the ultimate continuum of existence/non-existence.

Please don't get out the bamboo stick.

Asa - Your theory as to one's refined/educated tastes being the root of the 'Source' preference don't hold water when held up against one of TWL's original posts on this thread. In that post he mentioned how, as a former salesman in the industry, he would initiate new consumers by demonstrating the same principal to them in real life terms. In that case even the uninitiated were able to discriminate what made the bigger difference and clearly were able to state their preferences (for the source). I had at least one dealer, whom I purchased my first turntable from, do the same demonstration with different gear and the results were the same to my ears: I'd rather put my money behind a good source before investing more in the speakers. Yes, balance is important, but I'm speaking for the sake of the discusstion, which is to point to one component over another. I also had an Audiophile friend with three different systems do a very similar demonstration at home, which turned out to be a demonstration of the same principal, where all listening preferred keeping the source as good as possible.

Marco

Hello Twl,
Well said about the airplanes... The guys on the airplanes; both of them illudes about the coastline; it's neither straight lines nor jagged lines. The guy on the ground see the coastline, down to a single piece of dust/sand/air. It's nowhere near lines, neither the word "lines" exist. A "direct transmission" quality I should add.

... Coastline...
Twl, so what do you see?

Koan is for penetrating (understood), NOT for thinking... to find the answer. Sean, where are you?

Ah, 6ch, I must be trolling good today! Hello.

Marco: I know what you are saying. What I am talking about, levels, is not as strict as the structure of this limited dialogue allows. Yes, some are more open from the beginning, and a person like twl, a sales person/teacher, can catalyze growth/opening in that person. But it is the will of the person that is catalyzed, and that will must be orientated to begin with before twl can catalyze it. To assuage, know that all possess the same potential towards receptivity, but many more than not, in the beginning stages, buy Bose; its not just a matter of exposure. As for this venue, SS or not, I consider most here capable of a high degree of receptivity. Which, of course, is why we all have ended up here...and why the high end is so small, relatively speaking.

twl, I think you misunderstood my airplane metaphor, in that you logically extended it past my application in metaphor (you extend a metaphor on thought into matter, an extension that is materialist). Literally, of course, man can not see people on the ground from orbit, but what I was trying to illustrate, via metaphor, was the state-specific nature of knowledge. Applied to you and stereo, we would say that you can hear a SS system running digital and its partiality, but a SS-focused mind will not hear the "musicality" of your system, or of analog, etc. This accounts, of course, for the many encounters between strict digital adherents who claim musical-ity equivelance and those analog adherents who claim something more exists; the former claims "more" as mistaken euphonics, or regressive romanticism, denying other "levels" exist, and the later claims an experience not translatable by words. Hence, your prior posts finding yourself in such positions; your knowledge is state-specific.

On exclusivity, in general: as a teaching device, I'm not sure that was your intent. You are correct that each can grow from the other, but I'm not sure your original orientation was to use exclusivity to engender communion. Again, the orientation of the will determines whether any given position is teach-ing. For instance, Buddhism is a "negative" teaching in that it seeks to show you what is by showing you what the "is" is not.

On physics, lots of fun, but not enough, er, space here to do it justice. I would say, however, that while you speak of quantum level phenomenon, your approach in doing so is still Newtonian. Both "wave" and "particle" are inappropriate words for a quantum state where they are neither; our formal operational cognitition is object-based, and hence our language, so we need to use words that conote an object to describe a phenomenon - especially a scientific one, since science is objected-attached - but that doesn't mean that that contrivance is true in experience. Is a quantum string really a string-thing? What is observed at the quantum level is the arising of Light-energy from the Infinite/Nothing/Emptiness, into quantum energy into energy into matter. The various symmetries cause what are called category errors, which means that systems or consepts used to describe one level may be insuffcient to describe the other; as with quantum mechanics versus Newtonian based systems of explanation.

On probability/Heisenberg/Schrodinger et al, this is another materialist assumption at work; namely, that because I don't observe it, or can't, it doesn't exist, or its only a probability event. As I said in my quote of Elizabeth Bowen - "the mystery is your eye" - the device of observation is the mystery (the mind's orientation changes what is seen), but because when we look it appears like a wave, or then a particle, doesn't mean it was that, or either. As Forest Gump said, "...maybe its both. Maybe both is happenin' at the same time." And even before you looked...The paradox arises at the boundary of Light arising into quantum wave/particle because this is the limit of material observation (or observation through mathematical approximation, which is what mechanics are).

On Infinite All:, "All" is not defined by a vector, since it includes all vectors. And, teaching not only happens by knowledge bits, but can also happen (be catalyzed) by simply being-to-being proximity. This movement of "learning" is not limited to one vector, or one step in one direction, because the movement moves out like the ripples from a pebble in a pond; awareness expanding inwards/outwards as one movement towards apprehension/immersion in Infinity. To do this, however, one must let go of the attachment of vectors/finite/materialist. Vector paths that use knowledge accumulation or structuring to derive truth from the "what is" give us many truths and their commensurate material powers, but their are other powers/potentials of the mind/being that are found beyond those. Beyond those, wave is not wave, particle is not particle, and yet, still is/are.

In stereo, if a turntable catalyzes receptivity ("learning" without thought), then good; if SS, then good; if speaker, then good. Good at all "levels", but to go deeper in receptivity, the curve of learning, one must let go of the thought, "Which vector?"

In this regard, everyone's potential is Infinite. What could be more radically egalitarian?

Asa, so true man cannot see people on the ground from orbit. In absolute term, if the man was never on the ground to start with (no preferences/no experiences => no attachments). Therefore, what he sees up there, is (whatever...).He got nothing to compare with nor opposite to nor parallel to (non-dual)... (lucky man!).

How do you catch the wind? Build the windmill! (from nothing to something, or walk out the house)

Say, I catch the wind, today! You got me there :-)

Hmm, water flows under the bridge, or the bridge flows over the water? Or is it all in our minds?

Bye