Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Det/Asa
Not to "defend" his shortcomings but here in the states women were not given the right to vote until 1920. Jung was certainly of his time and unfair to the women in his personal life as well. I believe Asa also thinks he has been romaticized and mythologized and I think that is true too which is why it is better to read him than what other's have said about him. Anyway...

> you say "What has to be fought against and refuted, though, I find, are the absolutists, who cannot differentiate between essence and outer form as it appears to our searching eyes. This seems to me, given that I understand him correctly, also Asa's point."

Well if that is his point (Asa you are a difficult read in small pieces) I agree totally. To the meager extent I understand electronics it is almost completely a formal mathmatical model. Most of our science these days is purely mathmatical invention and has been at least since Galileo. We do not ask questions re underlying causes, the "essense" as you put it, but look for numerical relationships between different measured quantites. We (the observer)have to step in a isolate a quantity in order to measure and when we do so we can cause more problems than we think. This reminds me of Heisenberg in a way.

Nonetheless, if we did not do this, none of us would be listening to audio systems. So it has its place. That was the point of my post above. Tis a strange world.

Oh and Detlof, when you find the "essence" you're talking about, drop me an e-mail will you? That way I will be able to distinguish it from all the riff-raff I usually think about.(hehehe)

I remain,

Clueless, if old Kant was right, that e-mail will never come, because being part of that "essence", we cannot look at it from the outside. We have to leave that to the fanatics, of what ever creed, breed and shape and size, who will not tire to feed us with their "isms" or try to wipe us off the face of the earth in the name of the great truth. Strange world indeed!

I know this is an audio thread, but, guys who know lots more than me about Jung!! I can't resist an oppotunity to suck some knowledge out of someone else's head!

I certainly can't claim to have read a ton-o-Jung, but my share I suppose.

I see Jung as an individual had had transcedent peak experiences that disclosed to him certain deeper symmetries of perception that are integrated with "normal" cognitive functioning (Piaget's formal operational cognition) but that remain latent (Wilber's Centaur stage of transpersonl developement, which he got from someone else I can't remember); so-called trans-cognitive perceptive levels that are co-existent in operational function with "normal" levels (where ratio-empiric theories come from, BTW). However, his perception was not stable due to significant degrees of remaining "ego distortion" (which I would argue are prey/predator action-recoil reactions manifesting as so-called ego-centric behaviors). This stage of development has certain symptoms: as the cognitive functions move from concrete to systematic (what we are predominantly using here) to meta-systematic to paradigmatic (cognition integrating wider temporalities of human-centered "history") to cross-paradigmatic (temporalities integrating evolutionary span and generally less anthropormorphic) and the mind begins to both reduce and integrate at once, certain perceptions emerge. Namely, moments of perception of connectivity related to matter and change (physical matter/energy's relatiion to experience of temporality), or as Jung described it, "synchronicities". Other possible symptoms of such transitory perceptions are also the ability to watch the mind as it cognitively operates, disclosing archtypal matrices of the mind that, speaking in a collective sense, constitute evolutionarily-formed templates in the mind (and which, if you follow them back, exist after Kant's space/time matrix and Chomsky's language template, or lens, which is a term I prefer).

However, importantly, while these integral perceptions are revealed, and even can be further integrated into a theory on dreams (where the temporal projective force of cognition loosens, revealing "Jungian" archetpes, many times manifesting as mthic-magical images [hence, Campbell also being a Jungian]), these perceptions are not fully integrated into the developmental stage until ego distortions are themselves addressed. Hence, Jung's perceptive applications into theory that were incongruent with his daily behavior...

God! Clueless, please stop me!!! Many many apologies to everyone!

detlof and others who know more about Jung than I do, my apologies for my terminology that may not be the exact ones used by the "Jungian establishment." I think, detlof, you can still hear what I'm saying.

So, what's this got to do with stereo?!!! Well, nothing really, or maybe something. Just let some geeks have some fun for awhile! Be nice, ok...?

BTW, you can see "essense". The assumption that "essense" is unapproachable because you are part of "it" is misplaced and is based upon ratio-empiric perception assumptions. That level says that I can only see (only derive truth from matter mainipulation, hence, science) that is "outside" myself; so, ergo, if I am in it I can't see it. Sounds logical, but the problem is that you don't percieve "it", "it's" essense, with logic, or through the lens of its assumptions. You can percieve "essense"; admit the possibility and from that moment it starts; the denial of the possibility based upon logic exclusively IS the filter to that lens. Saint Augustine said, "close your eyes and step into the dark." The dark is not dark, it is not inherently unknowable, only your assumption makes it so 9argue for your limitations and, sure enough, they are yours...).

Asa, your thoughts on Jung need time and careful consideration. At the moment I have neither. So the answer may come in little pieces. Only your last paragraph: Of course you can know "essence", you are quite right. But you cannot build a scientific theorem (or a religious system?) on that "knowledge", because it is experience , not knowledge in the way we use that term. It is not there to be "exploited" or applied, in the way mathematical formulas can be applied, so I think...and this is not a logic, but a value statement, my original reasoning still holds good.

ds good. He who is tempted to systematise or exploit Agustinus' stepping into the dark

Yes, detlof, all thinking is only pointing, at least at it relates to "essense". But pointing is good, as long as you know you are pointing; as long as you know sytemizing cogniton is pointing at "essense". Its great for making widgets though! And, as i said, it can be fun.

Don't beat me up too much on the jung, ok? Look forward to your thoughts, as always.

BTW, on your first 10-3-02 response to mine and Clueless's yapping: exceedingly lucid and diplomatic, in the best sense of the word. I'm jealous actually; makes my rambling look over-wrought, which, perhaps, it is...

Clueless: one thing I forgot (oh God, NO, he says!!): in first post, "irrelevant" was meant to apply in a different way, not to all science, so to speak. My first post was not meant to be rigorous, but actually, to spark dialogue - which, hmmm, it seems to have done. To all of our benefit, I think. Anyway, I can see how it catalyzed you to jump on it and i would have written it better if I had to do it again. Like I said, we pretty much agree on things, just from a little different tangent of "pointing".