Cable vs. Electronics: biggest bang for the buck

Asa, as to Jung and music. I don't know. He probably needed words and concepts, structures to battle with the other side. Words to him were perhaps like the stones and earth and rubble, they use in Holland to capture back land from the ocean. He tried to put in the language of Western science of his time, what the East had known for centuries. He was not afraid to step into the realm of the "mothers" to paraphrase Goethe's Faust, he could let go completely, but that what he brought from beyond he hammered and forged into words and concepts. He was a Westerner and he refused to be anything else, although he was wide open for, an highly knowlegeable about the East.
At the same time, he was not an intellectual. You cannot say that he did not practice what he preached. What he drew as knowlege came from his very life, it was not bland thought..Foucoult comes to mind here, brilliant as it may be.... Music silences words, especially if it strikes deep. He was wide open, so he needed his mind, not to predate, but in this case to protect and hold safe. Perhaps it was a simple as that. Food for thought, not more.

Clueless!! I'm sorry, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.

Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.

On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say.

Clueless!! I'm sorry, really, I should have put a smiley face with it because that was how I meant it; the "uh's" weren't meant to be patronizing. I enjoyed your post VERY much. I've needled you in the past, I forgot, and should have clarified my tone better, somehow.

Actually, we look at things the same pretty much, historically speaking. My only point was that the experiment in democracy, much less secularized democracy, has hardly been done at all. I don't see that we are living in a democracy, not the way we define it. We live in a nation-state effectively controlled by a transitory corporate aristocracy. I don't think a true democracy would ever operate as its primary assumption infinite greed. I'm not saying you believe this strong, but thought I was teeing one up for you.

On Newtonian. Yea, I agree, and probably only 10% of the population gets it this way. Unfortunately, that is not where the center of gravity, so to speak, of western culture exists - how it behaves and the assumptions thatunderly that behavior - both historically and evolutionarily. Yes, Einstein, Heisenberg, etc. showed us different ways to see the world of matter and energy, but the meaning of those views have not seeped very far into the collective mind, at least not yet. Scientific materialism - with its power to change matter and give ever-changing products - is in an integral dynamic with capitalism, each supporting the other, each supporting the assumptions of the other, notwithstanding Einstein's discoveries that there are other ways to look at reality beyond Galileo's machine, or Descartes method. Capitalism is just fine with Newtonian abilities to produce technology; it doesn't need Einsteinian space/time paradoxes or quantum energy theories (so far...) to get its people to want the next product-thing. We were probably talking about different levels of seeing this; one whether Einstein's ideas mean the eventual "overturning" of Cartesianism, and the other saying that that hasn't happened yet for the collective western mind. BTW, I don't think it will be "overturned", but eventually, integrated. What is overturned is not the knowledge itself, but people's desire to not see more - which is something I talked about eatlier.

Again, my apologies for not being more clear. I really enjoyed what you had to say.

Detlof: thank you for sharing your knowledge on Jung. I've enjoyed it very very much. I don't know that much about him, but thought if I kept at it long enough something would get going; or, form from that karmic energy. Very happy; learned much!! Heard smart people talk about meaning, hey, that makes me feel good. Pretty basic, really.

And, yes, clueless, the ideas aren't important, but the comaraderie is. Detlof pegs me good. I only challenge, never attack, inauthenticity. Dislodge it, so to speak. That said, I never thought you were being inauthentic in what you said just now. The opposite actually. So even though we may disagree now and again in ideas, its "good" nonetheless.

Clueless, you are a part of that/this karmic energy. Don't you know, that's why we are all here?

Asa, since you said that "I am being disingenuous", and the reason I said "beneath is not", because I am not interested-in your thinking, nor opinions. What am looking for is what you see, or know. Maybe I am shooting in the dark. I am not trying to be a teacher; I am not the one who wrote three pages of texts. Yes that's what it is, text. You are right! Maybe I should explain when I said, "beneath is not". Here is how I see the language is limitless.

This heaven is so vast no messages stain it.

Pure and simple, if you give me that, I quit the thread. Or even if you don't give me that, I still quit the thread. Have fun.