Audio Asylum Thread Printer
Get a view of an entire thread on one page
|For Sale Ads|
In Reply to: RE: Searching for truth? posted by rick_m on November 04, 2014 at 09:05:08
Why on Earth would you agree with my statement? I always assumed you were one of those people who was pretty satisfied with things, audio wise. When did you become an infant terrible? Calling for a paradigm shift, what's got into you?
Edits: 11/04/14Follow Ups:
"I always assumed you were one of those people who was pretty satisfied with things, audio wise."
You are correct in that assumption. But that hasn't always been the way of it and one of my concerns is that as things grow old and need service or replacement, or if we move, then whatever makes this system so satisfying may cease to do so. My hope is to understand things better before I need to apply them.
There is also a second driver and that is shear, unadulterated, curiosity. I like to know what makes things tick...
"When did you become an infant terrible?"
According to my Mom, well prior to birth...
"Calling for a paradigm shift, what's got into you?"
Not really what you may have wished. I'm just agreeing with you that: "the problem is we don't even know what the problem is."
I suspect that part of the problem is that there isn't a singular problem. There's a Gestalt that we experience and it's roots are numerous. We're pretty darn sensitive detectors...
My Tip for the Day, assume everything you know is wrong. Then you will have an easier time of it. It is also recommended for audiophiles to adapt the attitude of accepting the inevitable with grace and humor. Lol
"You are correct in that assumption. But that hasn't always been the way of it and one of my concerns is that as things grow old and need service or replacement, or if we move, then whatever makes this system so satisfying may cease to do so. My hope is to understand things better before I need to apply them."
You may need some servicing from time to time but you can never be replaced, now you're just being silly.
But I digress. Back to the truth thing. As Einstein wrote,
"In the evolution of philosophical thought through the centuries the following question has played a major role: what knowledge is pure thought able to supply independently of sense perception? Is there any such knowledge? If not, what precisely is the relation between our knowledge and the raw material furnished by sense impressions?
There has been an increasing skepticism concerning every attempt by means of pure thought to learn something about the 'objective world', about the world of 'things' in contrast to the world of 'concepts and ideas'. During philosophy's childhood it was rather generally believed that it is possible to find everything which can be known by means of mere reflection. It was an illusion which anyone can easily understand if, for a moment, he dismisses what he has learned from later philosophy and from natural science; he will not be surprised to find that Plato ascribed a higher reality to 'ideas' than to empirically experienceable things. Even in Spinoza and as late as in Hegel this prejudice was the vitalising force which seems still to have played the major role.
The more aristocratic illusion concerning the unlimited penetrative power of thought has as its counterpart the more plebeian illusion of naive realism, according to which things 'are' as they are perceived by us through our senses. This illusion dominates the daily life of men and of animals; it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences."
Post a Followup:
Post a Message!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: