Isolation Ward

RE: Toothpicks and cherry Lifesavers

67.68.26.250

In Reply to: RE: Toothpicks and cherry Lifesavers posted by rick_m on July 1, 2007 at 00:28:53

>>I may be indeed sniffing down the wrong trail, but at least for right now it's really the only trail I'm interested in treading. It may not always be. <<

Hey, your dime, your time. I'll just say that in trying to find a chemical or otherwise physically known connection between adverse objects under Beltist rule, without even having done listening tests (I presume...), is something like trying to find clues to the secrets of the great pyramids by listening to a Mariah Carey album. If you haven't yet established for yourself whether the phenomenon exists by doing the experiments, there doesn't seem much point in analyzing it beyond that.

>>>"Understand that *everything* around you carries this energy, which humans are sensitive to." <<<

>>You bet, however I take it that you are not referring to anything which I would recognize as energy.<<

I am referring to Beltist phenomenon, in which it has been discovered that all objects posess an energy field that human senses are sensitive to. Change the energy field, and you change the acuity of your senses (thus your audio system sounds better, your tv looks better, your wine tastes better, etc).

>>I tend to believe that humans can have amazing sensitivity to small stimuli but I've yet to see evidence that we need to posit some magical form of energy to account for it. <<

Don't call it "magical" because you can't understand what or why it is. I am not in the habit of wasting my time doing years of research on a phenomenon that doesn't exist, and fwiw, "magic placebo pills" do not work hundreds of times over, each and every time, with predictable results. There's plenty of working theory as to why it is.

>>Historically we dump everything we don't understand well into a metaphorical pit we call magic. <<

I don't. I don't believe in "magic" and I never did. I believe in what's real, and everyone has their own determination of that, according to their beliefs. Which may or may not be accurate (theology anyone?).

>>The scientific revolution has mostly emptied that pit now because once we understand how the items in the pit work, or at least can predict their behavior, they become respectable. <<

I'm not interested in what's "respectable" either, only what is real, to the extent one can determine such. Science has barely scratched the surface of what's out there, and there's a kind of arrogance in assuming that we pretty much know everything by now. As for the items in the Beltist pit, even though I may not fully understand how or why they work, I can predict their behaviour and have been doing so for years. Yet those items are not "respectable" to the people on this board, and science in general, which for the most part, has not done the same research. In fact, most skeptics -refuse- to do the research on the grounds that Beltist practices sound like nonsense, do not appear to be based on previously known principles, and haven't been scientifically validated yet -- so are therefore not worthy of investigation. (A position hardly "scientific"...).

So "science" is a crock o' crap if you ask me. Because you can not separate "science" from the "scientific establishment" which declares what is and isn't "science", according to those who adhere to "the rules" (of the "scientific method"). The scientific establishment is made up of humans, who have foolish prejudices, who make mistakes, who go down wrong paths, who have throughout history dismissed valid phenomenon (sometimes for political reasons...), etc etc. Yet people hold everything that's declared scientific as sacrosanct, and everything that isn't as "magical", "mystical", "metaphysical" rubbish. In another post, Stu talks about "Chi". I believe in "Chi", I have felt its effects in my body. Billions of people in the world have believed in and practiced ways of Chi for thousands of years. Does your "science" believe in "Chi", and is it "respectable" now? Hardly. Sorry, crock o' crap! I believe in the concept of science, not the religion of science, which is unfortunatley what you see being promulgated all over internet audio forums.

>>Sorry to wax philosophic here, my point is that in addition to enjoying home audio, I am keenly interested in what makes it tick. The only way I know to do that is to apply the scientific method. Since we invented it to help us with this very process, it's quite well suited. So now you see my reluctance to accept mystical explanations? If I do, I'm stuck in the pit!<<

ALL revolutionary scientific breakthroughs begin in "the pit". That's what we're dealing with here when we talk about Beltism, a revolution in science & sound. You're trying to take cheap shortcuts already, when you haven't even started on the proper path! That's why I suggested you start with the basics by trying the free techniques listed on PWB's home page, in order to try to understand that there is such a phenomenon that exists, and it isn't "magical", and its possible that others can hear what you're hearing. *Everyone* on the discussion forums tries to understand Beltism theoretically, before they even think of trying to understand it physically. That's not the way to go about understanding this revolutionary phenomenon. All you're going to understand that way, is how many prejudices you have built up over the years from what you were taught under conventional training and education. Those prejudices don't help you to understand this.

Trying to find chemical connections between adverse objects thinking you're going to come up with your own "correct" explanation for all of this will only lead you down wrong paths, and is a waste of time IMHO. (Especially if you haven't even researched the hypotheses PWB has put forward - which is far better fleshed out than any alternatives I've ever heard). I don't think you have any idea of the extent of the phenomenon. It goes far beyond mere "household objects". It touches light, water, language, nature, colour, shape, symbol... -everything!-. But if you are thinking about applying known laws of "science" to ruminate over a phenomenon, you should at least know the basics of it first, no?! I understand the idea of wanting to understand what makes something tick, but I also understand that for too many audio hobbyists, "science" becomes a security blanket, which they are afraid of being without. And because of that, science becomes a crutch, not an advantage, for such audiophiles.

"silence tells me secretly, everything..."

Follow Ups:

Posy, May, Stu... - rick_m 00:02:01 07/02/07 (1)
- RE: Posy, May, Stu... - unclestu52 01:08:09 07/02/07 (0)

Post a Followup:

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?

Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
	Remember my Moniker & Password (What's this?) Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:

Message:	(Posts are subject to Content Rules)

Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:	Automagically notify you when someone responds.

To view your new posting or follow-up, click on the RELOAD or REFRESH button on your browser.