In Reply to: Re: can a song be used as a scope? posted by Jack G on September 8, 2004 at 11:09:22:
George, you are trying to put me to work and I'm a damm lazy person right now.Plus I'm too busy exploring the set/amp sound. I'll accept your version rather than try to find the armchair philosophy. But I guess it is hard for me to shake that opinion.
Jack, the mystique is in the amp/opt's, the sound from them, not anywhere else.
_____________________________________________________________________If I say it's raining outside, you could probably believe that.
If I say "boy, the 17th century paintings in the Met are something else", I am entering more into the subjective, but you may believe that because there is a certain historical consensus about it.
But if I say these opts are something else, it's subjective again, but without the supporting consensus.
And I realize the scope of my experience may be limited in a way that you can question what I say there.
But some things are intuitively compelling such as the latter two examples, and we humans seem to have these aesthetic abilities built inside us, without needing the "expert" to recognize things that are of a high artistic/aesthetic/transendental nature.
(It is all the same to me (all three examples).)
But a damm lot of people I know don't use these abilities, even seem to hate and rebel against them, (perhaps a fear of chaos? fear of the unknown? fear of the new?), and this forms a good foundation of the Babylon society we know.
But if someone makes a statement it could be right or wrong, or informed or not. The way to find out is to check for yourself, if it is of interest.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Can you see what I see? - njjohn 13:28:10 09/08/04 (1)
- Re: Can you see what I see? - GEO 14:51:50 09/08/04 (0)