Quote:
I was wondering what Ethan would think if Jeff was incorrect 100% of the time.

That's not likely if we do enough tests. With two cords, guessing randomly makes you right half the time.

> I think it is only fair if Jeff goes through two tests, one the chords, and the second, removal of only one diffuser/absorber/trap or room treatment (some triangular corner bass trap perhaps). at least that way we can get some DBT on Ethan's "tweaks" as well. <

ROFL. Absolutely!

--Ethan

Martin,

> If the fuses orientation really does make a difference it implies that its electrical characteristic is non-reciprocal <

It also implies added distortion! That's what's so silly about audio cables that have arrows on them. Now, the direction can matter from a hum perspective, but only if one end has the ground wire removed. And some wires are built that way on purpose. Otherwise, the notion that a cable works "better" in one direction than another is preposterous. AC is called AC for a good reason!

--Ethan

Guys,

This is just to show you I am not a total Philistine...even if I am an engineer that knows how to build most of what you guys talk here about.

A directional fuse might make a difference.

Why? Well it will cause some rectification of the signal just like a diode. This may create a "DC" offset to the AC signal going to the power supply transformer. It is well known that DC offsets can cause audible "humming" in tranformers, for example when magnetic saturation occurs on one side of the core of a transfomer before it does on the other side.

Of course this should not affect in anyway the audio sound of a properly designed amplifier, however, the transformer humming might be more audible or less audible than with a non directional fuse....largely depending on what other components are connected to the AC mains and how clean the power is. (The power from the mains might already have a DC offset)

This is not to say one should all go out and buy power supply cords that partly rectify the AC mains power...as the impact to transfomer hum will be random and dependent on many factors.

Of course an extreme case of a huge DC offset on the AC mains might compromise an amplifier power supply rectification to the point of audio degradation. In this case, a rectifying power cord is a band aid that may or may not help ....you really need a power stabilizer to fix the bad or dirty AC mains.

Of course a good amplifier design will be more tolerant of dirty AC mains....but many "minimalist" tube designed amps do not qualify as good amplifer design (from an engineers perspective for the above reasons and many other such as linearity and distortion).

>>Your post looks nice on the surface, comm, incinuating I am a villain viciously attacking you. Well, let's take a look at the facts by looking at the string "do cables make a difference...", page 5, in the cable forum. This is where comm started the mudslinging.

>>Comm's first post (I had not posted to him yet.), his blatant, dogmatic cussing trying to put us down.

"Experiments in building cables and testing them using sophisticated test equipment quickly proved that manufacturers' claims regarding exotic materials such as silver and "high-purity" copper and/or capacitance and inductance variables are simply pure bullshit!! There is no correlation between signal distortion and use of special materials"

>>I responded with my FIRST post to comm:

"As far as using the term BS, you should know what you are talking about before making foolish comments."

>>I was clearly agitated from his dogmatic insulting cussing and attempted intimidation.

>>Here is comm's next post and his inflammatory language pointed personally at me.

"As a person who is active in engineering transmitter and antenna designs, you can be assured that I am far more up-to-date on electronic theory than quite a number of people, certainly including you."

>>Attempted Intimidation.

"As usual, your comments lack focus and are generally quite amazing to anyone who anyone who really IS an audiophile (your repeated strange and wondrous comments make it difficult to believe that you actually ARE an audiophile...and the responses to your musings posted in these forums make it obvious that I am not alone in this opinion...)."

>>Notice comm attacks me on several fronts. First he comments that he has superior electronic theory "certainly including you" (me). (Later he personally attacks my friends and me.). He also uses the term "musings" as another attempt to intimidate.

>>Second he attacks me as not providing "focus". Yet I have tried over and over again to get the objectivists to "focus" and give evidence, but with no success.
And I have yet to see comm ask for better "focus" from DUP or ethan that I have been trying to obtain. They still have not. Next, he continues to attack me:

"your repeated strange and wondrous comments make it difficult to believe that you actually ARE an audiophile...and the responses to your musings posted in these forums make it obvious that I am not alone in this opinion...)."

>>So I am not an audiophile? (I guess comm felt the need to support his objectivists friends by personally demeaning me.)

>>I think Clifton(PHD) hit the nail on the head as to why they are really here. Simply for commercial reasons.

>>For those who just joined, comms latest attack has been to insinuate that I made up my friends who used to work in top level classified research involving physics/materials etc.

>>As one can see, comm paints a rosy picture of himself, and a poor picture of me. But the facts reveal something quite different/opposite than what comm would have you believe. So how can he be trusted?

If I have materially misrepresented your beliefs, practices, twisted facts, or whatever, please accept my humblest apologies Jason which I offer publicly. All I ask is that you publicly state what it was that I wrote (reiki, astrology, etc.) that has been in substantial error so that I can cross check my references. Perhaps my recollections are substantially in error since it's been a long time since we have had the opportunity to correspond on an open forum. I would hate to think that I am responsible for your character being assassinated.

Sounds like you had some kind of insult in mind there, or maybe even wanted to attempt an intelligible response to something or other.

Better luck next time.

Happy listening
Martin

Hello Reverb
I

"There is nothing so dismal as the sound of "woodies" putting down the honest observations of others." - John Atkinson, 11/26/2006

I nominate 301 for the title "Chief Woodie". No one could be more deserving.

(DUP can run next year IF he ever learns how to say anything intelligible....)

Quote:
It will not result in any rectification, because the materials are non semi-conducting - all have electrons that are free for conduction. i.e. no

Thanks for a great post, Reverb.

Very well said!

Someone who I think has pretty good ears asked me if I really believed Reverb's post.

It made me want to add to my reply to him.

I agree with him wholeheartedly that if tossing on a new fuse makes a big sonic difference (I'll leave "better" out of the argument) then it would be worthwhile to make sure all is well with the elctronic chain of command.

Many of us get lulled into the belief that whatever we buy must be designed and implemented to the high standards that marketing materials want us to believe. As we have seen, even those with fine ears like Michael Fremer can be taken in by this belief system while playing a broken piece of gear.

We should always be alert to the implications that certain sonic changes may be indicative of - and one of those things is a faulty piece of gear.

If it can happen with a 43 kilodollar CD player, it surely can happen to gear we own.

So, if Reverb's post reminds us to be ever vigilant about our signal chain, then GREAT!

I'll leave the debate about what makes for a "better sounding fuse" to others.

As with the idea of the fuse with a built in diode

Quote:

Yes and no...in fact it does not take much to cause hysterisis in a core that is already in saturation as in many cheap and crappy power supplies

my point here, which I imagine we agree on(?), is that the DC current generated by

Quote:
"There is nothing so dismal as the sound of "woodies" putting down the honest observations of others." - John Atkinson, 11/26/2006

I nominate 301 for the title "Chief Woodie". No one could be more deserving.

(DUP can run next year IF he ever learns how to say anything intelligible....)

Unfortunately, you did not accurately quote JAs comments. Here it is:

"There is nothing so dismal than the sight of "woodies" putting down the honest observations of others. Time for everyone to read again Art Dudley's August 2006, http://www.stereophile.com/artdudleylistening/806listen/ Listening column on the subject.

In Art's article, "woodies", pertains to objectivists, including you. The "others", or "fuzzies" refers to subjectivists. Here is a quote from Art's article.

"From now on, let's think of audio subjectivists as the fuzzies, and audio objectivists as the woodies:"

So JA was directing his comments to your type.
We did listen to you. You are a meter reader with no more info than DUP or ethan. No Problem. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But your cussing, using intimidation tactics, deception etc to try to diminish any descent from subjectivists is uncalled for.

And I disagree that you hold the qualifications to be an expert. Sorry you do not like that. You have already said the same about me.

You might try being more honest in the future.

There is a huge gap between "root cause" and "magical," and those of us who make decisions about our systems based on the music we hear live in that gap. Your use of "magical" is loaded to the negative side, as a term that describes phenomena you cannot measure. We have all heard amplifiers that measure almost identically and yet sound completely different, even if "measurably" compatible (in power output and impedance, for example) with the speakers out of which the sound emerges. Does this mean we who choose amplifier "A" over amplifier "B" because of what we hear in the music are "Witch Doctors"?

You are still trapped in your numbers, Reverb. You cannot get from objective measurements to sound. We, of course, cannot get from sound to objective measurements. But sound is what we are interested in, as the final proof of a system's desirability. So we prefer the sound to the numbers. We do not make the claim of having access to "magic" when we choose one component over another without chasing a "root cause" based on numerical measurement. Some engineers actually do make sonic choices rather than numerical ones. They, of course, have the best of both worlds, being technically competent and understanding the limits of technical competence. Robert Harley, for instance. John Atkinson, for another instance. I have heard systems owned by engineers that sound absolutely horrible (that is, have little or no resemblence to the live event), politely refusing to comment, as the proud owner beams, "perfectly flat, as close as possible to non-measurable distortion, perfectly matched in impedance and all other measurable criteria for interface...some system, eh"?

No one is putting you down for being technically competent. Just don't smugly dismiss us as "witch doctors," or any other category of self-deluded fools because you cannot measure what we hear.

When comparing amps, do you do any sort of level matching?

It seems to me that to fall into one of those categories (woodies and fuzzies..lol) one has to either slavishly rely on measurements or slavishly rely on subjective observations, and make no attempt to reconcile them with anything else. Either approach seems absolutely stupid and unscientific to me.

The scientific method requires that systematic observations of phenomena be made and then an attempt be made to discover an underlying mechanism or principle at work which explains the observed behavior.

What I have always tried to do is to UNDERSTAND how the differences I and others consistently HEAR can be explained by the by the laws of physics (including basic electrical principles). To me this is simply applying the scientific method; OBSERVE, then experiment, then try to correlate and seek understanding (and sometimes, in an attempt to understand, measuring devices can be useful and appropriate).

Until someone disproves the basic laws of physics, I will continue to believe that they DO explain the relationship between what we hear and the devices (circuits, cables, discs, etc.) that cause us to hear it. All I seek is a better understanding of how it all works.

If you think that I am a "woodie" because I believe in the laws of physics and seek to understand how and why they correlate with what I hear, then I am certain that you misunderstand me and also misunderstand the terms you are using! It would probably be closer to the truth to say that I lean strongly towards the "fuzzy" camp, EXCEPT that I want to try to make some sense out of that fuzz!...lol.

The ironic thing is that you seem to revere your scientist friends, but dismiss me as a "meter reader" because I sometimes do scientific experiments using various equipment and which involve measurements; if you stop and think for a minute, you will realize that any research scientist uses very similar instruments and measuring devices, and for the same reasons; to observe and measure in order to obtain data. I guess they all must just be "meter readers" too, if you apply your criteria equally.

P.S.- I have never thought of myself as an "expert" on anything, and would never apply that word to myself. I have been an audiophile for 40 years and involved with electronics for that long also. Those are facts, and if you choose to discount them, fine, but don't say I claim to be an expert; never have done so, and never will.

P.P.S.- I cannot for the life of me figure out why or how you keep trying to say that DUP and I share any position on anything; I keep talking about the differences cables make and why I think so, and he keeps telling me that I am full of crap and that they all sound the same; every time I open my mouth he blasts everything I say. To say that I agree with him on anything is to display an ignorance of all of that history. Wake up!

Of course not. After all, what difference could it possibly make? I will play amplifier "A" at full crank, then immediately compare amplifier "B" at levels below an amoeba's whisper. Then I know the comparison will be valid.

Yeah. Right. I've done this before, Reverend. Sheesh.

Quote:
Does John Atkinson ever just, you know, flub the tests because the company in question is a sustaining advertiser?

I mean, hey, you'd have the kid's college educations on the line if you didn't, you know, go with the flow. There's got to be pressure, you know? I mean, hey, we're all grown-ups here. We know how it all works. And stuff.

All this truth and honesty and stuff just makes me glad to be, you know, an American.

What a great bunch of normal, over-compensating poseurs in their fifties populate these boards.

Hey, can I start a Metallica thread?

Hey, take that back. J.A. is our reference point for reality. He is always critical to a fault with his analysis of the test data.
I'm sure he didn't make the advertisers happy with his test data and analysis of the analog fiber optic interconnect or the high dollar obsolete D/A converter. Without J.A. Stereophile would be just another magazine full of reviews with descriptions that don't make any sense to me.

Quote:
When comparing amps, do you do any sort of level matching?

I always place them both on the same shelf as to match their levels because we all know that small differences in altitude causes audible differences caused by changes in atmospheric pressure.

I'm with Clifton on this sort of thing. My ears are in the circuit path to my brain and that's my measuring stick for what I like and dislike. I am convinced that what I like in reproduced sound and the compromises I'm willing to accept are not always what others would agree with. So what's a guy to do? Who ya gonna believe, someone else's idea of what you should like or your lying ears?

This whole notion that audiophiles are diluding themselves is founded in ignorance. I can appreciate that people will make different value judgements and that listening skills will vary from person to person. To think that simply having the ability to hear is qualification enough to carry the same weight as 30 years of critical listening experience is as invalid as claiming to be qualified to evaluate the merits of fine art because you have 20/20 vision. People may certainly know what they like when they see it, and that's perfectly valid, but that only makes them experts at what they like. That does not qualify them to judge the merits on an equal basis as someone who has spent years studying fine art with a passion. I use this as an example as I believe audio reproduction to be as much an art as it is a science.

I don't think any serious audiophile doubts that they are a far better listener now than they were when they first became serious about sound. Things that would go unnoticed at the early stages of the passion for audio are now easily recognized. Things that attracted you to serious audio in the first place may have become so common in your experiences that you notice them only in instances of ommisions rather than being pleased that a particular combination has the capabilities. This frees you up to listen even deeper into the recordings for less obvious aspects of superior reproduction. And so it goes...the journey of experience and appreciation for uncommon virtues.

I'm not saying that I possess the listening skills to evaluate the merits of a particular component on par with someone like Clifton who has many, many more years of passionate experience under his belt. What I am saying is that those who carry around pocket protectors and multimeters are not qualified to judge the way a component sounds on its merits unless they have the listening skills obtained through substantial experience. So, if you want to be considered an expert in listening then lay out your listening bonafides and relate them to your engineering profession. Being a competent engineer doesn't make one a competent listener.

The engineering types (Woodies) can shout from on high until the cows come home and it will make absolutely no difference to the Fuzzies other than to provide for some lively discussions. However, in the end, the Woodies must have some sort of passion for audio or they wouldn't be hanging around. The irony is that the Woodies are so busy exercising their futility that the only people harmed are the Woodies themselves...harmed from missing out on the object of our (and maybe their) passion for superior sound.

I have no doubt that science will someday provide many answers as to what we are hearing and what engineering techniques will accomplish predictable results. We ain't there yet so get over yourselves.

I see; you belong to the airhead school of level matching!

Quote:
I see; you belong to the airhead school of level matching!

No, been kicked out of that school too.
Free thinker.
Realize that measurements are meaningful but don't tell the whole story. Still am driven crazy trying to figure out why.

As usual, Monty, you said it better than I could. In this eternal battle, it seems there is no animosity on the part of the fuzzies towards the woodies -- we just want to listen to some tunes. Yet, the woodies always want to reclaim lost territory by pretending that what you hear, somehow, is a poor substitute for what gets measured.

I actually admire anyone with superior technical knowledge, as long as he or she doesn't label me as "deluded." I roomed with Bob Harley for about half a year, when we were both finishing up school (now, THERE'S a mismatch -- I was finishing my PhD dissertation on Yeats and Lionel Johnson, and Bob was finishing his degree in Electrical Gizmo Analysis), and we both were selling shitsound at a local emporium for the terminally tone-deaf, and we both were broke (else, why volunteer for a roomate?), and I always marvelled at Bob's facility with the numbers game. But, in the end, we both just wanted to hear a better reproduction of tunes in the living room. Bob knew the numerical whys and wherefores, and I always admired the fact that he was a true music lover who had a technical underpinning. More often than not, we agreed on what sounded faithful to the recorded event, and even he allowed that there was a point (indefinable) where the numbers became unreliable as truth indicators. We never argued over who was superior. This is why I am suspicious of those who do.

As I said, you argue my case much better than I do. Happy tunes.

How do you know Harley's technical underpinnings are sound? From some of what I've read of his work or discussions, it doesn't strike me as particularly technically insightful or meaningful.

Hello Monty
A very eloquently put post.
When you said:

Quote:

What I am saying is that those who carry around pocket protectors and multimeters are not qualified to judge the way a component sounds on its merits unless they have the listening skills obtained through substantial experience.

Using your previous analogy with an art lover, do also bear in mind, that the artist who had the skills to create that great picture, must by implication also have the understanding of what is required to achieve that point.
I do agree with you, that what makes a great picture in one persons eyes, may well not to another. Valves Vs transistors seems like another obvious analogy.

As eluded to earlier by commsysman,

Man, I just can't buy into the art analogy.

The goals aren't quite the same, or even similar, for the most part.

I think you are confusing what composers and musicians do with what you want from Hi Fi.

Hi Fi isn't supposed to create, it's supposed to faithfully recreate.

What do you want art to do?

What do you want your Hi Fi to do?

Would you like an abstract expressionist pre-amp?

How about chiaroscuro speakers?

Is there a platonic ideal for a work of art? Can you even conceive of that?

Is there an ideal for Hi Fi? Yes, there is (kind of... ...) and therein lies a vast chasm between "art" and Hi Fi.

You think Picasso would make a great amplifier? Pollock a good cartridge?

Give those woodies more credit. Without the guy with the pocket protector and measuring machine, you'd still have to rely on the local symphony hall or your shrill niece's vocals to get your music fix.

Woodies invent all this cool stuff, then a bunch of liberal arts majors use one hand to pay the woodie for the goodie while writing woodie critiques with the other.

I understand where you're coming from, but, it could also be said that the purpose of art is to faithfully recreate (photorealistic painters or photographers come to mind.)

Which period Picasso are we talking about for an amplifier? A cubist version will sound vastly different to a blue or rose one; the timing on the cubist one might seem off or disjointed, the blue one too sluggish and depressing, and the rose one overly sweet.

Quote:
I understand where you're coming from, but, it could also be said that the purpose of art is to faithfully recreate (photorealistic painters or photographers come to mind.)

Which period Picasso are we talking about for an amplifier? A cubist version will sound vastly different to a blue or rose one; the timing on the cubist one might seem off or disjointed, the blue one too sluggish and depressing, and the rose one overly sweet.

Hi, Jeff!

I still won't bite on the art part.

Did you ever hear an art critic criticize a work of art because it didn't make him feel he was actually looking at the object the painting or photograph was meant to represent?

Heck, did you ever hear someone praise a piece because it fooled them into thinking the apple, or building, or person were actually in the room with them?

Even if we ran into a piece of art that pulled off that trick, could it do it for Miles Davis one minute and then John Coltrane the next?

Could that work of art be convincing for more than one item?

As for Picasso, no matter which period, I think you'd end up with a silent amplifier that looked like Homer Simpson's attempt at building a backyard barbeque.

I say, "Nyet," to all of the above fuzzies about the "art" analogy here.

I'll give way and allow for "craftsmanship," though. Is that fair?

From what you have read of Bob's work? And who might you be? Where can we access your published oeuvre? Bob has impeccable academic and practical credentials in his field. He is a published writer, technical consultant, and technical editor, and he currently heads up a well-respected audio publication. When have you ever gone public with your supposed technical expertise? What have you done to advance the field of home entertainment? In short, what are your qualifications (other than a fake title, and a non-technical one at that...) to judge any published writer?

I know he is technically qualified from talking to him and from reading his published work, Reverend. He brings a difficult and demanding discipline into a realm we non-techies can understand. His explanations of digital technology were an immense help to all of us who didn't understand how early CD technological advances worked. In that sense, he is something of a pioneer in the field of educating many music lovers about the digital revolution in high-end audio. That's how I know, Reverend.

The context of Monty's analogy limits it to the area of appreciation or evaluation. I think it is appropriate. Music is aural art, Painting and Sculpture are visual arts. Since we evaluate system choices based on the way they play music, or communicate this particular aesthetic pursuit (and, after all, don't all artists seek to communicate with an audience?), then a keen ear and a keen eye, it seems to me, are analogous. Now, is system design analogous to artistic creation? Remotely, I suppose, but that isn't what Monty said. In both of these creative arenas, aesthetic or aesthetic-like choices have to be made, with an "ideal" for the finished product constantly in mind. Still, from the creation side, the analogy seems to me to be somewhat of a reach, but I wouldn't argue vigorously against its validity.

I know he is technically qualified from talking to him and from reading his published work, Reverend. He brings a difficult and demanding discipline into ucating many music lovers about the digital revolution in high-end audio. That's how I know, Reverend.

Excellent response, Clifton, to the obviously baiting troll: the Rev.

Rev. you should be more careful, Dante might have a circle specially reserved for you and other trolls :-)

Quote:
The context of Monty's analogy limits it to the area of appreciation or evaluation. I think it is appropriate. Music is aural art, Painting and Sculpture are visual arts. Since we evaluate system choices based on the way they play music, or communicate this particular aesthetic pursuit (and, after all, don't all artists seek to communicate with an audience?), then a keen ear and a keen eye, it seems to me, are analogous. Now, is system design analogous to artistic creation? Remotely, I suppose, but that isn't what Monty said. In both of these creative arenas, aesthetic or aesthetic-like choices have to be made, with an "ideal" for the finished product constantly in mind. Still, from the creation side, the analogy seems to me to be somewhat of a reach, but I wouldn't argue vigorously against its validity.

Well, now I'm just having a little fun.

I think considering the gear we listen to as being "art" is like Clifton looking at a Van Gogh and commenting on the quality of the frame, the lighting, whether or not Windsor Newton pigments hold hue better than another brand, or the quality of the underlying canvas.

We can talk about being better able to appreciate the art of someone's performance through our gear, but it ain't the same as the art.

Quote:
I know he is technically qualified from talking to him and from reading his published work, Reverend. He brings a difficult and demanding discipline into ucating many music lovers about the digital revolution in high-end audio. That's how I know, Reverend.

A compelling affirmation of his overall skill if there ever was one.

Quote:
Rev. you should be more careful, Dante might have a circle specially reserved for you and other trolls :-)

You don't really believe in that nonsense now, do you?

My analogy with the whole 'art' comment certainly has limitations, but I'm coming from the position that a recreation of an event or sound is and always will be limited in itself. Since we can't reproduce it 100%, we are limited to recreating the sound and event.

The abiility to recreate something immediately becomes subjected to a whole host of other limitations that require compromises and decisions on the part of whoever is putting the project together...not to mention the limitations of the equipment and an infinite number of other factors and decisions that must be made by humans.

If you can accept that music is one of many art forms, it's not such a stretch to consider the human involvement in reproducing it within the obvious limitations as an extension of the music arts. At least it isn't a stretch for me.

Nobody is "compelling" you to believe or disbelieve anything, Reverend Troll. You still didn't answer my questions. What have you written, for public scrutiny and analysis, in the field of Home Entertainment Electronics that even remotely qualifies you to question Bob's credentials? I almost said, "with your name on it," but a recent check reveals you still don't have one.

Now, you can agree or disagree with anyone, but questioning another published writer's credentials requires that you put up some of your own. And that you attach "...a local habitation and a name" to the "aiery nothing" your blather has thus far exhaled.

It seems to me that looking at an amplifier, say, and commenting on the heat sinks and control panel layout would be more analogous to your Van Gogh example. Commenting on the system's ability to recreate a musical experience similar to the live event (both being merely different types of related aesthetic experience) would be analogous, it seems to me, to contemplating line, color, and other elements of formal composition in the painting. I suppose, if one wanted to detail the analogy even more, one could bring in a high quality photographic reproduction, on your coffee table, of the original that hangs in the Louvre. Just as I won't be in Paris soon, to contemplate the original, I won't be in Berlin to contemplate the original concert featuring Rattle and the Berlin doing the Schubert 9th, an event reproduced by the CD playing in my living room.

I believe it was Freud who said that analogies won't get you to the real village, but can provide an excellent map of the territory. All analogies break down, because they don't aspire to being identities. This one is quite valid, for me.

No , Rev, I went to Jesuit, how could I posibly believe in anything?
We were reading Camus, Sartre, Buber and T. de Chardin at the same time, in our sophomore year and were expected to lucidly debate all sides(which we did)
Most the priests were agnostics because,as I trust you realize, to be an atheist is as much an act of faith as to be a theist.
The existence of a deity can neither be disproven nor proven and either stance
requires going "beyond" reason. What would be called an "act of faith" This act of faith is required for both theism and atheism. Many atheists are logically inconsistent and deny their stance requires an act of faith. And many theists(especially fundamentalists) can't bear the thought that God can't be scientifically proven.

The only purely rational stance is agnosticism.
Acts of faith are unintersting to me.
Ergo. I am an agnostic of the "don't give a sh*t category.

Clifton! You are right, of course!

I agree with you - the magic that is Hi Fi takes place at an almost ephemeral level as signals go in and music comes out. I guess our systems are "producing" (or, at the very least, trying to beautifully re-create) art!

I guess with the art analogy, we're really just judging how well an impostor can mimic the masters strokes!

Cheers, amigo.

__________________________
__________________________

Tomjtx, technically speaking, atheism is the lack of faith, not the rejection of it.

It does not require any invested "belief" or "faith" in and of itself, it's kind of the null set of faith.

Athesism would be the physics equivalent of the "resting state." Unless acted upon by an outside force, atheism is the default state.

Calling atheism an act of "faith" is just a way for theists to rationalize the "leap" they took. They say, "As long as we have to make a leap of faith one way or the other, I choose the leap of faith."

Atheism occurs pre-leap.

Now, agnosticism, that's interesting. Claiming not to know is fine and all, but in the celestial ice cream shop, it's the theists and atheists who actually end up with the ice cream cones. Agnostics are forever at the counter wondering which flavor to choose.

(*Disclaimer: This post is Friday goofing off. There is no flame or disagreeable intent. I'm picturing us all in a nice fern bar being ragaled by Clifton's and your ideas and whacking y'all on the back and saying, "Waitress! More of everything!")

Budha,
I have to disagree.
Agnosticism would be the null state IMO.
It is the absence of faith and as such is the resting state. It doesn't require a positive action as does theism or atheism.
Your description of atheism describes agnosticism more to me.
An atheist must "deny" the existence of god by definition ,which requires a leap of faith since god cannot be scientifically proven nor disproven.

Camus addresses this quite well in "the Myth of Sissyphus"

Conversly , the Camusian existential agnostic is not concerned with deity, it is irrelevant to daily existence.
The so called "on the fence" agnostics, those who are "still searching" are the wishy washy wimps that give us true agnostics a bad name. They are clearly theists in disguise and they should be banished to a remote island and made to watch endless re-runs of Barney , oh, wait, they might enjoy that :-)

No offense taken, BTW, these are fun discussions and if your ever in Dallas we should have them over wine and tapas at Cafe Madrid. I play clasical guitar there every Tues. if your ever in town.
BTW, existential agnostics are the 1st to get the ice cream because we only are centered on that which our senses can apprehend:-)

Budha,
I forgot to mention that it wasn't theists that said atheism requires a leap of faith, it was Albert Camus in his philosophical essay: "The Myth of Sissyphus"

We keep pushing that boulder up the hill despite it's metaphysical meaninglesness. The struggle re affirms the "absurdity" of life and in this way we remain logically consistent.

Thomas Jefferson
1782 - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

I believe it was Bertrand Russell who being an atheist was asked, "what are you going to do if when you die you are brought before "God" on his throne and he asks you "Why didn't you believe in me?". His reply was "I would tell "God", you should have given me better evidence".

A wonderful statement with which I wholeheartedly agree,
TJ was one cool dude

Does anyone have any idea what this forum was about in the first place...???

We have covered american history, freedom of religion, assasinated the character of at least 5 or 6 people, and psychoanalyzed a few others, and digressed generally to the known limits of randomness...

Is this the mother of all forums or what???

"You're drifting too far from the shore...
you're drifting too far from the shore...
come to Jesus today...just get down and prayyyyyy...
you're drifting too far frooooom shore..."

Written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills

A buzzard took a monkey for a ride in the air,
The monkey thought that everything
was on the square.
The buzzard tried to throw the monkey
off OF his back,
The monkey grabbed his neck and said,
"Now listen, Jack..."

Straighten up and fly right,
Straighten up and stay right
Straighten up and fly right
Cool down, papa, don't you blow your top.
Ain't no use in divin',
What's the use in jivin'?
Straighten up and fly right
Cool down, papa, don't you blow your top.

The buzzard told the monkey,
"You are chokin' me.
Release your hold and I will set you free."
The monkey looked the buzzard right
dead in the eye and said,
"Your story's so touching, but it sounds
jes' like a lie."

Straighten up and fly right
Straighten up and stay right
Straighten up and fly right
Cool down, papa, don't you blow your top.

(Take it away, boys!)

Straighten up and fly right,
Straighten up and stay right
Straighten up and fly right
Cool down, papa, don't you blow your top.
Ain't no use in divin',
Ain't no good in jivin'?
Straighten up and fly right
Cool down, papa, don't you blow - your - top.

Fly right!

Sisyphus, Buddha. So there. Camus states in his first paragraph that the only philosophical question worth considering is suicide. He also states that man is the only animal who knows he is going to die. Since he is an atheist, he must justify deciding to live out an absurdity. He decides that living for a principle larger than oneself, an abstract idea, is the only justification for life. Hence, the philosophical victory of watching the boulder roll back down the hill -- constant struggle puncuated by occasional victory. Camus caught hell from Sartre (his old buddy in the French Underground in WWII Paris) for this one, because Sartre felt it was a betrayal of the purity of the atheistic, anti-Cartesian ideology they had agreed on before.

I am neither atheist, agnostic, or theist. I believe that the only accessible spiritual truth is beauty, and that art is the discernable face of beauty. As Hamlet noted, no traveler has ever returned from death, that"...undiscovered country," to give us certainty. Obviously, Hamlet was no Christian, but Shakespeare was probably of the Gnostic/occult strain of Christianity (no one will ever know -- Will was too fast on his feet to get caught out, letting his characters handle the dogma).

I cannot accept a spiritual vacuum, a sterile desert of an existence, nor can I accept a battering-ram God who is always keeping score. So I pursue beauty, and art is the face of beauty. And, as Pater so well put it, "all art aspires to the condition of music." Cheers, all.

Sorry, Buddha -- I read too fast and thought it was you who wrote "Sissyphus." But I do call you on "athesism." Hah! Tomjtx, if you play the classical guitar, you don't have to be able to spell "Sisyphus" or anything else...just keep crankin' out the tunes.

Well, while I stand by my stance that atheism is just that: a-theism (Latin purist) - or the absence of faith, you guys can join my club as agnostics. I think y'all are fine company.

Maybe I could get Clifton to go to Dallas with me!

I'm a happy atheist, actually.

So, my quote will use my preferred philosopher:

"I know this glass is already broken, so I enjoy it incredibly."

That's the way I look at my mortality.

I also like "The Situation is hopeless, but not serious."

Lastly, my other favorite philosopher, George Santayana: "Having been born is poor augury for immortality."

Put those three together and you're close to my point of view.

Here's to you guys!

what abot deist?

If i fall into a catagory its probably that one, though i'd bump and bruise on my way down

also, whats this got to do with tweaks

should be a fun exersise in intellectual masterbuation to link the two.

Quote:
Surely, don