In Reply to: Re: So??? posted by Kelly McDonald on February 20, 2001 at 08:54:32:
Actually, Kelly, I was attempting to re-focus the discussion to where some tangble benefit, even if but in understanding the difficulty of our quest, could be made. in the vernacular "Where's the beef?" Engaging in discussions about perception and reality are as old as philosophy itself, i.e. a guy named Plato made a point a couple of thousands ago about a guy in a cave seeing shadows and musing whether that was the "real" world. Descartes had some interesting thoughts about dualism. A bit later, solipsism entered the arena. We may as productively argue how many electrons can fit on the end of a tweeter (if you want to pursue this through to the religious side)...I mean, it's entertaining, sometimes, to exercise the synapses with these ponderings, but let's not fool each other that much lies ahead.Anyhow, your simplistic, reductionist division of audio grail-seekers into two camps is un-productive. Kelly, if it ain't on the source and you're massaging to increase euphonics or distortion,...well, you're just using a prophylactic, my friend. Do you drink wine after taking a healthy taste of sugar each time? jayme
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Wrongedy, wrong, wrong. - tinear 02/20/0110:40:03 02/20/01 (1)
- Re: Wrongedy, wrong, wrong. - Kelly McDonald 09:21:42 02/21/01 (0)