> Carlo :) Yes, dear :) > I am *more* than open - that seems to be my problem on this list. > And I do have a sense of humor - your comments just sounded more like > mockery than humor. Ah, the case of mockery. I think mockery is so important. It keeps me from thinking *I* am important. And that's important. > Sorry that I misinterpreted them. Actually, you didn't. I actually was mocking you to the worst and I really gave it my best shot. It's simply what I call *humour*. I think it's important that we can all mock each other. Mockery is the best cure for Dogma. Let's all mock Paul a little. By the way, I recently recorded a bunch of my farts with ardour and the fidelity of the production was amazing. I couldn't tell the difference between the real thing. I'm happy ardour doesn't reproduce smell as well as it does audio. > I find your exuberance and irreverant humor extremely refreshing, and much > needed on what otherwise feels like a generally stodgy list. Oh why thank you. Does this mean I have permission to mock you? Please, say yes. I'd like to consider you on online friend and to be that I need to be allowed to mock you. > I assumed that most people on this list would be musicians rather than > programmers or engineers, and I find musicians a lot easier to communicate > with and relate to - not to mention much more open-minded. > (I guess that's why I married one.) I hope you have deep pockets. > It is how *any* thought system works. Really???? So you mean I can actually THINK and not be scientific? I'm so happy! I always found plain intellectual stupidity a distingushing mark of a lot of people who consider themselves 'spiritual'. > A thought system is merely a navigational mechanism - a vehicle if you > will. YES! > It is meant to *move* you somewhere - to give you mobility, to be a > mechanism for growth and evolution of consciousness. And all this without stuffy labs and wannabe smart-ass thesis advisors? I love this. > We all need a frame of reference - which is what a thought system is. > It consists of our current beliefs about the world and our relationship to > it, and provides us with a mechanism to interpret what we perceive and > experience. Aaaaaaaah... > And as those beliefs largely determine what we perceive, the experience > part is crucial to bringing in new information so that those beliefs can be > modified and the scope of awareness and understanding expanded. > In a healthy evolving being, when experience is found to be inconsistent > with a belief system, it is discarded for a new, more expansive or > inclusive set of beliefs, until it, in its own turn is also outgrown. > When a belief-system/reference-frame no longer serves - i.e., experience > contradicts those beliefs, forcing them to be modified or discarded - then > at a certain ineffable point, a phase transition occurs (often entailing a > major life-crisis) - the belief system is disintegrated and a new one is > created in its place - one which incorporates all the experiential learning > from the former - the beliefs which have held up to experience, along with > new ideas, beliefs and theories by which one then attempts to continue to > navigate through this mysterious thing we call 'reality' and 'life'. > This process is cosmic mobility through consciousness, and I believe, will > one day be the basis of physical mobility through the cosmos as well. > > "Build thee more stately mansions, O my soul, > As the swift seasons roll! > Leave thy low-vaulted past! > Let each new temple, nobler than the last, > Shut thee from heaven with a dome more vast, > Till thou at length art free, > Leaving thine outgrown shell by life's unresting sea! " > ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes > >>I was ready to trash my theory that bits are always bits >>that has worked so well for me for over twelve years AT THE BLINK OF AN >>EYE, simply because of your unconfirmed subjective observation that you >>can hear a difference between the same files on different hard drives, >>even if it might mean making the way I work in the studio infinetly more >>complex, at least until I found a better theory. > It does make things more complicated - or simpler, depending on how you > look at it. > We no longer make intermediate copies of a piece of music in progress. > All the data about the ongoing state of editing/modification is kept as a > project file, while the original raw recorded data is left untouched. > In previous projects it was only at the very last stage that the changes > were incorporated into a mixed-down rendered stereo file, then used for > CD-Mastering. That's really interesting. You see, I have been a long-time believer, and a strong believer, in the 'bits are bit's' theory. And as far as things go that are measurable by bits, it probably still holds true. But we're talking perception here. Oddly enough, I have NEVER made intermediate copies of my work. Not even of software. When I write a piece of software I can't stand writing from a backup copy. I have always explained this through the 'danger of getting a subtly wrong version' or something of the like. I have also explained my desire to not make unnecessary intermediate copies of music with the principle of simplicity, all that copying going on, all that data moving for nothing simply didn't feel right for me. I have been convinced that making backup copies is simply a bad working habit that will make my sound crappy by invoking my own flaws. Now you come along and tell me that it is all that AND that it physically sounds different! Amazing. > (We don't even defrag the partitions with audio data, although this >>I have heard of people who could PHYSICALLY REPAIR CARS simply by >>thinking about them. If you think that's hocus pocus, remember that the >>'round earth theory' was considered hocus pocus by most only five >>hundred years ago. Five hundred years! On an earth scale, that's not >>even one acoustic sample. That's way below any D/A converter's noise >>margin. We need to stay open about things. > > > Yes indeed - the world would be a vastly improved place if more people > could do this. > It's OK Carlo. Boy I sure went out on a ledge for that one... Ouch... Thanks. > Whenever I mention my partner, it seems to evoke negative responses. You're charming the hell out all of us and we're probably all secretly (or not so secretly) fantasizing about you. Forgive me for being so candid, but sometimes I can get pretty turned on just reading your posts. All the more the irony that you're only here because of your husband's music... jealosy just tends to slap you in your face when you're in a fantastic ASCIICOM wonderland and you get a stiff breeze of monogamous culture shoved in your face. > I prefer not to do so, but since it is his music that we are working to > produce, I cannot help mentioning him on occasion. > He prefers to speak through his guitar and his music, so the verbal > jousting is left to me. Personally, I prefer mockery. If I'm going to reserve my freedom to mock Paul I have to mock you (and myself) too. Mockery is breaking taboo. It's important. It needs to be padded with a little gentleness sometimes too. But in itself, I think it's vital. By the way, I just inspected myself and realized I'm growing love handles. Isn't there any PHYSICAL way to program computers? > I know what I hear, and that is enough for me. > I act in accordance with that perception and it has served me well. > It was never my intention to convert anyone to my perspective, or accept my > perceptions as theirs. Heh... My perception of your perception of what's real is prompting me to expand my bounderies and improve my thinking. Thanks. > Namaste Gesundheit. Carlo
