Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Thoughts from an evil commercial interest.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Thoughts from an evil commercial interest. - Page 4  

post #46 of 61
8/18/01 at 3:26am
(deleted on the grounds of pointlessness )

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

post #47 of 61
8/18/01 at 9:26am
Dependence is a weakness always. Being dependent on each other is a weakness. This is why small companies can outmanuever large ones. Or why Jan has better prices than headroom.

I better qualify that statement real quick huh?? Dependence is weakness even if you are depending on a doctor. The fact that you need a doctor implies an implicit weakness and helplessness for the patient.

We have no dependence on gravity per se' because gravity is just there. Gravity simply exists, if it did not we would not be what we are or we would not have existed in any way shape or form. In essence we are in dependence of gravity however without it we do not come to exist so the question is moot because the opposing possibility cannot happen for us. Thunder cannot exist without lighting therefore it is made weaker by it's dependence on lighting. Trees need sunlight so they are made weaker by their dependence. People need air so we are made weaker by our dependence. A mouse likes cheese and so it is caught in the mouse trap.

Neruda you are the one who is oblivious. And you know it. You're not even responding anymore, you're just trying to poke me in the ribs. You have descended into insult flinging because that is all that you are capable of. Asinine? Did you get that word from your thesaurus? Did you read the definition carefully? I think you need to put that lable on yourself.
post #48 of 61
8/18/01 at 9:31am
I thought I was quite competent with the English language... Obviously not

Please, can someone tell me what asinine means?
post #49 of 61
8/18/01 at 10:13am
Your opinion, ai0tron, not fact. Small companies can outmaneuver large companies, sure... they can also be crushed by them. If you want to argue theoretical semantics, go right ahead. While you're at it, show me the definition that says dependency = weakness.

And gravity does not simply exist, and we do depend on it per se. You depend on it right now so you don't float right off the planet into outer space. Saying we would not exist w/o gravity is also silly... you have no way of predicting the future w/ absolute certainty. Again, your opinion, not fact.

asinine: Basically it means acting like a complete idiot, when you really should know better...
post #50 of 61
8/18/01 at 10:16am
Wahoo, thanks for the definition dhwilkin...

On a side note... only two more posts to go until you become a 500+ person... damn!! I'm catching up slowly
post #51 of 61
8/18/01 at 10:43am
dhwilkin. Look me straight in the eye and say: "Yes human beings would have evolved exactly as they are now without gravity, in fact planets still would have coallesced into spheres without gravity." If gravity suddenly ended MAYBE we could make it but I personally feel we would all die. Dependency IS weakness please think about it.

Asinine = thinking being dependent on something is a strength.
post #52 of 61
8/18/01 at 11:19am
Ooh, now look who's resorting to insults. Very productive argumentative style, I'm impressed. Just for the record, I was providing Duncan w/ what he asked for, a definition, simple as that. I never said it applied to you, although you're certainly making me re-consider.

Can I say for certain? Nope, but guess what? Neither can you. And if dependency is just making us weak, than how come modern society keeps accomplishing more, doing greater things?

Oh, and since I refuse to have my 500th post on something as stupid as this argument, this will be my last post on the matter.
post #53 of 61
8/18/01 at 11:32am
Thread Starter 
I guess I'm going to drift off topic here, but so what, it seems like Neruda and ai0tron just want to argue.

ai0tron, regarding dependance being a weakness:

I really am surprised that you feel this way. I see the world as consciousness expressing itself through its manifestations in material form. It appears to me that you recognise the distinction between Mind and Matter; that you wish to express yourself creatively and find that that takes eschewing the limitations of extant form so that your consciousness can be as free as possible. If this is true, I find it a ligitimate viewpoint, and one that I adopt at times. IE in the current argument at hand, I significantly subbordinate my role as manufacturer to my belief that this community can do things that are better for headphones in the long run----which is indirectly benefitial to me----than I could possibly do for myself through self interested action. In other words, I refuse, temporarily, the form of CEO that I've built in order to have a different viewpoint. This is a type of independance from existing form that I think is good to have the power to exert.

BUT! I do this thing in the hope of strengthening a larger form that I am willing to submit to, that of this community. And I do see the goal as that of developing the most benefitial form of which I will become dependant on as I can.

Yes, I wish to be both dependant and dependable---interdependant. It is said that maturity can be view as having three phases: dependance (child suckling its mothers breast), independance (adolescent rebelion and conquer the world attitude of young adults), and then interdependance (the settled maturity of those willing work with each other). Going beyond this simple definition, however, I see the desire for interdependance as a reflection of the truth of the existance of unity at some subtler level. The members here love this place and find enjoyment here because in the interaction we experience a largeness to our interests that we could not experience alone.

Dependance (as long as it is coupled with the willingness to bear the burden of others in need to some extent [interdependant responsiveness]) is not weakness at all but a building block towards unity.

Ken Wilber (a contemporary philosopher) says that the next large trend in the developement of humankind is the recognition and acceptance of a transpersonal identity. That mean that people will find themselves identifying more with the groups that they belong to rather than their own individuality. We will become more willing to suffer personally for the good of others in our group. He also sais that the greatest threat to our growth as a people is our unwillingness to give up individualistic biases and submit with gentility to something larger.

To say dependance is weakness is denying truthes like "United we stand, and devided we fall." or that it is more efficient to have divisions of labor in groups of people. I think you may want to look at yourself and see if your desire for independance might be motivated by something other than rational logic (if you're a humanist) or spiritual intuition (if you're personal motivations are faith based).

I depend on the reality here that other people will read and respond to my posts. And I accept that dependance. Tell you what, let's agree that everyone will allow you to be totally independant and not read or respond to your posts. That would suck for you wouldn't it? Wouldn't you rather depend on us just a bit to give a **** about you and want to try to communicate. Don't you, just a little bit, depend on me to talk with care to you rather that just react with venom. (Neruda, you really should try to argue with your own points of view rather that just rant back at ai0tron.)

I'm not really a capitalist, I think I'm more a Libertarian---politically. I think we should have a political system that allows us to be a free as possible to express ourselves. But, philosophically, I'm a "all for one and one for all" kind of guy. Maybe materially capitolist, spiritually socialist. I don't know, but I'm not afraid of submitting to something larger than myself.

I love the biblical quote where it is said God cares about you, God knows when a sparrow dies and don't you know you are worth many sparrows. I just allways feel like adding: "245,329 to be exact." If you insist in being independant you actually limit your worth to 245,329 sparrows. If you are willing to be interdependant, you can be worth so much more, though you have to be humbe enough to accept that your value is not yours alone.
post #54 of 61
8/18/01 at 1:30pm
Sorry Tyll....
post #55 of 61
8/18/01 at 2:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyll Hertsens
I love the biblical quote where it is said God cares about you, God know when a sparrow dies, don't you know you are worth many sparrows. I just allways feel like adding: 245,329 to be exact
Who on earth works these things out??
post #56 of 61
8/18/01 at 3:54pm
ROFL, that sparrow quote was a good one. Tyll, you're the next Douglas Adams
post #57 of 61
8/18/01 at 5:23pm
I GREATLY APPRECIATE your method of conversation Tyll.

I agree with everything you say even though it goes against my own beliefs in some ways... To an extent I will admit that interdependence IS a strength but only if those who make up that framework are without independence themselves. As such all their actions are directed towards the sustainment of the whole even if those actions are directed towards the sustainment of self. This method is very efficient as it allows for specialisation which in turn requires interdependence because no member is capable of acting autonomously. Also on a small scale the individuals have too much worth because they are dedicated to singular tasks which no one else can achieve. On a large scale however this model constitutes a maximising of interdependent value. I think this takes away from individual freedoms and leaves some people sweeping floors etc. when they could do something much more spiritually fulfilling. Conversely it might be possible that the value of interdependece is maximized when the members of the framework are all completely independent and self sustaining who have by reason of mutual consent chosen to operate together. On a small scale this model works best as shown by our Navy Seals etc. (Although they actually play a role within the first scenario listed above.) Individuals capable of at least sustaining themselves autonomously, and thus in this case a small group, cause the whole to be strong because individuals are not irreplaceable. On a large scale this becomes a cumbersome scenario because individuals create friction as to the undertaking of day to day activities which in a society CANNOT be handled by all members... To many cooks ruin the stew etc. As the population grows society out of necessity begins to conform to the first standard of individual specialisation and the loss of individuality. As far as HUMAN RIGHTS are concerned I feel the second scenario is irrefutable despite it's weakness in controlling large populations because it gives all people the oppurtunity to find their own specific values and worths through experience. I don't know which is best as far as productive value but personally I feel the latter is optimal however possibly unachievable given the small amount of time we have on this world. And I feel that it is unachievable because it would take me 10,000 years to figure out everything I want to figure out in this world.

After these two scenarios you have pure individuality. Someone who carries out all tasks essential to life on their own without consideration, either by personal will or force of necessity, to a greater whole. I think this pure individual is stronger than a specialised individual in a society... However the society is stronger than that pure individual BUT only at the consequence of it's individuals personal fulfillment. Thus the creation of religion which provides the spiritually unfulfilled members of society with reason for living... Which generally is almost always completely outside the realm of real life for some reason possibly because anything but the most far fetched idea would immediately be seen as merely motivation to continue accepting your place in the world. For example the promise of going to heaven etc... Truthfully though I believe in religion as valuable even to pure individuals.

The goal of a society is to seek perfect equilibrium where by the individuals are no longer many consenting (either by will or necessity) individuals but an indistinguishable whole... A very scary thought IMO. As Nische believed in the Universal Man, the derivation for superman by the way, which was essentially the end of the human race and the rising of a new being. Instinctually we seem to want this... I think it is madness. Thus I seek to aviod it. As a society we are in some way percievable as an individual, a group seen as one. To become dependent on something else means we lose our autonomy and are "assimilated" into the larger whole... sorry to be so dire. But more than that I think our personal interactions and the way we view each oher will change completely. And thus the friendly happy home that was headwize/goodwill will become something else entirely I don't know what... Phone-Mart?
post #58 of 61
8/18/01 at 6:34pm
Personally, I think jude an cmoy should do whatever they want...as long as the forums are left alone, and they will be, I'm happy.

And jude....you're the man!

and cmoy.....if you're here....you're the man!

And headroom (esp. tyll)......you're THE vendor!


and.....etc, etc, etc.

ai0tron: For all you preach about how silly all of these material "obsessions" are - you certainly spend a lot of time at a headphone site, no?
post #59 of 61
8/18/01 at 7:37pm
Coolvij,

Woah. Hold on. Um, I thought I just spent the last hour weirding out over dependence. Or is this some new fad, randomly assaulting people by pretending to misunderstand. Or did you really completely miss out on the entire thread or what? I'm not trying to be mean I am just trying to figure out if I am actually crazy or not.

I just skimmed over my posts and correct me if I am wrong but I didnt even use the word "obsessions" at all during the entire thread. It's my feeling that your viewpoint you took the time to post here is based on your misunderstanding of something I wrote. I am all for headphone listening, I am for sacrificing something to own these headphones. Whether it be time for planning and creation or money for purchasing. However commercialisation is NOT JUST the exchanging of money for goods and services. Commercialisation as I see it is an economic empire that transcends all traditional boundaries. It is an economic blob that wants to bring everyone into it's folds.

Ok have to work now.
post #60 of 61
8/18/01 at 9:55pm
*has only skimmed this entire thread*

Man, I love these threads...just the fact that they exist, you know?

Anyways, it looks like Tyll wants to whip us into a lean, mean, headphone machine....

It sounds like he's pushing us to push the big headphone and electronic companies to not make stuff that sucks!

*runs up to Tyll's recruitment office*

Where do I sign up?! If I can be part of making sony not make crappy headphones and cd players, I'll go for it!

but.....um....I've seen these type of big, bloated, caring communities before.....it's, uh, impossible to mobilize them to DO anything worthwhile, you know? even if they all agree...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
This thread is locked  

Head-Fi's Best Sellers

Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Thoughts from an evil commercial interest.