Re: Magic 107 oops, real science

[jondr@sco.COM]

Jorn bargers:

>So the moot point is: could this fine, personal layer of 'hiss' encode 
>some handwavy 'hologram' (say) of the *consciousness* of the attentive 
>( -but-negligently-hiss-imposing) listener?  One that might be 
>readable in a way that helps you get empathically 'inside their head'?

Absolutely not.  Totally impossible.  Wacko jacko.

>I tend to believe those stories of Indian trackers who could look at a 
>hoofprint and tell you whether the horse's human rider was (say) 
>*smiling*  ;^)

Sounds like typical tribal status building to me.

>My experience is that when my emotional state is *clear*, I can see 
>into things' endless depths, and by extrapolation, if perfect clarity 
>could be attained, to *everything* that's ever left any imprint on 
>them.

You're fooling yourself.  It's just a quirk of neurotransmitters.
Don't live a lie!!  *anguished pleading*

>I want to distinguish hiss that's added by external means, and hiss 
>that's written by the read-mechanism.  It's the latter that seems 
>inherently 2-way to me, for vinyl and tape, but not for digital.

What's the difference?  Perhaps you're not giving enough credit to
human beings.  Maybe at a subconscious level we know exactly how to
damage the underside of our CDs so that the error-correcting circuitry
kicks in and does its approximating shtick at an absolutely critical
moment.  In fact, I didn't want to say this earlier, but I am so
highly evolved that I can do this AT WILL.  I have put a
scientifically-calculated smudge on the backside of my CD of the
Dreaming so that I can identify my CD.  The average human won't notice
but I *know* that the first drum strike of Sat In Your Lap is being
imperfectly reconstructed via the error-correction circuitry of the
player.

All I'm saying, in plain and simple english, is that your theory is so
full of holes it could win the Swiss Cheese Theory of the Year award.

I mean, let's just take a closer look.  Assuming I've got a handle on
this, you're saying that somehow this unknown field energy attaches
itself to audio cassettes such that when you replay these tapes, they
release this field energy and you can re-experience your (or another
person's) subjective mental state.  So, for starters, how does this
field energy get transmitted?  Through the speakers?  Does it just
sort of dribble off the playback head of the tape deck?  And how does
it get recorded on the tape in the first place?  Via the *playback*
head???  What happens when five people are in the room listening to
the tape?  What happens if you're happy one time you listen and sad
the next?  What happens if I take that tape, slice it up into
inch-sized chunks and splice them all back together in a random order?
What if I play the tape backwards?  What if I erase the tape and put
some new music on it?  Is the unknown energy erased as well?

>> However, I do not see
>> these "vibes" existing as a separate entity.  What you call
>> "vibes" cannot be separated from either you or the recording.

>What you're saying, then, is that there's an empathic barrier, 
>insurmountable by its deepest nature, that irreversibly locks us out 
>of knowledge of others' subjective perceptions.  That's *bleak*.

Bleak?  Why would the world necessarily be a better place?  I have
enough shit going on in my own head that I don't *want* to feel anyone
else's subjective perceptions, thank you very much.

Anyway, what I think Steve is saying is that there is no magic vibe
energy that floats out of your brain and attaches itself to the
cassette tape.  Rather, when you hear a tape, it forms a connection in
the associative schema of the brain such that when you hear it again,
you re-experience a lot more than just the sound energy.  Perfectly
consistent with current theory of how the brain works.  I like it.

>> If you feel that subjective perceptions are an important part of
>> life, then I can agree, to a point. 

>So long as they're kept in line, by the authorization of consensus 
>reality? ;^)

If you think there's something to be gained by *pretending* that
agreed-upon-reality is invalid, then that's your own account.  I find
it a lot healthier to look at what people are considering reality to
be this week and take the bits that you need.

>How 'bout *striving to communicate better*?  Ain't that *art*?

Not necessarily.  What about theatre of the absurd?  Surrealism?
Dada?  These are my favorite art movements and you dismiss them out of
hand.  Typical Jorn.

>MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR CATHY!

Death to Cathy.
-- 
Jon Drukman (an emulsifier)                                       jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.