Andre Jute a écrit :
Lionel wrote:

Andre Jute a écrit :

Since you alehouse philopsophers want to waste your time on the
unknowable, here is one for you, entirely on-topic, of course (1).

A well-known, much-proven concept in physics is Entropy. You will find
it in the laws of thermodynamics which control the formation and
dissolution of the universe. Entropy is disorder, randomness easily
mistaken for amorphous chaos.

Now, all religions try to order human affairs towards a goodly end.
Okay, except Mohammedanism, which orders its affairs to the conquest of
the world, but still to the greater glory of Allah, so that their
terrorism is only despicable because outside the councils of
fundamental Islamism, philosophically and however we fail in practice,
we hold the presumption of peace as a near-ultimate good, in fact a
near-universal axiom. And, okay, and except for Satanists, who worship
chaos. But for the majority of religious people in the world, and in
the founding of all the great religions (with the two exceptions
noted), order out of chaos was the prime imperative. The same applies
to the secular religionists such as democrats, marxists, etc: their
prime imperative is not to do no harm (Star Trek isn't reality,
Virginia) but to impose order on some desirable sub-universe.

Now posit a Lord of Creation who puffed out a universe, or many
universes. I am not presumptuous enough to judge him, but the Laws of
Thermodynamics put his followers in lose-lose-lose situation.

If he created them to create order in the sub-universe he created for
them, increasing entropy will eventually destroy the garden of Eden he
created for them ("this best of possible worlds" -- Voltaire, Candide).
They lose.

If he did not create them to be his servants in ordering the
sub-universe he gave them, they are rats in a laboratory forgotten by
its maker, treading the mill to entropy because that is all they know.
They lose.

If he is indifferent to them and created them as an unnoticed accident,
a byproduct of play or thought or work (we Calvinists believe God keeps
office hours from 9-5 four days a week), the more fool they to believe
he ever noticed them. They lose.

So what, Dédé ? This only lead us to the limit of your "imagery".

Are you pretending that *our* universe finishs at the horizon of your
imagination ?




This is all intelligent design, and the accidents thereof, for even God
cannot be perfect. The question is, why should an Intelligent Designer
choose Man, in an obscure corner of an obscure galaxie in an obscure
corner of the Universe, to be his central work or art -- and to be his
PR spindoctor! It dinna scan, friends. It's pure hubris.

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review

(1) Of course my topic is on-topic, Virginia. Entropy is a measure of
the random errors (noise) in the transmission of signals. See? Audio!



Actually, Lionella,


You are a thief Dédé.


in my "imagery" as you have it, outlined all the
possibilities (related to current religions) for an Intelligent
Director to have created man: servant of order by design, servant of
order by miscomprehension on the part of man, indifferent by-product of
another activity shorthanded as accident.


I understood that and I can agree.
IMHO one cannot believe in God and try to find evidences of a so-called
"intelligent design".
Intelligent design is just an invention of guys with no more imagination
than you but as demagogue and proselytical than you. :-)

Any of the many other
possibilities you may think of (I can think of hundreds) will not be
related to the current major religions


Nothing is more wrong than that.


which are the context of this
discussion clearly delineated in my introduction.


I understood that.


And no, I am not suggesting that the event horizon and my "imagination"
coincide. My imagination is boundless.


Your imagination is fully dedicated to feed your ego not to metaphysic.


I am suggesting that the event horizon and *your* imagination coincide
if you cannot see that the religion of order out of chaos


Religion don't exclude the chaos.
You are reducing religions to this petty and pitiful human attempt of
"religious ethics" "religious morals".
You forget or don't know the religious mystique, often named the "mystery".
Without mystique the religion would be just an other code civil.



is a valuable
survival tool for man, regardless of how it is explained to primitives
like Krueger by voices in the stone. You should read "A History of the
Jews" by Paul Johnson, a practising, faithful Catholic with an
implicit, unshakable belief in God. He makes my point again and again
and again, most pointedly where he ascribes the survival of the Jews to
principled social organization.


You are confusing religion and politic. Religion is a personal adventure
it has nothing to do with any human organization.


In that context, the rather unoriginal statement that the middle
classes are the foundation of a decent society is, wait for it, a
religious text.


Religions don't recommend any social organizations.
In regard of religions any social organization is at best a golden cage.


That is why the devil's spawn hate the middle classes;
Lenin thought the bourgeoisie the major obstacle to his vision of world
chaos from which he would grasp control by murder.


Your mind is too complicated Dédé. You are more interested by the strass
than by the common sens.


You should read Satprem especially what he wrote about Sri Aurobindo.


HTH.

Dédé Jute



--
Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?

Dave Weil - Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 -0500

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

Robert Morein wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...

I guess you don't 'get' what I was talking about. NM

Graham

Give it to me again, please.

It was simply a light-hearted comparison as to how faith/belief can
result
in
'unscientific' conclusions.

As in that religion would deny Darwin, so the SET believers would deny
the
sonic
accuracy of modern ( and even some not so modern ) amplifier designs
with
hugely
superior technical specs.

' Love is blind ' etc......

Graham

Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome.

I'm not sure where Andre stands on that.

It does seem puzzling. I think he says whatever comes into his mind
sometimes.

But my view is that it is possible
that an SET, or other not-pure-reproducer types of amplifiers, could end
up
helping some people imagine better that they are in the performance
venue. I
have not experienced this myself. When I went to the NY Hifi show, there
were many SET exhibitors, some with horns. I think most were used in
combination with vinyl. I was not impressed, but neither was I impressed
with the Levinsons driving two concrete pillars in the middle of a
reflective room.

In terms of recreating a sound that replicates or simulates a real
performance
then it's a whole new game. A good case can be made for multi-speaker
sytsems
with delay paths and added reverberation. I hardly think that the
technical
limitations of an SET amp can be much help in this respect though.

Graham

We can't say how the added harmonic distortion is perceived by some. If it
helps someone, we can't negate it, just because we don't sense it in the
same way. I once played with a modern tube amp that had a feedback control.
One could adjust it to one's taste. I preferred maximum feedback. My buddy
liked it with the control dialed back a bit.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...

Until 1962 or so, tubes were about all we had for hi-fi. Getting rid of
them was like getting rid of the common cold.


All that left you with is a case of herpes.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On 26 Dec 2005 19:46:54 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Perhaps it depends upon what we call religion. My religion is simply the
wonder that I live in an inescapable world of infinite illusion, and that I
am one of the few creatures with the capacity and interest to realize that.

I'll go along with that any day of the week. It is a particularly fine
statement of the way many people feel, including me.

I see love, or at least deep affection, blooming here. I have an image
of Robert and Andre sitting on a rock somewhere watching the sun go
down, occasionally gazing in wonder at each other and smiling
dreamily. I find the image strangely affecting. :-)

(BTW, anyone see Brokeback Mountain yet? I'm kind of curious).

On 26 Dec 2005 20:47:34 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Gee, Packer, you're a slacker. You can't even say Einstein watched
television so that we could have a nice little flame war about what an
anachronism you are.

You know, that should really be "anachronist", only there's no such
word. I wonder if I submitted it to Webster's.......

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 26 Dec 2005 19:46:54 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Perhaps it depends upon what we call religion. My religion is simply the
wonder that I live in an inescapable world of infinite illusion, and
that I
am one of the few creatures with the capacity and interest to realize
that.

I'll go along with that any day of the week. It is a particularly fine
statement of the way many people feel, including me.

I see love, or at least deep affection, blooming here. I have an image
of Robert and Andre sitting on a rock somewhere watching the sun go
down, occasionally gazing in wonder at each other and smiling
dreamily. I find the image strangely affecting. :-)

(BTW, anyone see Brokeback Mountain yet? I'm kind of curious).

I have an image of Paul and me shearing sheep in the Australian outback.
After work, we go to a bar, get drunk, and kill each other.

Robert Morein wrote:
"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 26 Dec 2005 19:46:54 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Perhaps it depends upon what we call religion. My religion is simply the
wonder that I live in an inescapable world of infinite illusion, and
that I
am one of the few creatures with the capacity and interest to realize
that.

I'll go along with that any day of the week. It is a particularly fine
statement of the way many people feel, including me.

I see love, or at least deep affection, blooming here. I have an image
of Robert and Andre sitting on a rock somewhere watching the sun go
down, occasionally gazing in wonder at each other and smiling
dreamily. I find the image strangely affecting. :-)

(BTW, anyone see Brokeback Mountain yet? I'm kind of curious).

I have an image of Paul and me shearing sheep in the Australian outback.
After work, we go to a bar, get drunk, and kill each other.

You have to understand about Australians, Robert. First they ****
Daisy, then they shear her, then they kill her, then they eat her (1).
Soon it becomes a national trauma. The violent local homophobia is
symptomatic.

By the local standards Paulie is actually well-adjusted.

I loved parties in Australia. There were all these healthy, tongue-tied
males muttering about football in one corner -- and all their neglected
women in the other corner. It was better than Washington. If a bachelor
is lonely in Australia, it is entirely his own fault. (2) (3)

Andre Jute

(1) Hell, they even spread Daisy on their bread. By one of the most
risible protectionist laws in the world, no "margarine" can be sold in
Australia unless it contains a given percentage of mutton fat...

(2) After I was a month in Australia, I gave an intimate party for just
my closest new friends. Of the 400 people invited, nearly 300 were
women. It was a fabulous party; that was the night some Toorak bimbo in
mistake for prepared mixed dried herbs put several pounds of prime
maryjane (see below) on half a dozen barbecue pigs and doped the whole
suburb of Albert Park in Melbourne by the dense cloud of smoke she
created; the Hell's Angels I hired to keep out gatecrashers fought a
pitched battle with the cops in the park in St Vincent Place, the
enclave where I lived.I shared a cell with the vice-chancellor of one
of the local universities, ironically a neighbour I invited to avoid
the party attracting the police...

(3) One very hot night about midnight I was sitting in my back yard
with five or six girls watching the marijuana plants grow (planted by
an English photographer, not me, honest; they were already six feet
tall when I arrived) when it occurred to me they would all want to
stay. I knocked up a couple of my younger neighbours. "Hey, I come to
an orgy. The girls are already naked." One muttered about catching up
on his sleep and closed the door in my face. One said, "I know you,
you'll make me talk to them first." This latter nohoper was a librarian
with impressive postgrad qualifications, not some sheepshearing yob.

On Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:02:57 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


I have an image of Paul and me shearing sheep in the Australian outback.
After work, we go to a bar, get drunk, and kill each other.

Oh, Robert. I really thought you were going to suggest something much
more tender. :-)

On 28 Dec 2005 18:48:01 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Robert Morein wrote:

I see love, or at least deep affection, blooming here. I have an image
of Robert and Andre sitting on a rock somewhere watching the sun go
down, occasionally gazing in wonder at each other and smiling
dreamily. I find the image strangely affecting. :-)

(BTW, anyone see Brokeback Mountain yet? I'm kind of curious).

I have an image of Paul and me shearing sheep in the Australian outback.
After work, we go to a bar, get drunk, and kill each other.

You have to understand about Australians, Robert. First they ****
Daisy, then they shear her, then they kill her, then they eat her (1).
Soon it becomes a national trauma. The violent local homophobia is
symptomatic.

I try to steer clear of red meat. (Pun intended).

By the local standards Paulie is actually well-adjusted.

Maybe it's all those lettuce leaves.

I loved parties in Australia. There were all these healthy, tongue-tied
males muttering about football in one corner -- and all their neglected
women in the other corner. It was better than Washington. If a bachelor
is lonely in Australia, it is entirely his own fault. (2) (3)

OZ is like any other country. Plenty of stereotypes, but scratch the
surface and something quite different emerges. I've been lucky enough
to have had the chance to scratch the surface quite a few times and
been pleasantly surprised. But yes, Andre, OZ is not a place that
prides itself on refinement and intellectual accomplishment, which
unfortunately have become associated in the male mind with being a big
pansy. We definitely need to work on this with boys at primary school
level. The current generation, like the previous ones, is pretty much
a wipe-out.

Andre Jute

(2) After I was a month in Australia, I gave an intimate party for just
my closest new friends. Of the 400 people invited, nearly 300 were
women. It was a fabulous party; that was the night some Toorak bimbo in
mistake for prepared mixed dried herbs put several pounds of prime
maryjane (see below) on half a dozen barbecue pigs and doped the whole
suburb of Albert Park in Melbourne by the dense cloud of smoke she
created; the Hell's Angels I hired to keep out gatecrashers fought a
pitched battle with the cops in the park in St Vincent Place, the
enclave where I lived.I shared a cell with the vice-chancellor of one
of the local universities, ironically a neighbour I invited to avoid
the party attracting the police...

Is this an anecdote or a novel?

(3) One very hot night about midnight I was sitting in my back yard
with five or six girls watching the marijuana plants grow (planted by
an English photographer, not me, honest; they were already six feet
tall when I arrived)

I'm inclined to disbelieve this. Not sure why. :-)

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
[snip]

(3) One very hot night about midnight I was sitting in my back yard
with five or six girls watching the marijuana plants grow (planted by
an English photographer, not me, honest; they were already six feet
tall when I arrived) when it occurred to me they would all want to
stay. I knocked up a couple of my younger neighbours. "Hey, I come to
an orgy. The girls are already naked." One muttered about catching up
on his sleep and closed the door in my face. One said, "I know you,
you'll make me talk to them first." This latter nohoper was a librarian
with impressive postgrad qualifications, not some sheepshearing yob.

You should go by the name of Andre Hemp, not Jute.
Obviously, you are a man of great (not moral) fiber