| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"play on" wrote in message ... On 3 Mar 2005 18:03:52 -0800, wrote: On the other hand, you can now buy a CD burner for your computer that works pretty good for $30. And burns at 52x for that price. And 16x dvd writers are getting close to $60. And look how much a few hundred gigs of storage costs. I hate this market. Glenn D. |
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
|
His assesment of electronics is equally wrong in regard to RF performance. I agree nothing beats the cast and machined frame of a early VHS recorder afor it's repairablity, but it is plain to see that no one wants to spend the money for such an item so we are left with plastic throw away VCRs that cost one days wages to an unskilled factory worker. Compare that to the VCRs of the 80's. The performance is just as good if not better especially in the RF sections. Cal knows all there is to know about electorincs, cars, and technology in general. If you don't believe me, just ask him. He will tell you that too. I certainly don't know all there is to know, but having worked on some cars and some electronics, know a few things people who haven't don't. We've lost a lot in becomeing a throwaway society. Having to fix things was a great education for most American engineers, designers, teachers. Now the white collar American has never had to work on a car or a radio or a TV or a piece of production machinery. The tuner sections of TVs and VCRs today generally blows, because everyone has cable. Sensitivity, selectivity, image rejection and shielding are all distant memories. The old clunky turret tuners-late glass tube, Nuvistor, or solid state and up through the early varactor/PLL days-were demonstrably superior in the abovementioned characteristics. Ask any old retired TV repairman who isn't addled by Alzheimers or was a charlatan in the first place. Car AM receivers are now dog****, because no one cares. The FM sections aren't that great either. They figure everyone who cares about such things is going to put in an aftermarket unit anyway, and the aftermarket ones are sometimes no better. A few-Blaupunkts and Beckers, a couple others-are fine units, but they are the exception. The technology exists to make very good ones, but the ****ty ones are cheaper. |
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
|
Which Bosch system did they use? K-Jet (CIS) was reliable , but
physically awkward. D-Jet was a PITA. There are some very good aftermarket controllers that can be used with factory intake headers and throttles and Ford MAF sensors. There's a guy not too far from here who has a Studebaker with closed loop EFI, oxygen sensor and all. |
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a carbureted Corvair. I add a small amount of marine two
stroke oil at each fillup (I try for 200:1). The aluminum heads have inserts that are perfectly fine for unleaded gas, the oil is for shutdown. My next engine is under buildup now, and will probably have EFI-what I really want is a mechanical speed density (K-Jet is that-so is the Bendix system on Turbo Indy Offys and TIGO Lycs) system with electronic trim, but it's way more time, energy, and blown testbed engines than I have ambition to fool with. I looked into propane as well, but range, cost, and fuel availability in the U.S. are all nonstarters. Plus there is no coolant for a vaporizer on a Corvair. |
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
|
Absolutely the computer has been a big boon, except to the recording
and music businesses... But even here we see the principle at work. The early (micro)computers were repairable to the component level. You could align and clean floppy drives, replace ICs, et al. There were scheatics. Building a peripheral was a doable project for the electronic hobbyist. It's 100% pluck-and-chuck today and if we got into an Asian trade war business would be heavily impacted waiting for an American source for hard drives, RAM, and other products. And cheapening is rampant and always has been. SCSI was unquestionably better than IDE, and today it's almost nonexistent, because IDE is cheaper. Unix workstations killed the really elegant environnments, Windows killed commercial Unix, and now Linux is beginning to make serious inroads on Windows-although Linux is more reliable, will it make progress without commercial pressure? Monitors, keyboards, power supplies, and many other components of popular PC hardware are far less well built than in the early days of microcomputers-to say nothing of the beautifully built mainframe and minicomputer hardware. |
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
|
Laurence Payne wrote:
What's so wrong with that? Google "scientific method". You start with a hypothesis. Experiment then proves or disproves it. You've got to be prepared for a negative result though, and others have to be able to reproduce your results. experiments don't prove anything; they only support the thesis under test. if you want to prove things, study mathematics. -- Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | The United States is the one true country. The US is just. The US is fair. The US respects its citizens. The US loves you. We have always been at war against terrorism. |
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
Brother Horace the Undistinguished said: The average Toyota or Honda This is where we have to bow to Harold's expertise. If anybody knows average, it's Clerkie. (That's average in the vernacular sense, of course, not the mathematical sense. Mathematics, being a science-like substance, is strictly out of bounds for His Clerkship.) Unexceptional, run-of-the-mill, quotidian, ordinary, middle of the pack -- whatever you call it, that's Harold's element. |
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Rich.Andrews" wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote in : wrote: Our whole society has the biggest snake oil jones of all....that the new and improved consumer product really _ is_ an improvement. Very often it is. Usually each new generation of consumer product-and often commercial ones as well- are mixed improvements. Yep. Ask any VCR tech (I should say _former_ VCR tech) who will explained how the early toploaders were nearly indestructible and highly repairable with crude electronic performance, the early frontloaders were well made and superior in performance, and current ones are low end ****boxes that are not even worth opening for cleaning, they are totally nonrepairable plus being inferior electronically. TV sets and car radios have worse RF sections than late tube and mid-life solid state ones. Cars have engine and transmission castings far less rugged and rebuildable than cars of 40, 30, or even 20 years ago. Your last sentence is preposterous. I drove cars that far back, and today's versions are head and shoulders better, and that includes reliability. Statistics put out by Consumer's Union over the last few decades support this point, by the way. Cars are more reliable than ever, not to mention cleaner burning and more fuel efficient. Howard Ferstler I quite agree with you Howard..... (snips of good stuff) I have owned American, German, and Japanese cars, and the latter were way, WAY more durable than the two former. (When I purchased my last Ford, even the sales manager told me, because I had traded a Toyota in on it, to not expect the brand-new Ford to run without using oil as my Toyota had done.) As I stated on another part of this thread, the average Toyota or Honda vehicle will drive the average American car right into the ground. Incidentally, my wife and I recently traded in her turbocharged Toyota MR2 and my 5.0 Mustang on two Scion models: the xA and the xB. (Hey, gas prices are getting ready to take off, people.) We toyed with getting a pair of Prius models, but the waiting list was just too long. CR loved the xB and said that the xA was as good, but too small. However, while I love the xB, the xA is a nifty vehicle to drive, too. (Both of ours are 5-speed sticks, by the way.) They disliked the stiff suspensions, but after years of driving that 5.0 Mustang, they float like limos to me. Besides, previously CR had said that the Echo (which uses the same running gear as the Scion x models) rode nice but handled only so so. The Scions have a stiffened-up Echo suspension. They rid stiff but handle better than the Echo. Indeed, in their accident-avoidance tests both the xA and xB handled better than the vast bulk of sedans and virtually all of the SUV and minivan vehicles they had previously reviewed. In the last 4,000 miles, our xA has averaged just over 33 mpg and over the past 3,000 our xB has averaged just under 32 mpg. I think that the current issue of CR has the Scion line listed at the very top of its reliability list (at least for the first two years of ownership) even ahead of Toyota and Lexus. Of course, the Scion really is a Toyota, but it is important to note that the very cheapest Toyota models are typically equal in terms of reliability to the company's most expensive models (Lexus), and that virtually all Toyotas are more reliable than any American automobiles. Nobody is more of an American flag waver than I am, but bulletproof reliability when talking about American vehicles is an oxymoron. PS: consider this post as a Scion ad. Howard Ferstler |
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: William Sommerwerck wrote: I doubt that John ever performed the experiment. I am guilty, too, of failing to follow through on subjective observations with controlled experiments. I forgive you, and, believe it or not, forgive John, too. Very gracious of you, Mr. Ferstler. Thank you. I even showed how someone could use their record player to rather carefully evaluate the feedback. The player essentially would behave as a microphone that would clearly determine just how much of an audible problem feedback would be. You might want to discuss this phenomenon with Arny Krueger. When I mentioned on r.a.o. having performed a similar experiment he was dismissive both of the experiment and of the implications of the results. (Google can retrieve the details if you care to investigate.) But that, of course, might just have been because I was the one who introduced the subject :-) John Atkinson Editor, Stereophile The turntable-feedback article was in the October, 1984 issue of Stereo Review. Actually, David Ranada contributed so much to the editing, and also added some additional options, that we decided to have it be a joint article. I also published articles in the November, 1976 and December, 1988 issues on using pink noise to subjectively test components. You all know how much I like pink noise. Howard Ferstler |
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: Just tried to find the relevant article on the Stereophile website...Can you explain how best to drive your search engine? The 1991 Armor All coverage is not yet posted in our on-line archives. I am slowly working my way through the older material and it should be available in the late Spring. My suggestion to Mr. Fesrtler, BTW, was not so much for him to find this material and read it (though that would be worth his while, of course), but that he should try harder to refrain from commenting on articles that he hasn't read at all. That way, his comments would be more pertinent, perhaps even helpful. It has been years since I read that article, and I must admit that once I got into it a bit I did not spend a lot of additional time reading closely. I simply meditated on the premise for a few seconds and then decided that the article was idiotic. It would have been idiotic, even if Armor All had not damaged the discs. PS: I do use the product on the appropriate areas of my cars. I am not anti Armor All. Howard Ferstler |
|
#53
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another breakthrough for Brother Horace the Impotent. The turntable-feedback article was in the October, 1984 issue of Stereo Review. Actually, David Ranada contributed so much to the editing, Inviting Mr. Ranada to fix your raggedy sketch of an article was a smart move, Clerkie. Must have been a rare moment of clarity for you to realize that you were not capable of writing intelligently about a subject that scares the pants off you. One can only imagine the hyena-like yowling an editor would get from you on the subject of turntables. Clearly a real audio journalist was needed to inject some semblance of rigor into your puddle of vinylphobic goo. Congratulations on admitting your limitations, if only that one time. |
|
#54
|
|||
|
|||
|
John Atkinson wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote: John Atkinson wrote: As I pointed out, damaged from the scratches that could result from the ArmorAll application. These scratches can be polished out. So, you basically say that it is no big deal. No, that is not what I said. OK, so we both agree that it is a big deal, at least for some of your readers in those old days. If somebody damaged a couple of dozen (or more) compact discs, they can get to work and polish out the scratches. Yes, but if they applied the Armorall correctly, they would not have scracthed the discs. Sure. Frankly, given the nature of Armor All and the at least initial durability of the plastic side of typical discs, it is likely that anyone who did scratch the things during application was a jerk. I think that your writer should have taken into consideration the limited mental abilities of some of your gullible readers. it is also possible that Armor All could potentially damage the label side of a disc. It is possible, which is why Armor All should not be applied to the label side. Are you saying that it still should be applied to the playing side? You appear to still believe that the application has some kind of benefit. I suggest you read what Stereophile actually wrote about this tweak before you wonder off into your own world of wander, Mr. Ferstler. It has been years since I read it, and actually once I had read into it a bit and realized the basic premise I went on to only scan it and meditate on the stupidity of it all. Even if the application of Armor All to the playing side had not resulted in problems for some of your readers, the whole premise of what it was supposed to do was idiotic. I only heard about the retraction article, and thought the whole thing had become comic. Given the interest in this subject here on RAO and audio.pro, I think you should skip ahead with your Stereophile internet archival transfer work and put the original article and any follow-up, retraction-topic articles on your web site, along with all of the now-posted self-congratulatory materials. Howard Ferstler |
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
|
Clyde Slick wrote:
"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message ... It would be best if, rather than the DBT protocol, they debated: 2) Ethics. I admire your willingness to learn something completely new. Regarding the subject of ethics, below is a transcription I published back in 1975 dealing with someone who was an expert. The footnotes are often as important as the main text, by the way. Man and World: An International Philosophical Review Editors: JOHN M. ANDERSON, JOSEPH J. KOCKELMANS, and CALVIN 0. SCHRAG "A Skeleton Key to Spinoza" by Howard Ferstler November, 1975 Spinoza is one of four philosophers who could legitimately be called "knowers" in the sense that the whole of reality was studied by them and was , in a very real sense, revealed to them. Aristotle and Plato are two others in this category, and we could legitimately claim Hegel as a fourth member of this group, although his style of writing has led some to consider his profundity as merely another form of obscurity. Many who read his works see Spinoza's system as a linear, geometrical progression from definitions of the universal to a knowledge of particulars. Many are no doubt put off by the "geometric" style.(1) For those readers who cannot get past the endless definitions and propositions (especially in Part I) the system becomes a melange of tautological statements, interconnected by some rather good psychological insights and examples of cynicism. If one resorts to close and thoughtful reading, however, it is obvious that Spinoza's "system" is a closed one and not really linear at all. Furthermore, it will be found to be a circular system, very similar to that of Hegel as a dramatic voyage of discovery. The definitions at the beginning and the treatment of God in particular, are meant to be tools for those who do not have the truth already.(2) For those who do have a vision of this truth the tools become something quite different. In essence, the tools at the beginning of the Ethics, which is the actual. whole philosophy of Spinoza, and which are continually revealed and developed throughout that work, cannot really be understood until the reader has grasped the totality underlying what he has been saying throughout the work. Any particular point of view which an uninitiated reader has when he begins the Ethics must be at least temporarily abandoned in favor of a sympathetic desire to understand Spinoza on his own terms. Once begun, the work should be completed in order for its true meaning to sink in. Part I, in particular, cannot be clearly understood until all the remaining parts are thoroughly digested.(3) It is unlikely that any secondary source alone or any shortcut technique will succeed in gaining access to the meaning of Spinoza's philosophy. There is a definite "dramatic" or developmental foundation to Spinoza's thought.(4) Hegel felt that "to be a follower of Spinoza is the essential commencement of all Philosophy,"(5 ) and he was right. In Part I of the Ethics, Spinoza explains the entire foundation of his metaphysics and gives us insights into the metaphysical systems of those who came before him and of those who followed as well. Any instructor of philosophy worthy of the name knows, however, that to explain is not really enough. Individuals who do not "know" reality will write off Part I as circular argumentation or tricks with words. Spinoza appears to be merely giving a new name to natu God is nature or God is everything around you and around everyone else as well. His argument, as found in the proofs and note to Proposition XI of Part I, reminds one of the Ontological Argument of St. Anselm: "The potentiality of non-existence is a negation of power, and contrariwise the potentiality of existence is a power, as is obvious. If then that which necessarily exists is nothing but finite beings, such finite beings are more powerful than a being absolutely infinite, which is obviously absurd; therefore, either nothing exists or else a being absolutely infinite necessarily exists also."(6) This manner of reasoning carries very little weight with most modern, critical thinkers. They may not mind calling nature "God" to humor the followers of Spinoza but they probably will mind the idea that all of this is something unique. Many who venture to read the Ethics first Part are ready to write Spinoza off as a carry-over from the Middle Ages. This would not be a completely inaccurate view of Spinoza's basic outlook in Part I. It is essential, however, that the reader understand that Part I is a multi-leveled work, designed to appeal to one kind of reader in one way and to an essentially different kind of reader in quite another. He states himself that Part I is a general statement and that it is not really very good as a means of convincing a reader who has not been previously exposed to the truth. "I have thought it worth while here to call attention to this in order to show by this example how the knowledge of particular things, which I have called intuitive or of the third kind (II. xl. note ii), is potent, and more powerful than the universal knowledge, which I have styled knowledge of the second kind. For although in Part I I showed in general terms that all things (and consequently, also, the human mind) depend as to their essence and existence on God, yet that demonstration, though legitimate and placed beyond the chances of doubt does not affect our mind so much as when the same conclusion is derived from the actual essence of some particular thing, which we say depends on God."(7) Part I is not really supposed to convince anyone. Part I is the truth but the truth will not pull anyone up to its level when it is merely stated. The reader must, in a sense, be "shown" the truth. A gradual and dramatic revelation must take place and to get on this pathway one must begin with the attributes and analyze them to arrive at an adequate knowledge of things. Individual things are nothing but modifications of the attributes of God, or modes by which the attributes of God are expressed in a fixed and definite manner.(8) So, we find ourselves starting at certain assumptions and truths unproven and moving on to prove them. The third kind of knowledge proceeds from an adequate idea of certain attributes of God to an adequate knowledge of the essence of things...(9) The same basic view is entertained in another of Spinoza's works: "Thus we can see that it is before all things necessary for us to deduce all our ideas from physical things that is from real entities, proceeding, as far as may be, according to the series of causes, from one real entity to another real entity, never passing to universals and abstractions, either for sole purpose of deducing some real entity from them, or deducing them from some real entity."(10) Spinoza could certainly not be mistaken for a typical mystic, nor could he be considered in the least obscure-unless one is willing to admit that the basic reality is obscure to careless observation. For Spinoza, "intellect, in function (actu) finite, or in function infinite, must comprehend the attributes of God and the modifications of God, and nothing else."(11) Part I exists on three levels. First 2 it can be seen in much the same way as we view Aristotle's Categories. In that work, Aristotle defines certain terms which he will employ in his system. One term defined is substance it "is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance, the individual man or horse."(12) Secondary substances are the species or genera which are subsumed under primary substances. Primary substances are the reference standard. Spinoza uses Aristotle's analysis in a rather unusual way: a substance cannot be predicated on anything else. A man is a man, for Aristotle, because he is by nature a man. He is complete. For Spinoza, God is God because he is God. He is also complete. Needless to say, there is one great difference: there are a lot of substances by Aristotle's definition. Any complete thing is a substance when taken for what it is as a whole. For Spinoza, on the other hand, there is one substance only and everything is literally predicable of it. Aristotle defines the universal as that which flows out of the particular. Universals are names which are ways of categorizing various particulars. Particulars are real substances for Aristotle and universals are our way of making them logical.(13) The universal is substance for Spinoza and particulars are the way the universal manifests itself to us. Secondly, Part I can be seen as a form of logic similar to what Hegel created in his system. For Hegel, logic was the real manifestation of the concept in the world - as a concept only. The thinker who knows reality will see that logic is the content of it. Logic is the real - the mental content in the mind of the perceptive thinker - devoid of worldly form.(14) Nature is the form of logic as it is manifested in space.(15) Part I paints a conceptual structure which is real but which cannot be understood if the reader does not already have a good grasp of reality as it is manifested in the world of action.(16) Finally, Part I can be taken as the culmination of the whole body of Spinoza's philosophy. God is truth - the only truth - and once this is grasped (and it can be grasped by coming to understand Parts II, III, and IV) the reader is ready for the drawing together done in Part V. We read in Part II: "Hence we see, that the infinite essence and the eternity of God are known to all. Now as all things are in God and are conceived through God, we can from this knowledge infer many things which we may adequately know, and we may form that third kind of knowledge of which we spoke in the note to II. xi., and of the excellence and use of which we shall have occasion to speak in Part V."(17) Part V is usually taken as the culmination of the Ethics, but it is more than that, for it summarizes the linear process of the three preceding chapters and raises the whole work to the level of a complete metaphysical system. In doing this, it finishes the process of integrating Part I into the work. Part I becomes and finally is the immanent truth which is explained in the rest of the work. Part II, then, begins that process which "proceeds from an adequate idea of certain attributes of God to an adequate knowledge of the essence of things."(18) Note that we are again quoting a critical passage from Part V. Again, in Part V we find further explanation of what Part II is beginning. To repeat a critical passage: "I have thought it worth while here to call attention to this, in order to show by this example how the knowledge of particular things which I have called intuitive or of the third kind (II. xi. note ii.) is potent and more powerful than the universal knowledge, which I have styled knowledge of the second kind. For, although in Part I I showed in general terms that all things (and consequently, also, the human mind) depend as to their essence and existence on God, yet that demonstration, though legitimate and placed beyond the chances of doubt, does not affect our mind so much, as when the same conclusion is derived from the actual essence of some particular thing, which we say depends on God."(19) The way to bring the reader to truth and make him see the whole is to lead him there by dealing with things which can be more easily grasped: attributes and modes which can be visualized and understood. We thus have a process of development beginning. Part II begins to give us the information whereby we will be able fully to understand part I for what it really is. Probably the most important aspect of Part II is the discussion of the kinds of knowing.(20) The lowest level of knowledge is split into two parts in the Ethics for the purpose of clarification but it still is one level of knowing opinion and imagination. These flow from either confused experiences or confused symbols, resulting from inadequate reflection upon what one has seen or read. Operating at this mental level is not really "knowing" at all but merely a form of belief. Ironically, this kind of "knowing" is probably what Oldenburg, one of Spinoza's correspondents, engaged in all the time.(21) The second level of knowing is the ideas we have of the properties of things. This level is more important than its being "second" would seem to indicate. It is important to see that it can be viewed in several ways. First, it can be seen as theoretical science; second, as another form of logic; and third, as the generalized truth which Spinoza himself admits is hard to grasp. This second kind of knowing is, in a way, consciousness itself and is valid. It is the truth. It is found in Part I and is Part I, when viewed conceptually. It is, as I have stated earlier, a form of logic - logic in the Hegelian tradition. Spinoza, however, as pointed out above, indicated that something like this which is in "general terms' is not as effective at teaching us of reality ""as when the same conclusion is derived from the actual essence of some particular thing, which we say depends on God."(22) This is very important. Part II, as well as Parts III and IV are the third kind of knowledge in the process of development. This third kind of knowing is categorized as "'intuition" but could be more appropriately rendered as "insight." It is also a process and is the real knowledge of concrete- real things, as they are in the process of existing. As such, it reminds one of the Naturphilosophie in Hegel's system.(23) It is an intimate knowledge of real things in the real world, but at a level which is fundamentally unstructured. The structuring has been done in Part I. We have, therefore, the attributes or modes of thought and extension which are real particulars but these must be conceptualized to fit into the schema of Part I.(24) They are the form of the structured concept in Part I. Although Part III may at first be thought of as an analysis of emotion in the tradition of Hobbes and Nietzsche, it is actually a good deal more than that. Spinoza is here continuing his analysis of the particulars of the world begun in Part II. Significantly, at this point we are working both upward and downward in Spinoza's system. We are moving downward into the real world to analyze man as he exists in a passive state. Here, we find man at his passionate worst. We begin to realize that Spinoza began his system with the philosopher already outside of Plato's mythical cave - but the cave, for Spinoza, is a part of reality too (a very real part) and he is taking us back inside to discover its meaning. While this journey (a reverse from Plato) is certainly a move "downward," we are, at the same time, working our way upward because we are increasing our knowledge of the real world which will, ultimately, allow us fully to understand the world in terms of Part I. This manner of teaching is, of course, a radical departure from the Platonic method and is a precursor to the method of Hegel. Part I structured the whole and Parts II, III, and IV are proving the thesis of Part I by analyzing the only proofs available: the manifestations of the whole (God) in the world of perception; i.e., mind and emotion. The basic difference between Part II and Part III is that Part II dealt with the self-contained reality of mind thinking of itself as an attribute of God. In Part II, mind is conceived of as "the very idea or knowledge of the human body, which is in God..."(25) Part III, however, deals with the relation of the self to the outside world. When the self does not allow mind to rule, the real world makes the self a slave of that world. Part III is a brilliant psychological analysis of. the workings of the mind of the unthinking individual. "Human infirmity in moderating and checking the emotions I name bondage: for, when a man is a prey to his emotions, he is not his own master."(26) Thus begins Part IV, the lowest level reached in Spinoza's analysis. It deals with two themes; one practical, the other spiritual. First, it deals with practical ethics. Indeed, it is, in a way, the "ethics" of the Ethics and is concerned with "the right way of life."(27) Its second theme is important for those seeking the meaning of Part I, for it is an expansion of the analysis of the emotions begun in Part III. This expansion goes further into the analysis of the passions by showing us the consequences of being a part of God (both as a mode of thought and extension) without understanding the relationship of "particular" thought to "universal" thought. To make headway in our search we must come to know that: "The power and increase of every passion and its persistence in existing are not defined by the power whereby we ourselves endeavor to persist in existing, but by the power of an external cause compared with our own."(28) On this lowest level, we are seeing that a knowledge of particulars and out response to those particulars is a form of slavery which results from an ignorance of the structured whole. Yet, we find that this part of the work (just as the previous parts did) is gradually revealing this structure to us; a structure formulated statically before, in Part I, and which is now being made real for us by the technique pictured in the discussion of knowledge.(29) Part IV is the final stage in the analysis of the real world. It shows us how "human power is extremely limited, and is infinitely surpassed by the power of external causes..."(30) It is this knowledge which allows us to understand Part I and to become really free. Spinoza is taking us on a mythic journey in the tradition of Homer, Plato, Dante, and Hegel. Spinoza, however, starts in heaven, leads us through hell, and, in doing this, leads us full circle back to the real meaning of heaven. The Ethics began at a high level which those who deal in superficialities would not understand (much the same way that superficial thinkers do not really understand Plato's cave parable). From this high level, which is, remember, the second kind of knowledge, we found ourselves moving through a process which progressively revealed to us, by the third kind of knowledge, the meaning of the second kind. We came from a mere statement of universals to the revelation of the universal in the multitude of particulars in life. For those who truly do come to understand the particulars and their relation to the universal, life will have a meaning above that entertained by the great mass of men. "The more we understand particular things, the more do we understand God."(31) Right conduct, then, becomes a matter of natural behavior(32) and such men have no conflict of passions; for, "an emotion which is a passion ceases to be a passion as soon as we form a clear and distinct idea thereof."(33) If all men attained such a level of understanding, we would not have to concern ourselves about ethical conduct, for "in so far only as men live in obedience to reason, do they always necessarily agree in nature."(34) But all men do not. "The best we can do, therefore, so long as we do not possess a perfect knowledge of our emotions, is to frame a system of right conduct, or fixed practical precepts, to commit it to memory, and to apply it forthwith to the particular circumstances which now and again meet us in life..."(35) Politically, then, we find that the Ethics is both elitist and conservative. Most people will never understand themselves, their world, and the relationship between that world and themselves. That is why they are trapped by the environmental slave master which is the whole of reality. For such people as these, a set of well thought out, rational laws are the best answer. Such laws should be so designed "that men avoid inflicting injury through fear of incurring a greater injury themselves."(36) The mass of men must give up certain natural rights because they cannot cope with them. Such laws, although based upon threat,(37) would, it appears, be best passed during periods of rational thought, so as to be most effective in curtailing irrational actions. For those who do understand themselves and live by reason, a whole new realm is opened. "A free man thinks of death least of all things; and his wisdom is a meditation not of death but of life."(38) Part I, the second kind of knowledge, will, for some individuals, trigger a desire to know the facts of reality. "The endeavor or desire to know things by the third kind of knowledge cannot arise from the first, but instead from the second kind of knowledge."(39) The statements of Part I should draw the true lover of wisdom through the remaining parts in order to discover how truth is revealed. He who does not care to finish the Ethics after reading Part I is condemned to be a slave of his passions. He who does finish and understands, will be introduced to the realm of immortality. This is a realm that can only be conceived by embracing God as "Existence" and which puts the individual on a subjective level with God. On this level, the individual understands his relation to God as a part of God.(40) Part V is not the culmination of the Ethics without a reflective analysis of Part I. Part V outlines the result of coming to understand the relation of the world of forms (attributes and modes) to the world of concept (God as totality or existence) and, therefore, introduces us to Part I. The immortality referred to by Spinoza is not exactly in the Judeo/Moslem/Christian religious tradition. "Its existence cannot be defined in terms of time, or explained through duration..(41) Most men "confuse eternity with duration..."(42 )because they cannot do more than be conscious of the particulars of the world as mere particulars.(43) Relationships, on a larger scale, escape them because the only valid relationship is that of the particular to the totality. "Duration is only applicable to the existence of modes; eternity is applicable to the existence of substance..."(44) The philosopher will live at a level that allows him to be at one with the totality of existence. "The intellectual love of God, which arises from the third kind of knowledge, is eternal."(45) And what is eternity? "By eternity, I mean existence itself..."(46) Part I is no longer a mere tool which allows us to penetrate into reality. Instead, the God of Part I has become the revealed truth. God is substance or nature and that fact now has meaning. Man is a mere part of God when he reacts to the particulars of life only, but becomes God on an intellectual level and is immortal because knowledge of God is eternal. Most men have knowledge in God which makes them slaves. They understand only their limited position in relation to other particulars but not in relation to the totality. The God envisioned by Spinoza is immanent Substance, which is Nature as perceived - and which is, therefore, existence itself. His God is Aristotle's God. For Aristotle, "there is something which causes motion without being moved, and this is eternal, a substance, and an actuality."(47) For Aristotle, matter exists in principle but is actually "real" by virtue of energy. Energy is what makes reality "real." Energy is God for Aristotle in the same spirit as Substance is God for Spinoza. Both are another name for reality or the world of nature and of man alive in nature. God becomes existence itself and the love of God becomes the love of existence itself. Spinoza affirms existence. Spinoza affirms life. Part V culminates our search and shows us the result of our endeavor to know and leads us back to the real meaning of God in Part I. ------------------ NOTES All of the quotations from Spinoza were taken from his Chief Works, Volume 2, translated by R.H.M. Elwes (Dover Publications, 1951). These were compared with the Latin edition of his Opera, vol. 1 (Nijhoff, 1914) and with the Ethics, preceded by On the Improvement of the Understanding, edited by James Gutman (Hafner, 1949) and found to be accurate enough. 1. Heinrich Heine, in his Religion and Philosophy in Germany, translated by John Snodgrass (Beacon Press, 1951) p. 69, states that "the mathematical form gives to Spinoza's writings a harsh exterior. But this like the hard shell of the almond; the kernel is all the more agreeable." 2. Hegel, G.W.F.: in his Science of Logic, 2 vols., translated by W.H. Johnson and L.G. Struthers (George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1951) vol. 1, p. 80, "But to ask for clearness about cognition before the beginning of the science, is to demand that it shall be discussed outside of its precincts..." 3. Spinoza, Ethics, Part II, Prop. XI, Note, in Works, vol. 2, p. 91. All further quotations from Spinoza will be from vol. 2 of the Chief Works. 4. The "Proof" to Proposition XLI of the Ethics, 269, which states that Part V is not fully necessary to the ethical status of that work, appears to contradict my contention that the whole work must be read to be understood as a system. However, Spinoza is writing an "ethical" work and states "that the qualities attributable to courage and high-mindedness are of primary importance." The first four parts can lead one to ethical acts of virtue, but only by understanding the whole system can one feel joy in the actions of virtue and know truth. Part V tells us the author's goals regarding the higher rewards of knowledge. 5. Hegel: Lectures on the History of Philosophy, vol. 3, translated by E.S. Haldane and F.H. Simson (Routledge and Kegan Paul, Ltd., 1955) P. 257. On the same page, Hegel points out that "absolute substance is the truth, but it is not the whole truth." He feels that Spinoza has left out the process leading up to the conclusions of Part I. One of his basic objections is the lack of subjective development in Spinoza's work. In the Science of Logic (vol. 1, p. 266), Hegel states that Spinoza "begins by defining the infinite as the absolute affirmation of the existence of any one Nature, and the Finite on the contrary as determinateness, or negation." Spinoza posits God as infinite and everything else as derivative of God or as a part (attribute or mode) of God. He continues: "But with Spinoza, Substance and its absolute unity have the form of an inert, that is, of a not self-mediating, unity, - or rigidity wherein the concept of the negative unity of the self (Subjectivity) has not yet found a place." Spinoza, from Hegel's point of view, seems to begin "in medias res" and has not progressed toward God from consciousness. Yet, we will show that Spinoza is progressing toward God in the Ethics. Profound as his observations were, Hegel did not fully grasp all the nuances of Spinoza's thought. For example, he was simply wrong when he came to consider the term "extension" as synonymous with "Being" (Science of Logic, vol 2, pp. 168-169). For Spinoza, "extension" was merely one manifestation of "Being." 6. Ethics, Part I, Prop. XI, Another Proof (p. 52). 7. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXXVI, Note (pp. 265-266). 8. Ethics, Part I, Prop. XXV, Corollary (p. 66). 9. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXV, Proof (p. 260). 10. Spinoza, On the Improvement of Human Understanding (P. 36). 11. Ethics, Part I, Prop. XXX (p. 69). Hegel, in the Science of Logic (vol. 1, p. 126) has the best interpretation of "modes" and "attributes" that I have seen: "He therefore conceived of them as Attributes, that is, as such as, having no separate persistence or Being-in-for-self, exist only), as transcended, or as moments; or, rather, they are not even moments, since Substance is that which in itself is quite indeterminate, the Attributes (as also the Modes) being distinctions made by an external Understanding." 12. Aristotle, "Categories" in The Basic works of Aristotle, edited by Richard McKeon (Random House, 1968) p. 9. 13. In the preface to The Philosophy of Right, translated, notes by T.M. Knox (Oxford University Press, 1967) p. 10, we read "What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational." What Hegel is saying is that the real world is, without man to perceive it, neither rational nor Irrational, but it is actual. When perceived and Understood by a thinking man, it is made rational because a thinking (rational) man understands it. An irrational man would not understand it and it would be for him irrational because he had failed to grasp its essence. Rationality and irrationality are man-created terms, used to describe a universe that has the capacity to be understood. The particulars of it are made universal and rational by the human intellect. See also the Phenomenology of Mind, translated by J.B. Baillie (George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1966) p. 600: "For knowing, is itself the process and movement of those abstract moments..." The unifying factor is the thinking individual who grasps the particulars and gives to them order - the order of his mind. 14. In the Science of Logic, vol. 1, P. 48) we read: "...logical science, I say, will be the reconstruction of those thought determinations which are thrown into relief by reflection, and by reflection are fixed as subjective forms, forms external to matter and content." Or again (p. 65) "This is already evident from the fact that the Method is no-ways different from its object and content; for it is the content in itself, the Dialectic which it has in itself, that moves it on." Or still again (p. 69) "The System of Logic is the realm of shades, a world of simple essentialities freed from all concretion of sense." In the section of his Science of Logic, entitled "With What Must the Science Begin?" (vol. 1, PP. 79-90) Hegel comes right out and all but literally says that it must begin with Phenomenology! The development of certainty out of consciousness is his starting point. Spinoza, however, begins with a kind of logic of content. 15. History would be its form in time (development) but Spinoza does not do his developing out of history. Possibly the single biggest difference between Hegel and Spinoza is that the former adds another perceived Attribute to God: history, or the development of the concept (the whole or "content" of reality) in "time" as well as in space. The mode called thought manifests itself in time as well as in the simple thought of the "now." Mind remembers its past activities and reads of other past activities. In spite of its profundity, Spinoza might have placed this type of knowledge on the lower levels of knowing. 16. Ethics, Part V, Preface (P. 244), has Spinoza's view of logic which is in line with my contention that Part I is not a teaching section at all. Logic points out "the method and means whereby the understanding may be perfected," but that is not a part of his design. But Spinoza's "logic" in Part I is a conceptual or content-filled logic in the sense that Hegel used it, and not a traditional logic. 17. Ethics, Part II, Prop. XLVII, Note (p. 18). 18. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXV, Proof (p. 260). Also referred to in note number 9, above. 19. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXXVI, Note (pp. 765-266). Also referred to in note number 7, above. This is a quotation to keep in mind. 20. Ethics, Part II, Prop. XL, Note II (P. 113). 21. The "Correspondence" of Spinoza, in vol. 2 of the Works, indicates a growing disillusionment on the part of Henry Oldenburg as he reads more and more of Spinoza's material. See letters XVII (LXI) and XX (LXXI) for examples. 22. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXXVI, Note (p. 266). This was also referred to in length in notes 7 and 19 above. A pivotal statement. 23. The Ethics is surprisingly similar to Hegel's Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in basic approach. Part I is similar to the section on logic; Part II through IV to the section on nature (concrete particulars); and Part V to the section on mind. However, Hegel's "system" has four parts: phenomenology, logic, nature, and mind. The Encyclopedia, of course, was designed to be a student's text, which would be supplemented by lectures. The Phenomenology of Mind (possibly better translated as Phenomenology of Spirit), Hegel's great symphony of circles, was to be the first part of the system and no such counterpart exists in Spinoza's works. See also note number 5 above for further discussion. 24. I refer the reader back to note number II. Hegel conceptualizes thought and extension (nature) and also time, into one, coherent whole. 25. Ethics, Part II, Prop. XIX, Proof (p. 260). 26. Ethics, Part IV, Preface (P. 187). 27. Ethics, Part IV, Appendix (P. 236). 28. Ethics, Part IV, Prop. V (P. 194). 29. Ethics, Part 11, Note II (P. 113). 30. Ethics, Part IV, Appendix XXXII (P. 242). 31. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXIV (p. 260). 32. Ethics, Part IV, Prop. LIX, Proof (P. 227). 33. Ethics, Part V, Prop. III (P. 248). 34. Ethics, Part IV, Prop. XXXV (p. 209). 35. Ethics, Part V, Prop. X, Note (PP. 252-253). 36. Ethics, Part IV, Prop. XXXVII, Note II (P. 214). 37. Ethics, Part IV, Prop. XXXVII, Note II (P. 214). 38. Ethics, Part IV, Prop. LXVII (p. 232). 39. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXVIII (p. 261). 40. This is somewhat different from Hegel, who has the comprehending individual become God. 41. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXIII, Note (p. 260). 42. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXXIV, Note (P. 264). 43. In the Phenomenology of Mind (or Spirit), Hegel has an interesting discussion of belief and pure insight (Enlightenment). For Hegel, the religious mind grasps the totality (universal) but fails to understand particulars. To do so would undermine the foundation of belief. Particulars, however, are normally dealt with by insight (which came into full bloom in the Enlightenment) and those who master particulars only, lack the ability to come to grips with the totality or the "concept." It might be better to divide the groups into mystics and true-believers. True-believers would be obsessed with the half-truths inherent in particulars (or in the mere observation of particulars) while mystics would simply "intuit" a state of bliss (blissful ignorance). 44. "Correspondence", Letter XXIX (XII), P. 318. This is a letter to Lewis Meyer, whom Spinoza appears to have taken more seriously than either Henry Oldenburg or Simon de Vries. 45. Ethics, Part V, Prop. XXXIII (p. 263). 46. Ethics, Part I, Definition VIII (P. 46). 47. Aristotle, Metaphysics, translated, with commentaries and glossary by Hippocrates C. Apostle (Indiana University Press, 1966) Book A, 7, 1072a 25, P. 204. Existence is activity. Potentiality is a principle which is existent only as activity. Activity is another name for energy. -------------------- Below, are some additional thoughts, recently formulated, in 1998. Both Spinoza and Hegel have been long misinterpreted. Spinoza's non-anthropomorphic spirituality, and his separation of ethical behavior from any biblical injunctions for anything but practical results (relating to the need to simply keep non-critically thinking people from causing trouble, or from being made unhappy by the "real" facts of reality, particularly as it relates to death), plus the disavowal of the concept of a "temporal" afterlife in relation to the function of his "God," disconcerted a lot of people in the 17th and 18th centuries, and would clearly still be able to disconcert a lot of currently very smug people if they bothered to read him. His god is merely the "isness" or energy force that makes "reality" be what it is, and is completely unrelated to any human endeavors, hopes, fears, or prayers. Spinoza's "immortality" involves simply understanding the nature of non-temporal "eternity" and thinking of that automatically puts one beyond any concern about time. It is a kind of stoicism, and his view of God parallels that of Anselm, who has never struck me as a genuine Christian, his sainthood notwithstanding. Hegel really admired Spinoza, and while Hegel was certainly reacting to Kant in a lot of his writings (who, at least in terms of metaphysics, he considered a lightweight), he is much more of a Spinozist than a Kantian. Closer to Aristotle than to Kant, too. Spinoza's "personal" ethical views are born out of a knowledge of reality, rather than any coercive dictates, postulated by wise old men who want to set up puritanical rules for people to follow. (While some of those who opposed Spinoza and continue to oppose him, had and have a sincere belief that he was "wrong" about the nature of God, many others, including those who had and have attitudes like Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor, were fearful of him, because they knew he was "right" about God.) The rules and laws of civilization are for non thinkers, and certainly have an important function in any society. (Spinoza was a social conservative, but very radical when it comes to free thought.) However, the real philosophers need no rules, because they have a grip on things, and will behave properly as a matter of personal policy. Obviously, this reminds us of Nietzsche, who also admired Spinoza. He influenced scads of people, from Einstein, through Maugham, to Whitehead. |
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
|
My daily driver is a Saturn. It's just like the 'Japanese' vehicles
except...it's made in Tennessee and they are built in Ohio or Kentucky. It doesn't burn any oil, it starts reliably, if the experience of a half generation of Saturn owners is a guide it will run two hundred thousand miles with only some CV joints, brake rotors and pads and a heater core or something. But then it's done for. It will go to the crusher intact. I see a lot more twenty, thirty, forty and fifty year old American cars than any other vehicles of that age though. Other than at car shows and vintage road race events the only old foreign cars I see very often are Volkswagens and the occasional diesel Benz. (I did see, believe it or not, a two stroke three cylinder Saab last night. First one I've seen on the road in probably two decades plus.) Friends who are foreign car buffs tell me that the way to make a Brit or Euro car of any vintage run properly is to put in GM alternators, GM transmissions (Google search "quarter-breed"), GM or Mopar ignition, and so forth. Of course it's fun to show dickhead foreign car mechanics how you've successfully replaced a $400 piece of **** (and they are) Bosch alternator with a $30 Delco. How do you put a price on that level of satisfaction? |
|
#57
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message oups.com... I see a lot more twenty, thirty, forty and fifty year old American cars than any other vehicles of that age though. Other than at car shows and vintage road race events the only old foreign cars I see very often are Volkswagens and the occasional diesel Benz. (I did see, believe it or not, a two stroke three cylinder Saab last night. First one I've seen on the road in probably two decades plus.) One reason is that Japanese carmakers didn't lick the rust problem until sometime in the early 90s, so that earlier cars, if they were still around, would be motors and frames surrounded by swiss cheese. The motors -- at least on Toyotas -- ran and ran and ran. They were originally copies of Chevy motors, I'm told, with evolving divergences as the years went on. Peace, Paul |
|
#58
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:23:55 GMT, "Paul Stamler"
wrote: wrote in message roups.com... I see a lot more twenty, thirty, forty and fifty year old American cars than any other vehicles of that age though. Other than at car shows and vintage road race events the only old foreign cars I see very often are Volkswagens and the occasional diesel Benz. (I did see, believe it or not, a two stroke three cylinder Saab last night. First one I've seen on the road in probably two decades plus.) One reason is that Japanese carmakers didn't lick the rust problem until sometime in the early 90s, so that earlier cars, if they were still around, would be motors and frames surrounded by swiss cheese. The motors -- at least on Toyotas -- ran and ran and ran. They were originally copies of Chevy motors, I'm told, with evolving divergences as the years went on. Peace, Paul The OP left out Volvos. There are tons of them around, especially from the 80s, which was a time that American cars weren't particularly well-built in general. Of course, they have their issues as well, the main one being a wiring harness apparently built from compressed dust. Volvos are certainly overengineered to a fault. Plus, their engines are extremely easy to work on because they are very accessable. Lots of room to work and components placed in areas that are easy to get to. On the 740 for instance, you can change the oil filter by hand from the top. |
|
#59
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Volvo is a very well built car. Boring, but well built. Colin
Powell restores them. |
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article .com,
wrote: The Volvo is a very well built car. Boring, but well built. Colin Powell restores them. Boring is good. I like boring. I have had altogether too much excitement with cars in my lifetime. --scott There's a guy here in town with one of the two-cycle Saabs, which I see on the road now and then. There's also a guy on the other side of the river who commutes every morning on the ferry in his 2-CV. But in spite of this beauty, I still want a Trabant. I want to take it out on road rallies and leave everyone behind in a huge cloud of smoke. They'll all be behind, though, because they'll be helping pushstart.... -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Trabi's problem, believe it or not, is that despite its emissions
(modern two stroke oils will cut the smoke way down) and ugliness and dismal performance, it runs. And runs and runs. Its engine is an "updated" DKW and its unattractive coachwork is all a heavy grade of fiberglass that is indestructible. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote:
The Trabi's problem, believe it or not, is that despite its emissions (modern two stroke oils will cut the smoke way down) and ugliness and dismal performance, it runs. And runs and runs. Its engine is an "updated" DKW and its unattractive coachwork is all a heavy grade of fiberglass that is indestructible. I can believe it. It really is kind of neat in a way. And I say that as someone who bought a Lada once because it was cheaper than renting a car in London for two weeks. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
|
#64
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm not denying your experience but most of the Saturn owners I know
really like their Saturns. Saturn reliability was better than the GM average, however, because Saturn is being openly repositioned to replace Oldsmobile as a GM brand with no special status that's about impossible to continue. From a work-on-them point of view I've always preferred GM-the smallblock Chevy, the Corvair 6, Olds Quad 4, the Cadillac 472/500, the THM 350/400/700R4 slushboxes, GM alternators, pumps, 53 and 71 series Detroit Diesels, all first rate in my book. Their flaws are well known and either fixable or avoidable. To be fair GM has built plenty of total ****boxes too, but everyone knew or should have they were rolling abortions before they bought them. The Vega (through and through), the 60 degree V6 engines, the Olds diesel, the THM Metric 200 and variants, are just some of the GM disasters. The early Mazdas were rust traps but they fixed that and they are pretty good cars but then so are (most) all the Japanese cars. I'm not anti-Japanese. Parts are high but you don't need as many and used engines and transaxles can be had from Japanese yards cheap. If I build a Locost that's probably the way I'll go. VWs have gotten ridiculously expensive. I looked at the diesel when I bought the Saturn however the price difference was just too much even with $2/gallon gas. |
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jim Gilliland wrote:
The Ford/Volvo/Mazda partnership has created some very nice cars - all three companies are reaping the benefits. Now if the could just stop designing those damn ovals into everything (seen a Jag lately?) |
|
#66
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George M. Middius" wrote:
Another breakthrough for Brother Horace the Impotent. The turntable-feedback article was in the October, 1984 issue of Stereo Review. Actually, David Ranada contributed so much to the editing, Inviting Mr. Ranada to fix your raggedy sketch of an article was a smart move, Clerkie. Ranada was not invited. He added additional material to what was already there. Incidentally, I can assure you that he would seriously disagree with most of the subjectivist twaddle we find posted on RAO. Must have been a rare moment of clarity for you to realize that you were not capable of writing intelligently about a subject that scares the pants off you. One can only imagine the hyena-like yowling an editor would get from you on the subject of turntables. Clearly a real audio journalist was needed to inject some semblance of rigor into your puddle of vinylphobic goo. Congratulations on admitting your limitations, if only that one time. Note that the 1976 and 1988 articles on using pink noise to do subjective evaluations were published pretty much as I wrote them. Howard Ferstler |
|
#67
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote:
The OP left out Volvos. There are tons of them around, especially from the 80s, which was a time that American cars weren't particularly well-built in general. The latest issue of Consumer Reports has their annual statistical result section. Volvos did not do all that well when it comes to reliability. Not well at all. Volvos are certainly overengineered to a fault. Maybe, but that overengineering appears to do little to handle the reliability problems that the CR survey showed up. Plus, their engines are extremely easy to work on because they are very accessable. And this ease is obviously important, given those reliability issues. You want reliability? Get a Toyota or Honda. You do not have to work on them all that much. Howard Ferstler |
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:00:17 -0500, Howard Ferstler
wrote: dave weil wrote: The OP left out Volvos. There are tons of them around, especially from the 80s, which was a time that American cars weren't particularly well-built in general. The latest issue of Consumer Reports has their annual statistical result section. Volvos did not do all that well when it comes to reliability. Not well at all. I was speaking of older Volvos. They are now owned by the compay that build your previous unreliable oil-eating car, the Mustang. Volvos are certainly overengineered to a fault. Maybe, but that overengineering appears to do little to handle the reliability problems that the CR survey showed up. That could very well be true for current models. I'm sure that they're still one of the safest brands around though. Plus, their engines are extremely easy to work on because they are very accessable. And this ease is obviously important, given those reliability issues. As far as I know, the current models are just as crammed to the gills with wall-to-wall motors as any other. I was speaking of said 20 -40 year old cars. You want reliability? Get a Toyota or Honda. You do not have to work on them all that much. I had a Toyota for a while and found it not only reliable but easy to work on as well. You DO know that to keep a car running, preventative maintenance is a must, right? That includes doing things like replacing timing belts and the like. I like being able to get to the oil filter from the top for instance. That's one reason I liked myVolvo when I had it. BTW, the world record for a car mileage is a Volvo. Over 2 million verified miles. In fact, the owner of that car has gotten two new free Volvos from Volvo for that feat. |
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
dave weil wrote:
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 22:00:17 -0500, Howard Ferstler wrote: The latest issue of Consumer Reports has their annual statistical result section. Volvos did not do all that well when it comes to reliability. Not well at all. I was speaking of older Volvos. They are now owned by the compay that build your previous unreliable oil-eating car, the Mustang. It was fast and fun for a while, and I had a lot of fun with it. However, I am willing to admit that technologically and in terms of solid reliability, the two Scion models I now own leave it in the dust. Volvos are certainly overengineered to a fault. Maybe, but that overengineering appears to do little to handle the reliability problems that the CR survey showed up. That could very well be true for current models. I'm sure that they're still one of the safest brands around though. Perhaps. But so is the Hummer and also the M1 tank, at least if driven here on American roads. In Iraq, all bets are off. Howard Ferstler |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler wrote:
I have owned American, German, and Japanese cars, and the latter were way, WAY more durable than the two former. http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/04/pf/a...ex.htm?cnn=yes DETROIT, March 4 (Reuters) - Japanese automobiles are the true kings of the road, judging by the latest annual "Best Cars" issue of Consumer Reports magazine, which hits newsstands next week. All but one of the vehicles in the magazine's list of "top picks" in 10 different categories for 2005 are Japanese. The exception is Ford's small-sized Focus sedan. Japanese vehicles also score a clean sweep on a list of 21 vehicles that Consumer Reports says it can recommend because they earned "very good" or "excellent" scores in all five major ratings areas it tested. The recommendations are important since the spring auto issue from Consumer Reports, which accepts no paid advertising or free samples of the products its reviews, has long been seen as a trusted shopping guide by many U.S. car buyers. Anything that could accelerate the rate of defection away from Detroit's mass market automakers is clearly bad news for the likes of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. as they continue to lose market share to fast-growing foreign rivals. The Big Three can take solace, however, from a Consumer Reports survey showing for the second consecutive year that the average domestic car is more reliable than its average European counterpart. |
|
#73
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#74
|
|||
|
|||
|
I liked this part:
"Ford's Lincoln Navigator sport utility vehicle and Nissan's Quest minivan tied for most unreliable vehicle, it said, with problem rates of 49 per 100." The Navigator... so maybe there is justice. Al On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 21:45:42 -0600, Joe Sensor wrote: Howard Ferstler wrote: I have owned American, German, and Japanese cars, and the latter were way, WAY more durable than the two former. http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/04/pf/a...ex.htm?cnn=yes DETROIT, March 4 (Reuters) - Japanese automobiles are the true kings of the road, judging by the latest annual "Best Cars" issue of Consumer Reports magazine, which hits newsstands next week. All but one of the vehicles in the magazine's list of "top picks" in 10 different categories for 2005 are Japanese. The exception is Ford's small-sized Focus sedan. Japanese vehicles also score a clean sweep on a list of 21 vehicles that Consumer Reports says it can recommend because they earned "very good" or "excellent" scores in all five major ratings areas it tested. The recommendations are important since the spring auto issue from Consumer Reports, which accepts no paid advertising or free samples of the products its reviews, has long been seen as a trusted shopping guide by many U.S. car buyers. Anything that could accelerate the rate of defection away from Detroit's mass market automakers is clearly bad news for the likes of General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. as they continue to lose market share to fast-growing foreign rivals. The Big Three can take solace, however, from a Consumer Reports survey showing for the second consecutive year that the average domestic car is more reliable than its average European counterpart. |
|
#75
|
|||
|
|||
|
Howard Ferstler said:
I see a lot more twenty, thirty, forty and fifty year old American cars than any other vehicles of that age though. All this means is that some people are spending time and money to maintain those older cars. At least spare and junkyard parts are readily available for many of them. Good for them, because they certainly will need those parts. Maintaining and restoring old cars can be a rewarding hobby, just like (tube) audio is. You ought to try it some time, Howard. Sure beats posting to RAO 'cause one's bored. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#76
|
|||
|
|||
|
Sander deWaal said: Maintaining and restoring old cars can be a rewarding hobby, just like (tube) audio is. You ought to try it some time, Howard. Sure beats posting to RAO 'cause one's bored. Maybe Harold has become so phobic that he won't even venture into his front yard anymore. |
|
#77
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
Howard Ferstler said: I see a lot more twenty, thirty, forty and fifty year old American cars than any other vehicles of that age though. All this means is that some people are spending time and money to maintain those older cars. At least spare and junkyard parts are readily available for many of them. Good for them, because they certainly will need those parts. Maintaining and restoring old cars can be a rewarding hobby, just like (tube) audio is. Most antique cars are relatively new compared to most tube audio technology. In my statea 20-year old car is legally an antique and can be registered as such and have reduced registration fees. Few people who have a nicely -restored antique car use for their year-round daily driver. Why recommend that sort of self-inflicted pain to people so they try that folly with their primary audio system? |
|
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Arny Krueger" said:
Maintaining and restoring old cars can be a rewarding hobby, just like (tube) audio is. Most antique cars are relatively new compared to most tube audio technology. In my statea 20-year old car is legally an antique and can be registered as such and have reduced registration fees. Few people who have a nicely -restored antique car use for their year-round daily driver. Why recommend that sort of self-inflicted pain to people so they try that folly with their primary audio system? You obviously never drove a CX then ;-) I drive it daily to my utmost satisfaction. A Volvo 164 or 262 , Alfa Giuila, Citroen DS or CX, or even more exotic cars like a Jaguar XJ-S, Maserati Quattroporte etc. can be driven as a daily car just as well. Modern cars bore me to death. -- Sander de Waal " SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. " |
|
#79
|
|||
|
|||
|
I thought an XJ-S or a ('new') Quattroporte _was_ a modern car! Cits
require specifically trained maintenance- hydraulics and sheetmetal. The Volvo is a practical car, all too practical in fact, but reliable. For driving an old car to be cheaper than leasing new ones, you have to be an owner maintainer, at least in my neighborhood. Dealer labor rates are pushing $85/hr here. |
|
#80
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Pro Audio | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Tech | |||
| Share Your Snake Oil Story... | Marketplace | |||
| eScrew OWNS YOU!!! | Pro Audio | |||
Linear Mode
