Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Nigol Baquards

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Nigol Baquards's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (2/5)

  1. The violin is described as in mint condition, but it shows wear on the edges and on the scroll. Did Scamparella do that? Vinhunter: I would be very interested to hear one or two reasons why you reject it as being a Scamparella violin.
  2. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 The topic is too is too enticing and amusing to leave alone when someone again uses the word irrational to characterize those of faith. Webster's offers the following definition of irrational: Irrational: Not endowed with reason or understanding. Lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence. To characterize men like Newton, Einstein, Planck, Schroedinger, Heisenberg, William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) J.J. Thompson, Leonard Euler, C.F. Gauss, Bernard Reimann, George Boole, George Cantor, Michael Faraday, or James Clerk Maxwell and countless other geniuses as irrational, shows how uninformed the sceptics are. For those not familiar with all the names here, most of us would be very lucky to possess the faculty of reason that lead only to the mistakes these men made. No one can really examine them and come to the conclusion they were lacking in perception. In contradistinction, they were so keenly in tune with reality, they were able to see deeper than everyone else. Why, if human history were somehow to be stripped of all those who were of belief, the sceptics would instead be presenting their arguments now on parchment paper rather than computers. Perhaps a new type of A/B listening comparison should be introduced. Instead of the run-of-the-mill old Cremonese vs. new, how about soul makers vs. the vacuous? This argument is based on a recognised fallacy. Appeal to Authority An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form: 1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S. 2. Person A makes claim C about subject S. 3. Therefore, C is true. This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true. End of citation. ............................................. Now, if and when I characterise "people of faith" as "irrational", then I do it in respect of what they believe solely on grounds of faith. An example would be if a person believed that he had a soul that would survive his death. There's no rational evidence to support that, people who believe that believe it as a matter of faith, often following a revealed scripture. That is irrational. You've hinted but not stated that you think your soul will survive death. Do you think that? Why?
  3. quote: Originally posted by: David Burgess My other questions for you: 1. Would you be willing to consider the possibility of things existing beyond our current level of proof? 2. If no one ever considered this, how do you think it might have influenced history in general and also violin making? 3. What are your conclusions from the statement of the Patent Commissioner in 1899, quoted by GGM: "Everything that can be invented has been invented." 4. What is the long-term track record of definitive, absolute statements such as, "This is how it is"? 1. "Beyond our current level of proof". Not sure what that means. I know many things are still waiting to be discovered, and I believe there are some things we may never be able to understand (the origins of the universe, the nature of our own consciousness). I also try to remember that I might be wrong, about anything. But I also try to keep a sense of proportion in that. I think that may be the central flaw in the sort of arguments I think you are trying to present. Just because I might always be wrong doesn't mean that I always am, or that it is very likely that I am, when it comes to, say, a violin or a person having a soul. 2. and 3. See 1. 4. Depends entirely on the statement. We die. That is how it is. Billion year 100% track record. Pi. That is how it is, always has been, always will be in this universe. Phlogiston. Not how it is. Now this question: Are you stating this [that souls don't exist] as fact or opinion? If the presence of a soul in a human influences their actions, could it not have a very real effect on the world? ................................................. OK, for me to tell you whether I'm stating it as a fact or an opinion, I need to know what you mean by a soul. Somebody else in the thread thinks a soul is a mind. I think I am willing to state as a fact, not just as an opinion, that minds exist. I always try to remember I could be wrong, but also keep a sense of proportion. Insofar as anything is a fact, I think it is a fact that we have minds. However they are not what I call "a soul". So, tell me something about the soul that you think could be present in a human, and I will try to respond to your question.
  4. quote: Originally posted by: Oded Kishony In any case, rest assured that you will not convince anyone here that there is no soul because it is irrational. Oded Kishony You think not? I think it's worth a try, it might at least put the idea into somebody's head. After all it's clear that some people here have never thought very much at all about the nonsense they have been taught in churches and religious schools, by their parents and so on. I assume that whenever anybody suggests that the dogma be questioned a whole bunch of other people have jumped up to say "it's off topic", "you're disturbing the peace", "can't you go and discuss this with the Skeptical society?", and all the other responses you can see in this thread.
  5. quote: Originally posted by: NewNewbie "Souls don't exist, in the sense that they have no real effect on the world. You can live your life in exactly the same way, whether you mention or think about souls or not. Similarly you can play or make violins as well as anybody else, without ever involving souls." - Nigol Baquards ================================================================================ ======= Do you have a mind? Do you have emotions? Do you have a will? Try making or playing a violin without these. But I'm not arguing that the mind, the emotions and the will don't exist. I'm arguing that the soul doesn't exist. I do have a mind, and I could explain to you (broadly, and no doubt with some difficulty) what it is and what it does. I don't have a soul, neither do you, neither does anybody else, and that is why when you are asked to explain what it is you fall back on other things that we do have, like minds, emotions and will.
  6. quote: Originally posted by: magnus nedregard The internet is a wonderful arena for really silly stuff sometimes, stuff that wouldn't survive anywhere else; because responsability and good taste comes between, let us try to introduce that on the IN as well, shall we? Here's the space for your sarcastic comment, Backwards: . . . . . . . . . . . . . Please let me know if you need more space. So many assumptions, straw man arguments, so much prejudice, above all so many different ways of trying to close down a discussion that challenges these. Magnus, if somebody started telling me in a violin shop or a pub or in my living room that the energy of the player can be absorbed by a violin and released later I would tell them that was nonsense just as I will here on the internet, if I feel like it. Ditto if somebody tries to tell me that the making or playing of a musical instrument is affected by "soul". It's superstitious nonsense, not worthy of respect.
  7. quote: Originally posted by: yuen Hi Nigot, My teacher taught me that religon is a faith, not to be proved or disproved Talking too much about it, will only get us more troubles. No one wants that. In my view we have tried not talking about it for a long time, and that is where a lot of the trouble comes from. Look at the trouble in the world. A great deal of it seems to be caused by people with very firm and nonsensical religious beliefs. As for pi, you can't write it down as a finite number, but that's just the way things are. You can say what pi is. You can't say what a soul is, or what it does.
  8. quote: Originally posted by: David Burgess quote: Originally posted by: Nigol Baquards Does a machine-gun pick up energy from the person who uses it? Yes. Certain types of energy tend to make it fire more frequently. But that wouldn't be passed on to the next person who used the gun, would it? Whereas Jen seems to believe that that could happen with a violin. Would you like to address that point?
  9. quote: Originally posted by: dand No soul? What a dreary existence. Why build violins?..in fact why play them? What is it that makes ONE feel good when playing? Maybe someone without soul can indeed play...mechanicaly speaking of course...but what is the point? This is a good example of what I think of as limited thinking. Dan, "soul" or "a soul" is a metaphor. It isn't really something you can have or not have. Think about your own experience. Here's an example from my own experience. Sometimes when I am practicing I record myself. Sometimes when I am practicing I feel moved and involved in the music, and sometimes my mind drifts, and you could say I was playing mechanically. Sometimes I listen to recordings of myself, and I know that I drifted off at some point during the recording, but I can't tell when it was. Souls don't exist, in the sense that they have no real effect on the world. You can live your life in exactly the same way, whether you mention or think about souls or not. Similarly you can play or make violins as well as anybody else, without ever involving souls.
  10. quote: Originally posted by: GMM22 I feel sympathy for you because you are smart and yet saddled with many limits and liabilities in thinking to no less a degree to which you attribute to everyone but yourself, and because you find yourself fully involved in a matter you had not imagined when you joined maestronet to learn and share ideas about violins. Apparently you missed my post that argued strongly against invoking a moderator. I'd be interested to know what you think the limits of my thinking are, specifically, and how you think they affect me in such a way that I would require sympathy. I know my thinking is limited of course, but I don't believe it is more limited than yours! Allan seems to have appointed himself moderator. I'm no longer welcome here or something.
  11. quote: Originally posted by: yuen Hi Nigot, Some violins are much, much better than others. (don't ask me to prove it). Any one who says that all violins have "soul" is doing the good makers an injustice. "Look" is deceptive. Prices is man-made, I believe. I am real because I occupy one tiny spot. The fact that your posts and your arguments, seem covered all grounds. It is not clear to me where exactly you stand. If you just do not like other people's view which is fine with me. I don't have problem with that. Then what is your ? PS. People (or you) like to know where is the timeless boundary line of "soul"? (your view?) If you cannot tell me, then it does not exist? Or don't talk about it? I guess what you are trying to say?) ( I admit that I am not smart enough, to know if it exists, yuen) Hello yuen, You seem pretty smart to me, and certainly smarter than some of the other contributors to this discussion. Can I ask, where do you come from, and what is your first language? My idea about the soul (of a violin or a person) is that it is a story, something that people have invented. I think you are smart enough to have an idea of the different reasons why people might do that. Some people then come to believe that the invented thing really exists. But I find that when I ask them to explain what exactly the "soul" is, they are entirely unable to do so, and often seem very afraid to even discuss the question, as you can see so clearly in this discussion.
  12. quote: Originally posted by: jenford Pretty fun conversation - even if it's strayed a bit. It seems that it is trendy to be an atheist these days - or a man/woman of science - what you can measure scientifically is all that there is. I work at a medical school - packed full of scientists - some of them enjoy gospel music -some of them admit they are spiritual folks. Not so long ago - people thought that their bed frames contained bugs that caused illness. I have a feeling that we're just pre-schoolers in the understanding of the universe we live in. And I don't have an idea about the "soul" of a violin - but there's some interesting hypothesis lately about our idea of the universe and string theory. The implications of the hypothesis is intriguing and compelling. So I thinks it ok to say that there's some things that we just can't measure at this time - we can't prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being.... or an all pervading energy that allows things to manifest or not based on causes and conditions. Does a violin take on some of the "energy" of the musician that plays it ? Previous owners? We can't measure it right now - so I'll just leave that open and a mystery at this point. Ahhh....gotta love that mystery. Best, Jen Ford Hi Jen, Don't be silly. Do you think a washing-machine takes on the energy of the person who washes clothes in it? The thought would never enter your mind: it's only because we are talking about "romantic" violins that you go all gloopy about it. What about a machine-gun: should the machine-gun manufacturer think about the person who will be using the weapon, the way a Japanese sword-maker should? Does a machine-gun pick up energy from the person who uses it?
  13. quote: Originally posted by: Allan Speers I agree strongly with Dean. This could have been a fascinating and most enjoyable thread. It's a very fine-line where a moderator should step in, but perhaps this would have been a good time. (with a gentle PM suggestion, perhaps, not a public ban or post removal) Manfio, that's amazing about the soundpost term! I love it. Is that really the first time you've heard about the soundpost being the "soul" of the violin Allan? It's a commonplace, I must have known that since I was a boy aged 17-19, I'm surprised a violin enthusiast like yourself has only just discovered it at the advanced age of 76-83. GMM22 and others with a developing interest in group dynamics may wish to note the invocation of a moderator to step in (gently and privately) to silence the intruder. Allan: in the now apparently unlikely event that you have something fascinating and enjoyable to say about "sound vs look", why don't you just say it? Speak for yourself, let others speak for themselves, and let the moderators moderate.
  14. quote: Originally posted by: Dean_Lapinel It's fascinating that this nigol, a boy of perhaps 17-19 years of age can provoke such honing of verbal weaponry. I just read this thread of potential interest; unfortunately it was hijacked into an arena of little value. I do like the comment Manfio made about Japanese philosophy. An artist does indeed, impart some of him or herself into a work and should care who the recipient is. Alternatively, how hard is it not to feel a sense of reverence when holding a Strad? See what I mean GMM22? Here is Dean's attempt to invalidate my contribution to the debate on the grounds of my age, when he has absolutely no idea how old I am! And how foolish the rest of you are to be honing your verbal weaponry in this area of little value. These are transparently stupid arguments you are making Dean, and so it comes as no surprise that you would be captivated by Manfio's fairy story about Japanese swords. If you think you have something of interest to say about "sound vs look" why don't you just say it? Speak for yourself and let others speak for themselves.
  15. quote: Originally posted by: MANFIO By the way, every violin has a soul. The soundpost in Italian is called "anima", that is, soul. Yes I do know that manfio, but it's a metaphor. And the idea of a human being having a soul is also a metaphor. However you seem to treat the soul as if it were something "objectively" real. You said: "Well, it's off topic but, anyway, in objective terms, I would always prefer buying violins made by makers with souls, they worth much, much more than the violins made by souless violin makers." I think this is silly nonsense, and I very much doubt if you really believe it yourself. How could you possibly discover if a particular maker had a soul or not? If you believe some of us have a soul, do we not all have one?
  • Create New...