The thing about objectivists is...

Listening is the essence and central activity of music appreciation. Listening is purely a result of the essential reality of subjectivity, and not that of any "objective reality" which is assumed to exist "out there." The human mind tends to rigidly cling to measurements, pedestrian concepts, and elaborate abstractions in attempt to simplify, subdivide, define, and categorize within the immensity of the realm of the experiential/subjective.

Over-reliance on concrete definitions and ideas serves to attach oneself to a sense of stability and security. The mind secretly hopes this will sufficiently ward off the uneasiness of feeling unsure, or off-balance, about one’s actual degree of comprehension regarding a given topic.

But what is it that is capable of registering sounds, recognition of patterns, recalling memory, and awareness? It’s pure subjectivity. It’s not the brain. That’s only an idea which is based on an entire system of definitions which define other definitions. The mind fortifies the boundaries of its interconnected structure by using circuitously self-reifying definitions.

Consider this: A description of a thing, proposed by the human mind, is only of that which a thing is not. A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.

What is it that is present in the pure silence during the instant just prior to sound waves propagating into the air space of the listening room? What is it which listens?

It’s subjective awareness, devoid of mental content. Your ideas aren’t listening, your experiential awareness is listening.

The more one thinks the same boring ideas one’s been thinking for years, the less one can listen. Subjectivity is the self-existent authority prior to the discernment of any quality, measured quantity, or the detection of that which we term "music". The deeper we can relax and sink into pure, silent subjectivity, the more deeply and purely we can listen and behold. Our subjective awareness becomes purer and less colored, our mind becomes more open and flexible, and experiential reality is seen to be the ever-present continuum which is of the greatest value of all.


Funny how his desire to not contribute is shown in the number of times he contributes.

If you combine his posts under all usernames I listed above, he has more posts than any Agon user. By a very long stretch. Check this out: He just "joined" a few days ago, and already has 42 posts. Watch the space here for further drama in every single thread. 


Post removed 


After Enlightenment the mountains are still the mountains.


To the point.

Reality is always the final arbiter.

Early on, I made the point that digital destroys PRaT because of clock issues.  There were two responses saying (essentially and respectively) this is not an issue because non-digital recording has bigger problems and digital may have problems but it  is convenient for disseminating poor quality recordings.

Since then discussion on this slightly interesting topic has descended to depths rarely plumbed here.

Congratulations to all the prats involved.

Thank you OP for this very good and nice text!

I often do my best to make people aware of the topic, which really goes to the core of our "being here". I’ve studied philosophy and science for many years, and have been practicing spirituality for decades (with the term spirituality I don’t mean metaphysics, esoteric teachings, or any of that nonsense. To me, spirituality is the most stringent, and also the most empirical, science there is). I am also a professional musician and a professional sound engineer.

I would say that an approach increases its value insofar as you know the limits of that approach. And the limits include unquestioned assumptions, world views etc.

Each and every approach is a choice, an exclusion, a decision. This starts long before you make a measurement etc.

If you measure, and know exactly what the limitations of that measurement are - including the whole approach, the hypothesis that stands behind it, your world view, etc. -, then your measurement gives you valuable data. If you don’t know the limitations, or see them incorrectly, or expand them inappropriately in your imagination, your measurement is becoming less and less meaningful.

Good scientists are aware of that. Many of the great scientist went deeply into epistemology. For clear reasons.

And yes, you can prove that a lot of the concepts with which we approach the world cannot be true. And this isn’t something "subjective", this is strong science, logic, reason etc. Many (most, if not all) philosophers failed in that regard. Kant’s "Ding an sich" is absurd, but a correct outcome of his approach (which *could* mean that the whole approach is incorrect). Descarte’s "prove" of an outside world is hilarious, but very revealing. They took the mind to its limits, and failed there. Seeing how and why they failed is very illuminating. It tells us a lot about the mind and its inherent limitations.

Hegel critizised a lot of the mind’s approach, in a very good manner. His deconstruction of the approach "a thing is a bundle of characteristics" for example is marvellous, and very appropriate. A thing cannot be constituted of properties, and cannot be recognized through properties. Hegel’s analysis is stringent, rational and correct.

Good scientists are aware of the strong and profound limitations of the scientific approach. Unfortunately, a lot of people who use science to fortify their mind and their assumptions are not.

And to return to my first statement: If you know the limitations of an approach, you can make good use of the approach. If you don’t know the limitations, or misjudge them, you are out in phantasy land. And it is not possible to recognize the limitations of a system from inside that very system (Goedel).

Subject and object are not two. Which also means that you can’t keep the opposition between them, but choose only one of them. If you do so, you’re again out in phantasy land.