I always liked Eleanor Roosevelt.
Very underrated unless you've read up on her.
All the best,
Nonoise
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.
105 responses Add your response
@thyname why was he banned?
Admittedly I don’t really understand the soliloquy that the OP @gladmo posted, but the @theaudiomaniac posts were intelligible. |
As many times as one can create brand new Gmail accounts. Basically unlimited
You bet your fancy cables he will!!! 😁😁😀😂
He was likely given the customary 30-day initial warning first. Watch the forums starting on 9/24/22. He will light them up again with the same username. Then banned permanently, then come back with a new username. Repeat.
|
yep |
@thyname @holmz ....Thank you both for the 'moment of clarity' on that issue. *G* But that does 'splain the acidic inference, at least to this mortal; yet another ragged soul suffering from MI. Multiple Identities, 'The Waster'. Grew up and through that era of errors with my mind in hand or at least on a leash. ;) Understand in this era where keeping track of 'whom am I?' can lead to distortion, and I'm not talkin' THD...😏 Anywho....*pun intended*...it's Fried day, weakend pending and beckons, y'all keep your personal reality checked and chocked, and cu on these funny papers.... Ciao, J |
@holmz : LOL!! Not sure he is terminating anything, although I can see what he is trying to do over the years and multiple usernames. Nothing to worry though, he will be back. As I said before, maybe four of his usernames ago, three things are certain in life: death, taxes, and this dude coming back to Audiogon forums. |
It is like the second coming, but he is on time like german railway, and he also repeats. Or (he’ll) “Be back” like the terminator? |
@asvjerry : it is not a list. It’s just one dude. With multiple banned usernames. He has not posted@theaudiomaniac most recent username in a a day or two, so likely got banned again, but he will be back, with yet another username. He always does. |
....I, for one, am alternately bummed and elated I'm not on @thynames' list... @theaudiomaniac, there's a lot of that going around....not just 'here'.... ;) I've no dogs in this either, and wouldn't throw any of our cats into it as well..... ....but I'm just on prat troll anyway...*L* |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Towards the end of his life Bertrand Russell was asked by an interviewer what did he did think about that time his boat capsized and he had to swim to the shore. Did he have any great thoughts etc?
If I remember correctly, his reply was that he was thinking about getting to the shore.
As an audiophile I am looking for the most accurate playback system. Particularly one with a high level of accuracy in the mid and upper registers.
Of course that does not prevent me from enjoying playback on lesser systems. Only a few weeks ago I sat outside enjoying the British summer whilst listening to Scott Walker via a portable Bluetooth speaker. The sound that little thing produced held me in rapturous ectasy as I sat back in my garden chair. Truly wonderful it was.
Was it also amazingly accurate? No.
I’m pretty sure that the sound Scott Walker and Johnny Franz were putting down on tape all those years ago bore little resemblance to what was coming out of my tiny Neocore Bluetooth speaker.
Does it matter?
On that particular July afternoon, I wasn’t |
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. |
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. |
| Post removed |
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.
|
@thyname |
| Post removed |
Oh boy.... it did not take you long to resurface here yet another time. I sounds like I now have to another name in my long list:
theaudioamp
deludedaudiophile
thynamesinnervoice
cindyment
snratio
yesiamjohn
sugabooger
dletch2
audio2design
dannad
roberttdid
roberttcan
heaudio123
audiozenology
atdavid |
But alas… sobriety seems to have returned…
@theaudiomaniac It looked more mushroom, than acid, but I am not expert in either of them. |
How do you hijack a thread when you start with a premise that reads more like an acid trip than anything suitable for meaningful discussion? If two sounds are exactly the same, but you perceive them differently on different days, the sound didn't change, you did. Not a hard concept to understand folks. |
@nonoise I can’t speak to the others’ intent, but my last comment was sarcastic. |
I'll let the others here simply read my post without the hassle of going back to the 1st page and judge for themselves instead of relying on your take:
Oh, and do keep up with the childish retorts....they're amusing. All the best, |
@nonoise I asked a question as to what practical function the term, “PRaT” has in describing audio gear. You then said, “this is a term that’s been around for decades and how you don’t understand its meaning ‘in this context’ (nonoise’s initial use of the apparently-offensive quotation marks) is baffling unless you’re under 20 and have no appreciation for what’s gone on before you. ‘PRaT” refers to how ‘realistic’ the sound is. It is apparent in the totality of the system’s sound, not something one can plug in.” Okay. So a condescending tone followed by a vague-as-hell explanation, followed by the charge of my being “nonsensical” and issuing “blather,” and harboring “hatred” of people describing things. Not a lot here to garner respect from another thread user. One practical use of the word, “prat”: it’s original meaning. “A person’s buttocks,” or, “an incompetent, stupid or foolish person; an idiot” This is a use of the term I can get behind. |
Wow. Your quotes don’t apply to me so why direct them at me? Or do you just like putting things in quotation marks to add some sort of brilliance to your blather? Must have caught you off guard with your off handed and not well thought out remarks in the first place. Have you been harboring a grudge over this debate on PRaT is and what constitutes it from before? PRaT is a term that has meaning and always has, and will continue to despite your hatred of people who can actually describe what they hear to others. Have fun at whatever it is that do when listening, because it’s not for the reasons anyone I know does. All the best,
|
@nonoise Fair enough. Go nuts with your meaningless jargon, and your justification that “people have peddled this nonsense for decades, therefore it’s inherently valuable.” Go nuts with your defense of “the rest of us swallowed this non-speak decades ago, so anyone who questions it is just a wet-behind-the-ears newbie who hasn’t learned how to properly dispense vague, insider-jargon non-speak.” I’ll continue to use words that have meaning to describe things. |
If you believe that, then you are in a very small minority of audiophiles who do so. Like I said before, the term PRaT has been around for decades and shouldn't even be doubted unless someone is so new to this game that they need to look it up. If a piece of gear is/was poorly designed, then it couldn't convey the PRaT in the music, so yes, undoubtably, it's inherent in the design of the gear as the maker of said gear knows it and made sure it could reproduce it. It may all boil down to just being a hell of a lot more accurate but being so allows it to sound all the more realistic, and that, my friend, is in the gear and not in someone's head. When they hear it, they recognize it, and then express it, and then people like you and others fly off the handle about it, dancing on the head of a pin. All the best, |
@nonoise Some of us care about the efficacy of language, and the meaning of words. Using the terms “PRaT,” and “rhythm and pace,” when describing the respective qualities of various electronics and speakers, is the very definition of “nonsensical.” Music has “rhythm,” not gear. Rattling off the term “PRaT,” has no meaning to a laymen, and little meaning to someone who actually thinks about what the term actually means. But I suppose being an effective communicator to the average person is not necessarily the goal; it’s much more fun for an insular group to have their own little vernacular.
|
Proof that all audio discussions eventually degrade to cables or vinyl vs. digital.
Got stuck with a Jetta with the factory radio for a rental recently. It was that or who knows how long and Maui was calling. 256kbps MP3/AAC ... Really don't know, Bluetooth to the stereo, cheap electronics, cheap speakers, and tapping my fingers and toes the whole way. Mood is everything. |
@tylermunns - it's always interesting to me when I hear people talking about a system or component that will 'get their toes tapping'. To me, it's the music that gets my toes tapping - my toes did plenty of tapping in the 60's when I listened to it on a small transistor radio, and that continues on to this day! Rhythm is rhythm.... 😁 |
Your response makes about as much sense as your statement that I tried to address. Kind of nonsensical. There's nothing vague in what I said, nor was it rude. Rhythm and pace, or as the British use to call it, PRAT, has always been known to refer to just how realistic the sound is to the point where it has you actively participating with it as you listen. You know, moving your feet or bobbing your head. It's just another perfectly acceptable way of saying it sounds more realistic and I don't see what the problem is with anyone using it. All the best, |
