objective vs. subjective rabbit hole


There are many on this site who advocate, reasonably enough, for pleasing one’s own taste, while there are others who emphasize various aspects of judgment that aspire to be "objective." This dialectic plays out in many ways, but perhaps the most obvious is the difference between appeals to subjective preference, which usually stress the importance of listening, vs. those who insist on measurements, by means of which a supposedly "objective" standard could, at least in principle, serve as arbiter between subjective opinions.

It seems to me, after several years of lurking on and contributing to this forum, that this is an essential crux. Do you fall on the side of the inviolability of subjective preference, or do you insist on objective facts in making your audio choices? Or is there some middle ground here that I’m failing to see?

Let me explain why this seems to me a crux here. Subjective preferences are, finally, incontestable. If I prefer blue, and you prefer green, no one can say either of us is "right." This attitude is generous, humane, democratic—and pointless in the context of the evaluation of purchase alternatives. I can’t have a pain in your tooth, and I can’t hear music the way you do (nor, probably, do I share your taste). Since this forum exists, I presume, as a source of advice from knowledgable and experienced "audiophiles" that less "sophisticated" participants can supposedly benefit from, there must be some kind of "objective" (or at least intersubjective) standard to which informed opinions aspire. But what could possibly serve better as such an "objective standard" than measurements—which, and for good reasons, are widely derided as beside the point by the majority of contributors to this forum?

To put the question succinctly: How can you hope to persuade me of any particular claim to audiophilic excellence without appealing to some "objective" criteria that, because they claim to be "objective," are more than just a subjective preference? What, in short, is the point of reading all these posts if not to come to some sort of conclusion about how to improve one’s system?

128x128snilf

By the way, Descartes was not a skeptic, despite the game he plays with his "method of systematic doubt" in, for instance, the first Meditation.

Very important point...Because many sceptic debunking circles act like believers without even knowing that they are believers...

The doubt method is never itself subject to doubt by them , and instead of a suspension of belief, their doubt is only an expression of a belief in the non value of any belief...

Which is the opposite way Descartes use his doubt method and the opposite way Husserl in his Cartesian meditation use Descartes to reveal the deep intentionality of meaning itself...The Method of Husserl is called : epochè...

Each phenomenon is then perceived for a consciousness as a meaning not as a fact...

The usual sceptic reject the meaning with the associated fact which are believed rightfully or not to be wrong... They throw the baby with the muddy waters... An error Descartes and Husserl dont commit...

What cannot be rejected and what must be true is the meaning of meaning itself...An experience of the conscious intentionality itself...

What is interesting is the way Arthur Young depict the meaning of meaning in a pragmatic way to be an angle... The great thinker and scientist Charles Sanders Peirce, rejecting nominalism, will create a complete new field of science and philosophy called " semiotic" , where the meaning of meaning will be described as a sign... But Arthur Young is way simpler to understand than ALL writers i spoke about...

For Young all meaning is an angle, for Descartes all meaning is an "i am" moment, for Husserl all meaning is a consciouness act, for Anirban Bandyopadhyay all meaning is music, even time is music and for Alain Connes too numbers are music and not the reverse...

Now what is the relation between, meaning, sign , angle, numbers, music, time, and consciousness: in Anirban model all that is a system of nested clocks which express the way we synchronized ourself with all that exist... It is "a conscious machine", the living body in a conscious universe...

I will not go beyond here to speak about the soul... And about the way our soul is not reducible to the living body, no more than the cosmos is reducible to the physical unique universe we live in for the time being...

 

I can state with a fairly high degree of certainty that the stereo separation of my audiophile headphones is the width of my head.

You forgot to add the width of the room or the width of the headphones shell to your equation...Each one of our ear "think" by itself about the room in our brain so to speak...

In my world my room is a part of my brain, and not only my brain is in the room but the room is in my brain...

it is a nested meaningful world! and here the angle between all waves means a lot...

I can state with a fairly high degree of certainty that the stereo separation of my audiophile headphones is the width of my head.

 

« All angle is an hour so what! This is a mere watch»-Groucho Marx 🤓

To me the biggest problem with talks  from people like Arthur M Young is they begin their argument with assumptions. His first assumption is humans have a spirt, the second ESP exists. It's like discussing God with a priest, I might as well be discussing unicorns or Tea Pots orbiting Mars. 

I forgot to say that Whitehead rejection of the Cartesian bifurcation meet Cassirer deep symbolic forms concept coming from Goethean semiotic ( and not merely from Kant like many people erroneously think, because Cassirer meditated Goethe all his life and he used Goethe "dynamic seeing" of form to correct the self enclosed Kant so to speak)...

The meaning of meaning for Whitehead and Cassirer are symbolic forms what Goethe creating mammal and plant morphology called an archetypal phenomenon...

Goethe method in mammal morphology boogle the mind and is described in this 1,300 pages books with 1,500 figures..

Wolfgang Schad ...

http://www.adonispress.org/threefoldness.php

This morphological approach need a transformation of the observer itself, because the attention must be mobilized...

This phenomenology of the meaning of form and of the correlative form’s meaning is an antidote to a purely mechanical conception of molecular biology...

Anyway molecular biology is now discovered to be more like "music" than mechanistic...

Pure materialism is dead... But some dont have received the news...