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.
@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. |
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 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. |
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, |
