Viggen, I think we would, at this point, have to talk in person to carry out this conversation; the connection is breaking down because it would take too long in this medium to define what you mean by "metaphysical" vs "physical" vs. "super-real", "surrealist", "sight-seeing", etc.
I stand by my view of Kant, however; outlining a space/time interpretive matrix in the mind is the essense of a discourse on the subject-mind, or subject-ivity, regardless of its ultimate failure in displacing Hume and the progeny of British empiricism in Western culture.
Again, I don't know what you mean by "synthetic" structures in the mind. We, Homo sapiens, possess a space/time matice in our mind because life emerged into a reality of space/time dimension (or, more accurately, Newtonian reality is suseptible to a space/time embeddedness by a mind and our forebears adapted to that potentiality in reality, if you can follow that). This existential-orientating matrice is inherent in all minds, human and non-human. As such, I don't know how one could characterize it as "synthetic" in any way (unless you are saying that it is self-created delusion...but this is unclear. I haven't heard of anyone displacing Kantian space/time theory this century, but you never know...).
As for space/time reality projected by a stereo being "semantic[ally]", I don't know how that stereo recreation, in terms of the mind's subjective experience, is related to the construction of language.
On the breadmaker analogy, this is exactly what I've been talking about, namely, the assumption by objectivists that a subjectivist mind that creates a stereo from perspective of catalyzing the fading of objective thinking is delusional per se (assumably, you mean one who adopts this perspective exhibits dream-like irrationality by using the term "surrealist" [which, actually, is a school of aesthetics, i.e. Tanguy, Dali, etc. so, again, we are having trouble defining our terms to each other]). A mind that compares one experience to the next IS conducting an empiric experiment, the only difference being that the listening experiment can only be confirmed to himself. This does not imply delusion (or, fraud, as your King's clothes analogy implies). As for believing that a stereo piece comes before the mind's desire for the beauty of music - a position that claims that the intent to create a "technological" instrument is subsequent to the creation of technolgy - well, without the mind no piece of technology would exist. That I would think even a mind attached to the technology would have difficulty denying.
Anyway, we have tried people's patience enough (I can hear the rumble of the townpeople rising over the hill, pitchforks in hand. The what-cable-for-Kant comment has a point, and I LIKED IT!). Thank you for the FUN. At this point, we will have to agree to disagree. If you want to carry this farther, please feel free to contact me. Mark.
