How much money do you want to waste?

Now that's FUNNY!! More of that, at least part of it...

Inductance, etc. is "good", just not ONLY inductance. jlambric makes a good inquiry, simply a partial one. His statement, however, that he has little subjective experience, yet,nonetheless,remains fully capable of saying that there should be no differences based on objective criteria (read: scientific)is illustrative of just what I've been talking about; namely, the position that believes objective criteria are exclusionary and dispositive regardless of other types of "perceptive evidence". Moreover, Clueless, your reaction, cloaked (well) in humor, argues my position: if anyone ever says that a scientific/objective inquiry of music is partial, or of anything else, then the objectivists MUST characterize that position as saying that no science is allowed - which, of course, is a mis-characterization. The mystery is why you would say that a discussion on the partiality of scientific inquiry necessarily implies a rejection of scientific inquiry. Why is a discussion of the limitations of science an "attack" upon science? But, like I said, its not much of a mystery. An objectivist can not examine his own premises and asumptions because that would mean he might have to experience something beyond them (see discussion above).

If you are going to characterize something as sophistry, though, it might be best to come out from behind humor when you do it. It's another one of those thorny authenticity/mis-characterization issues. But, it WAS funny, so I guess that makes it OK...

Asa, somehow I didn't receive your emails. I emailed you, so just reply to that.

In regards to your previous post, I have to admit I am overwhelmed. I do not know how to respond to it. I have a hard time differentiating the main points and supporting arguements. Using smaller paragraphs with topic sentences would help especially with this subject matter (emotive language) that I am not familiar with. Also, I have hard finding relavancy and purpose for this semantic exploration of semantic language. Forgive me for my inability to further this post, but I am still on the ground floor.

However, you say that it is pretty much inherent that we use visually oriented language when describing audio experiences at first and we develop emotive imagery as we continue to listen and forgo our objectivity. This is not a false statement, yet I can't totally agree with you. It happens and it doesn't happen depending on the mood and expriences of the listener on an individual basis. To assume the "force" is pervasive in every situation will fall under the fallacy of all conclusive.

Clueless, I take offense that you describe these posts and ad homs and sophistry. Furthermore, Jl is merely expressing his own experience as an engineer. His inputs are completely valid. He expressed an arguement and showed his qualifications. You can't ask for anything more. Oh, talking about ad hom, I can't resist: "You sure live up to your name". = D

Good gosh amighty!! It just refuses to die!! Alright, alright, I give up - I solemnly swear I will never call for a geekfest to end ever again! And to prove it, I submit the following thought:

Sticking with the example of cables, I have never understood why the "objectivist" position is self-represented as being inconsistent with the notion that there could be audible differences between even competently designed and manufactured wires. Why couldn't, and indeed why wouldn't, there be? After all, different cables are physically just that - different. On the level of a thought experiment, where the "objectivists" seem to enjoy operating, there should be no argument that any change, however small, in the physical configuration and composition of any part of the entire circuit (including wires, of course) and its environment will effect some corresponding change, again however small, upon the electrical properties of that circuit. Objectively this will even be true of, for instance, multiple examples of the very same piece of gear, for no two individual things will ever be totally identical to each other, or occupy identical positions within the universe. Therefore, objectively speaking, any change to any part of any stereo system and the environment it operates within will produce some change on the signal it passes, period. Whether that change can be perceived by a person, whether by measurement or by hearing, is a separate question, and one that immediately begins to bring subjective criteria into the equation. But when it comes to something like cables, it seems to me that the "objectivist's" theoretical position can only be, "Differently configured and composed wires will always pass a given signal differently than one another, and it is possible that where a difference exists, it might be heard." So where's the problem?

Praise Allah! Zaikesman is back in the pound around and is even getting philosophical ~! In honor of his return I have decided to dig deep and award the 200th poster 50ft of 14 gauge Zip Wire (Just enough to hang yourself and if your #200 won't you need it?) and my autographed picture of John Dunlavy.

Ain't Life Great!

You're right, Zaikesman, there is no problem. Matter is configured in infinite variabilty and, sometimes, objective means - or rearranged pieces of matter, or, "technology" - that we create is capable of detecting a difference, which, if we are bright enough, we can correctly pattern and anticipate change, which leads to our varied action in creating our next piece of rearranged matter, er, a stereo piece. Scientific inquiry is valid within its purview - the examination of matter - but the stereo listening experience, and the "evidence" that this mind collects is presently beyond our objective contraptions to discern in toto. When a machine can replicate the human mind's emotive response, and our being's existential response (and, some would argue, our essense's experience of ineffability), and then take that experience and create another piece of rearranged matter that catalyzes that experience, then I suppose we won't have to talk about the subjective mind any longer. However, until the Age of Valhalla for objectivists arrives, the mind remains primary to the objectivist experience that, itself, originates from that same mind.

Your use of radical objectivism to expose an objectivist's own bias is interesting, though. I try to stay away from using either radical objectivist (all matter is relative) and radical subjectivism (all opinion is equal) because it undermines any claims of meaning. Interestingly ploy, though.