Well, well, now we see the recoil, don't we? Let's update our tabulation: "surreal", "irrational", "grotesque", etc. and now a demand for an apology on behalf (self-annointed)of all objectivists throughout all the world (and, assumably, throughout all time).
Why are you afraid of ideas?
If I say that a certain orientated mind hears deeper into the music, then, per se, I am being "insulting" to, well, an occupation? Is that what you are saying? How can you say that you believe that different minds hear to varying depths of "feeling", but then also say that one mind can't hear deeper than "an engineer"? This is a logical incongruency.
I ask you to tell me why you think that my ideas are "baseless", and you proceed to omit doing so, then demand that I "prove" my ideas through referring to what others say (demanding objective eveidence, symptomatically), and tie it all together with an emotional, politically correct demand for an apology on behalf of all "objectivists", including, assumably, all "engineers".
Are you a crusading for all "engineers" who have been harmed by ideas that say attachment to objective thinking is partial? Who has been harmed? The only minds "harmed" by ideas are those who believe that their ideas are who they are, and when confronting another idea, for their self to survive, must censure that opposing idea? Descartes, the father of empiric method, said, "I think therefore I am." This is incorrect. It is, "I am, therefore, I think, sometimes." You are not only your ideas. As such, an opposing idea does not threaten your survival.
OK, again, what, specifically, is "baseless" in the above theories? I'm still waiting.
I'm also confused by your statement that there is no difference in sound between one cable and another, but then you say that the "total experience" of music goes beyond sound. If the sound is the same from any given configuration of matter (an assumption that is entirely against the evidence of science), then how can one hear something different and, therefore, have a differing experience?
As far as objective proof for my ideas, alas, the "what is" wants YOU to conduct that experiment for yourself without looking to someone else to tell you what you are "hearing". The problem is that you do not want to let go of the scientific passifier that tells you that if you only believe what others say, then you will be safe in your mind of ideas. The "what is" wants you to go deeper though. But first you have to stop believing that you are a sum of your objectifying thoughts. And stop looking to the "we" you refer to to tell you the sum of potentiality that is waiting for you in the Music...
