Article: Guest Editorial: Why did audio stop being about audio?

[Iving]

8 hours ago, wgscott said:

 

This is a fundamental asymmetry that I think leads to many of the conflicts we see here.  Taken to the logical extreme, a subjective viewpoint is inherently a statement about its proponents, so any critique of the viewpoint becomes very difficult to separate from a personal attack, from the subjectivist's point of view. 

 

Nice - but (i) the asymmetry is broader than that; and, (ii) this remark could be taken to implicate snowflake sensitivity on the part of the subjectivist!

 

(i) The whole point of empiricism (the objectivist's foundation) - its main virtue - is that it allows agreement based on measurable phenomena. The empirical approach quite deliberately avoids the subjective. Philosophically speaking, the subjective cannot be resolved finally by the empiricist - and the sensible empiricist understands that. This is not to say that subjective phenomena cannot be explained by good science; however, empiricists can never fully contradict subjective experience armed only with empirical data - and shouldn't be terribly concerned to try. I'm sorry if you don't like it - but someone who believes s(he) is Julius Caesar is, irrefutably, Julius Caesar. I have stupidly brandished a hook - and you may or may not care to render me ridiculous. But I have made the point all the same. You may be convinced that I am not hearing what I am hearing - but you would be wrong. And even if you are satisfied to consider me mad - you could be wrong about that too. On the other hand, the subjectivist could join the empirical venture usefully as long as the subjectivist recognised the rules and limitations of the empirical approach (any given empirical paradigm doesn't tell the whole story unless it demonstrably does so). Thus - the asymmetry is one of pointlessness if not arrogance.

 

(ii) a. My limited forum experience doesn't compel me to find objectivists any less personally sensitive (or egotistical) than subjectivists.

 

(ii) b. Call me a rationalist or anything else you like. I shan't care.

 

For my own part - any worthwhile "truth" lies somewhere between the objective and the subjective and may be arrived at through both empirical and rational (even revelatory) routes. A collegiate (and preferably friendly) approach amongst us could get us somewhere useful (higher-octane musical thrills for all, say). War for its own sake (being right as an individual combined with an unfathomable willingness to escalate the cause) is (meaningless and) a lose-lose game (I can look outside my window to see the carnage). "Live and let live" (I can look to myself - all of us can do it) is a better fitting mantra for our age.

[Iving]

7 hours ago, Graham Luke said:

OR....you can just NOT read the offensive and opinionated garbage in the first place.

This argument reminds me of people who LIVE on social media and then whine and cry when someone writes something nasty about them.

For f**** sake...

 

But we are all reading the garbage 'cos it's better than watching TV.

[Iving]

7 hours ago, plissken said:

 

Can't win for losing here folks.

 

 

The videos you posted on the Cisco thread were appreciated deeply by me.

[Iving]

5 hours ago, esldude said:

Customers being satisfied with a product that does something as ephemeral as the Ethergen aren't credible.  

 

They are to themselves (and consistently so unless they are dirty fickle rats).

[Iving]

10 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

 

If there is real desire on the part of some to move beyond good and evil, subjective vs objective, and to see the hobby, "civility", etc. with fresh eyes, then pay attention to what Samuel is saying here.  Starting with yourself as consumer, and then looking at the hobby as consumeristic, might be the mental wedge you need...

 

Talk about patronising ...

[Iving]

4 minutes ago, tapatrick said:

Sounds great I think I'll head over there. Why is it so different on astronomy forums? less room for 'subjectivity'.. ?

 

less room for being right about anything (no matter who you are) ... it's a big old universe out there ...

[Iving]

On Topic interest?

https://www.dannybrown.me/2014/01/07/social-media-bullying-and-the-growing-lynch-mob-mentality/

 

[Iving]

2 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Danny posted here right after Lavorgna was banned.  Danny was firmly in the "Lavorgna was unjustly banned" camp.

 

Sorry - I don't know that history.

[Iving]

5 minutes ago, wgscott said:

@The Computer Audiophile

 

Any chance we might be able to have a guest editorial from the opposite point of view?

 

Leaving aside insistence on opposition - you really think discussing Heads means more than discussing Tails?

 

More pain?

 

No thanks

 

It *was* better than TV - but now 20 pages later it isn't.

[Iving]

3 minutes ago, wgscott said:

 

Why would you rather suppress a differing point of view, rather than simply skip over it if you are not interested?

 

Just because the church's Canon is all you wish to read doesn't mean that this is true for everyone else.

 

What nonsense

[Iving]

qed this thread is more psychological warfare than reasonable discussion

carry on with my many blessings