I’m responding to the specifics of what you wrote to aid understanding of each other:
What's beyond the trap of (largely unconsciously) of committing to either objectivism or subjectivism and then accusing the other side of ill will?
This kind of conversation..
My personal take is to look at audio in terms of consumerism and desire, manipulated by ourselves and "the industry”. Please expand
I would welcome other takes however.
You are also welcome
I would be interested tapatrick how you think 'identity' escapes the trap.
Identity doesn’t escape the trap, but can be the trap. My understanding is that right relationship to identity/ies can lead to escape. Perspectives give rise to identities, I choose to see identification as non separate from that which is seen.
For clarity I understand identity as a fluid and ephemeral process depending on deeper motives conditioned by all kind of factors, whether examined or not..
Normally (and certainly in our modern 21st century context),
Okay I’ll take your definition of normally
'identity' falls squarely under subjectivism - who "I" am is my own:
Not if you make subject object
I am my own subject, my own will, my own value and authenticity and meaning, and in the case of audio my own ears and evaluation.
No, if that is assumed then everything else is down stream. But I will agree that my and mine is closer to I than you or anything else.
I suppose there is an objective 'identity' that would emphasize all the ways you are not your own: You are a human organism born from a long and very specific evolutionary path, on this particular third rock from the sun. You are small and limited, living a short and insignificant life that is largely determined by the conditions of your existence. Your will and self-determination is almost nothing as what it does influence and control does not add up to much. In audio, the mechanism of your hearing is already determined and limited (i.e. 20hz-20khz, brain perceptually limited, etc. etc.),
I would add that this is also a (profound) materialist perspective, a category with boundaries giving rise to everything that is not included
while you can try to refuse this "labeling" all you want,
I do not refuse this
it is reality and is what it is
It appears to be real and definitely is part of what is
and to claim to "see around the corner of it”
This was poetic licence - ‘it’ being self, which in my hierarchy of values is the subject/object most worthy of understanding due to it’s primacy
indulge in mysticism, delusion, or both.
This sounds full of what you know or believe which I don’t fully understand, so for the sake of this conversation will pass
Yes yes indeed, the issue is "a constellation of factors”
Yes and today I would add to this - as a dynamic kaleidoscope of shifting hierarchies
and when I think of 'identity' I think of what @tmtomh points to here:
Helps to understand your perspective. @tmtomh’s 1-5 points are helpful, illustrative, and make sense.
"But if we throw discernment out the window and make no distinction between the remotely possible, the plausible, and the probable - and in particular if we do so because we refuse to question ourselves by considering things like confirmation bias and poor auditory memory - then we are lost: we have no meaningful way of communicating with each other. “
Beautifully written, navigated and considered - I have selected this para which I take to be the main point he is making.
What is the difference between a good subjectivism that "sees around the corners" in a helpful way and a bad subjectivism that insists on hearing the "sound" of digital communication (such as ethernet to which the OP refers) and other such very (very very) implausible assertions?
One is good and one is bad by your definition