There are, say, two different categories: 1. who knows better and
2. who hears better.
If I would dear to say this, considering edgewear warning , I
would say ''don't mention the M...'' but I don't because of the
moderators.
The ''other category'' is more complex because there are more candidates for the title. As an democrat I would say : choose your own from the ''Aussie list'' in his thread ''hear my Cartridges''.
|
@noromance, As I assumed some hear better than the other.
But because I am accused to be racist I would be crazy to name
anyone in particular.
|
Dear lew, hearing and thinking are different mental activities.
So I think that you think but don't hear that I am acute.
|
''Truth by satisfaction''. This ''truth theory'' is ascribed to Tarski and
obviously ''constructed'' from quantification theory. One can ''see''
this theory also as ''predication''. The formula is : ''for all x Fx&Gx''.
As such this formula is suitable for objects descriptions but, alas,
not for relations.
In headshell case the question is ''which conditions need to be
satisfy?'' Is this an ''objective'' or ''subjective'' question?
Aka ''what satisfy Lew's condition does not necessary satisfy
Nandric conditions''. Well this questions ''ask'' for the reasons
by Lew and reasons by Nandric. I own more than 50 carts 20
of which are in regular use. In order to switch between them in
a ''reasonable time'' as many pre-adjusted carts in their own
headshells are needed. For those who are not members of
Rockefeller family the price become one of those conditions.
As suggested the number of used carts is also involved. This
means that Lew with his 3 carts can afford to buy ''exotic kinds''
while Nandric as former ''poor immigrant'' need to be pragmatic.
So the most of my headshells are those ''Jelco'' kinds which
one can buy under different names and prices despite the fact
that they are ''identical''. Regarding ''rigidity'' they are made from
magnesium , have rectangular form, azimuth possibility and
included wire. To put this otherwise; this object satisfy all the
needed conditions for easy adjustment. However for my favourite
samples I bought 4 ''exclusive kinds'' . As a kind of present for
them.
|
@noromance , I am sorry but I was obviously not sufficient explicit .
Those 4 are my darlings and that is way they got presents.
As your name suggest you are not romantic so you are difficult to
satisfy with arguments involving passion.
|
Dear Lew, Does your son or Japanese government pay for your
travel to and from Japan?
|
@noromance , Also thanks for your sportsmanship. I expected
accusation of discrimination of not romantic kind of peoples.
|
Dear Lew, My worry was that 30% discount for the headshells you
bought in Japan would not cover the ''other costs'' . That is why
I assumed that either your son or Japanese government paid the
''other costs''.
|
Dear noromance, Deed you forget ''nature versus nurture''?
To put this otherwise is music not cultural determined. I ever
mentioned Chinese opera as example. I can't imagine anyone
from the West who likes those operas. We in the West have an
enorme cultural riches of music. Can you imagine any education
by us without music?
|
Addition, ''degustibus non est disputandum''. That is the point.
Value statements are not ''truth-functional''. This means they
are not ''true or false''. The truth criterions does not apply to
them. But despite of your , say, title, you try to find some scientific
base for your opinion.
|
Either the extralinguistic objects have ''inherent'' properties
or properties are ascribed to them by humans. Say ''a sheep is an useful animal because we like its meat''. To the sheep however
it may look strange to be ''useful'' because humans like its
meat.
From the fact that different persons value the involved ''materials'' different one can conclude that some ''contradictions'' are involved.
It is obviously not about ''inherent'' properties of the materials
because those can't contradict each other. As far as we know the
external objects don't have language capabilities and consequently
can't contradict each other.
|
@noromance , I can only react on what you write not on what you
think. You quoted this Roman phrase ''de gustibus non est disputandum''
but added ''not really''. What does ''not really''
mean. Not true? I asked about ''nature -nurture'' question but
you avoided the issue. To me your fixation is on ''nature'' with
scientific inclination. But music is ''social thing'' inscrutable
otherwise. I mentioned Chines opera in this context. Then we
all (?) know that, say, Japanese prefer other geir than we in the
West do. Japanese them self make other cartridges for their own
market than for the ''West market''. Those differences can't be
explained with ''nature'' but only with ''nurture''.
BTW ''better than...'' imply comparisons or ''relational sentences''
which imply valuation statements which are involved in this
Roman phrase.
|
''Not really'' means.. ''What do you mean'' ? ''This make no sense'',
etc. are obviously about ''meaning''. Not about ''truth or falsity''.
We need to first understand statement made to be able to react.
There was in the past so called ''theory of meaning'' next to
''theory of reference'' or ''referential theory'' which won the contest.
Aka ''ýour physical theory of truth'' . But Frege's work ''About
Sense and Reference'' included obviously both and is still the
most important work in phylosophy of language. We agreed on
the fact (?) that ''value statements'' are not ''thruth functionall'' .
Aka the question of ''truth and falsity'' don't apply to them.
This is also implicit in the quoted Roman saying. However logic
apply to all kinds of sentences because contradictory sentences,
say, ''make no sense'' in the sense of consistency. We can't grasp
what is ''really meant'' by contradictory statements. That is why
people ask ''what do you (really) mean''. With your
''physical approach'' you can't answer such questions. There are different and contradictory statement made about the same
physical object ; the headshell in casu. Well the question
than is how the same object can ''have'' and ''not have'' the
same proporties?
BTW this is the usual outcome in our discussions so it is not
clear why you participate in them?
,
|
Dear noromance, Whom are you addressing? To put this
otherwise how many members in our forum you think have
ever heard about Schrodinger? You should join some scientific
forum instead of ''hobby forum'' like A'gon.
BTW all societies have their own ''social rules'' by which or in
the context of which ''values'' make sense. That is to say for
the members of the same society. Those rules have nothing in
common with your physics.
|
