The thing about objectivists is...


Listening is the essence and central activity of music appreciation. Listening is purely a result of the essential reality of subjectivity, and not that of any "objective reality" which is assumed to exist "out there." The human mind tends to rigidly cling to measurements, pedestrian concepts, and elaborate abstractions in attempt to simplify, subdivide, define, and categorize within the immensity of the realm of the experiential/subjective.

Over-reliance on concrete definitions and ideas serves to attach oneself to a sense of stability and security. The mind secretly hopes this will sufficiently ward off the uneasiness of feeling unsure, or off-balance, about one’s actual degree of comprehension regarding a given topic.

But what is it that is capable of registering sounds, recognition of patterns, recalling memory, and awareness? It’s pure subjectivity. It’s not the brain. That’s only an idea which is based on an entire system of definitions which define other definitions. The mind fortifies the boundaries of its interconnected structure by using circuitously self-reifying definitions.

Consider this: A description of a thing, proposed by the human mind, is only of that which a thing is not. A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.

What is it that is present in the pure silence during the instant just prior to sound waves propagating into the air space of the listening room? What is it which listens?

It’s subjective awareness, devoid of mental content. Your ideas aren’t listening, your experiential awareness is listening.

The more one thinks the same boring ideas one’s been thinking for years, the less one can listen. Subjectivity is the self-existent authority prior to the discernment of any quality, measured quantity, or the detection of that which we term "music". The deeper we can relax and sink into pure, silent subjectivity, the more deeply and purely we can listen and behold. Our subjective awareness becomes purer and less colored, our mind becomes more open and flexible, and experiential reality is seen to be the ever-present continuum which is of the greatest value of all.

128x128gladmo

A thing’s reality is not the same as its description.

Is that fundamental truth something you came up with subjectively?

If not, then how can you check that it’s true -- with a non-subjective source?

Hi @hilde45 , It’s an observation which is obvious. When observation can occur without the occlusion of rapid mental activities, some things are merely seen plainly. It can’t be explained in concepts because it is so extremely simple. As @nonoise mentioned, Alfred Korzybski also saw some aspect of this as plain and true when he said "the map is not the territory".

I like your commentary because it’s pointing right at the core purpose of the OP, which is twofold. Firstly, to signify that objectivity and subjectivity are two different paradigms entirely which do not traverse each other. And secondly, to talk about objectivity and the definitions contained within it as always being held within the greater context of subjectivity. Therefore, the only thing that has the capacity to give an objective description or conclusion its sense of realness is subjectivity itself. Therefore, there is no "non-subjective source".

I think I agree with this, but I’m going to have to read it a few more times.

Best embrace your inner Newtonian self. Far easier to live with and keep ahold of sanity.

Can someone please explain what the words “rhythm and pace” mean in the context of analyzing music/sound reproduction?