christopher3393

  • Content count

    2,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About christopher3393

  • Rank
    Senior Monk

Recent Profile Visitors

8,638 profile views
  1. Virðulegu Forsetar Jóhann Jóhannsson http://www.allmusic.com/album/virðulegu-forsetar-mw0000380041
  2. Yesterday's alchemy is today's transhumanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism Alchemy was "alive and well" in the mid-twentieth century in the form of psychologist Carl Jung's Mysterium Coniunctionis, subtitled An Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy. I wonder if it could be applied to the "objective/subjective", coincidentia oppositorum? Maybe we need a Jungian therapist as a consultant?
  3. I can tell you that I wouldn't make those claims unless I qualified them as soft, subjective responses. Not even sure I would call them claims. And I don't think anyone should suggest that these claims are "definitive". But how many do? Moreover, what are the consequences for someone who has made an overly strong claim is not prepared to test unsighted? It is not against policy here. I see no published guideline here that suggests this should be done. I do think that person should be prepared to be challenged civilly, or ignored. But not to be ridiculed.
  4. You don't have to pass it on. You are trying to obstruct that message in fear that someone else will pass it on. How's that worked so far?
  5. firedog, not my intent to negate the value of blind testing, or the fact that the ear/brain system can be fooled (Isn't this less the case for trained listeners?). By going too far, I meant to take the caution about the ear/brain system so far as to negate the value of human listening, including the implication that average everyday listening and aesthetic appreciation are either radically subjective (to the point of near solipsism) or worse. To imply that there is something wrong with the listener? Perhaps the listener should be subject to a retraining program? Perhaps we can find psychological deficiencies as to why someone really dislikes the sound of a piece of gear (for me it was the Auralic Vega) that tests really well? Testing, including both measurement and blind testing, is not yet at the state that can guarantee preferences in sound quality. This combined testing is a growing, promising approach that has already yielded some fine results. But even Sean Olive has to exercise some caution in his claims, and woud recognize that nothing near adequate testing has been done yet. So I think Sal's sharp edge includes hypoerbole and overclaiming. Which is human, especially when someone feels passionate about something. But that passionate, rhetorical subjectivity often undermines the very objective message that one is trying to communicate. I find sharp edges fatiguing.
  6. I wouldn't argue that knuckle-headed responses don't happen here or that people aren't inconsistent in their willingness to follow advice. I just wouldn't generalize from that about "subjectivists" and their perceived inability to be rational, ie, to follow logic, to engage an argument consistently, to enter into meaningful discourse ---dialogue, discussion, conversation, dialectic, debate, terms which can be filled out and distinguished at least to some extent. But people seem to have very different notions of what these things are, and there are no ground rules that address how to discuss here. So we are not even on the same page regarding what it means to post in a thread, and what good practice is. This is a formula for the chaos that we experience. Sometimes I'm amazed that anything useful comes out of it. It happens almost in spite of itself.
  7. Isn't that tantamount to saying "You are delusional", but with a smirk adding "I'm glad you are enjoying your delusions?" Aren't you also the person that claimed that if someone doesn't care for the sound of a system that tests accurate, that there is something wrong with the listener? I think your statements are hyperbolic and really tend toward inolerance of our human differences in aesthetic perception and judgement.
  8. One precondition is that one must trust the source of the advice, must value the opinion. This process is not entirely objective. Sometimes it is far from objective and depends in part how you are treated by the person who is offering the advice and'or your perception of how that person treats others.
  9. Fordlandia Jóhann Jóhannsson http://www.allmusic.com/album/fordlandia-mw0000800536
  10. Well, I don;t want to painfully belabor this, but you are confrontational with others so often, that I think it is good for you to face what you might only have a surface understanding of. And debate is not what happens when dialectic fails. Debate can be dialectic. I could go on for hours: dialectic has been understood and continues to be understood in a number of ways. I'm suggesting that you do not have a methodical approach to discussion here. Your approach is not objective. Neither are you simply open to the play of conversation as it unfolds, which implies willingness to honestly and humbley risk your position in the face of the the claims of the other, to give them the most charitable reading possible, and to consider their meaning on the terms (often not scientific) of your interlocutor BEFORE you go on the habitual attack. There is a mutuality in genuine dialectic.
  11. OK. Can you explain what dialectic and debate are and what distinction you are making between them and where you acquired this understanding? (Hint: you are on thin ice.) Otherwise, please use language you are comfortable with to explain what you mean. Am I being a bit devilish. You bet.
  12. Do you prefer it to all other means of human knowledge? Do you think it is superior and should be the guiding light to all other fields of knowledge? This is what I understand to be generally intended by scientism. It is my opinion that this generally leads to intolerance of other approaches. I think we see some of that here at times. Never quite sure. And of course we see a cornicopia of intolerance from a number of perspectives at times. As to fondness, you do fucking love science don't you, whereas I tend to hate fucking science. Working on it.
  13. plissken, no insight into your method to offer? I would think that you especially, who protests so much when members don't respond to your challenges, would at least reply. I'm becoming skeptical. Are you bluffing? Is your approach to posting actually more scatter-gun, reactive, selective, i.e., subjective? I think we could all live with a confession to honey-badger dialectic.