|
Post by pedrocols on Sept 29, 2020 13:39:34 GMT -5
re: perceptions and truth. I come from the Erving Goffman school of framed reality. We all perceive reality differently based on our personal frames of reference, which are shaped by our lifetimes of experiences, education, beliefs and attitudes. No two sets of frames are ever the same, therefor there is no one "Truth." There is only perception. And when that perception which I like to call reality is shattered it creates a very very very uncomfortable feeling.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 13:48:19 GMT -5
re: perceptions and truth. I come from the Erving Goffman school of framed reality. We all perceive reality differently based on our personal frames of reference, which are shaped by our lifetimes of experiences, education, beliefs and attitudes. No two sets of frames are ever the same, therefor there is no one "Truth." There is only perception. And when that perception which I like to call reality is shattered it creates a very very very uncomfortable feeling. Ha, love your response Pedrocols. I once listened to a debate in person between two men from varying schools of thought. The specific topic of the debate "There is no truth" in a broader context of ultimate reality. Both men debated the topic out civilly for well over an hour. At the end of the debate the audience was to vote for the winner. But before the vote was counted, both men were allowed a moment to make a final statement. I'll always remember the final statement of the advocate for truth. He simply asked the question, why vote if you do not believe one is closer to the truth than the other? Anyhoot, who or what is the standard bearer for truth will always be right in our defense. For example, are the speakers the reference in replication? Or is the actual stringed violin the reference? Many varying speakers tell their tale. Some of us buy into them and some of us don't. Enjoy
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 14:01:27 GMT -5
When groups of people agree about their perceptions, this forms their shared truth. This has been the basis for societies, religions, groups and clubs since the beginning of time; it is also often the basis for conflict when one fails to accept that their truth is only theirs and does not need to be shared by others. Audiophiles simply fall into a group sharing certain perceptions, and many other truths which we love to argue about.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 14:02:18 GMT -5
re: perceptions and truth. I come from the Erving Goffman school of framed reality. We all perceive reality differently based on our personal frames of reference, which are shaped by our lifetimes of experiences, education, beliefs and attitudes. No two sets of frames are ever the same, therefor there is no one "Truth." There is only perception. And when that perception which I like to call reality is shattered it creates a very very very uncomfortable feeling. EVEERYONE needs to feel and accept - indeed to seek out - such discomfort. Without it, learning cannot occur.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 14:19:41 GMT -5
For example, are the speakers the reference in replication? Or is the actual stringed violin the reference? Many varying speakers tell their tale. Some of us buy into them and some of us don't. Enjoy In audio there are many references. For the performer, it is the sound in their head and their interpretation of the music expressed through their personal ability to express themselves and their technical capability. For the recording engineer, it is their concept of what the instrument/band is supposed to sound like. For the Mastering engineer, it is what works best for the medium being utilized. For the electronics designers, it is faithful reproduction of the signal - or maybe it's not, maybe it's how they choose to express their creativity by coloring the signal in specific ways or the economic restrictions of the material and components they must use. For the home user, it's the compromises they have accepted in the equipment and listening space they create. It's their expectation bias of what that equipment should sound like, and their expectation bias of what the music should sound like. Acoustically, its the technical capability of the equipment to reproduce as much of the signal as will pass through the system, it's the distortion inherent to the system, it's how much of the sound wave can be generated in the air, and then the reverberations, absorptions and reflections of the room, and eventually to the listener's ears. And then once the sound wave gets to your ears things get complicated. There is no truth - it is all relative to the intent, expectation and capability of everything and everyone involved in the chain.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Sept 29, 2020 14:31:04 GMT -5
For example, are the speakers the reference in replication? Or is the actual stringed violin the reference? Many varying speakers tell their tale. Some of us buy into them and some of us don't. Enjoy In audio there are many references. For the performer, it is the sound in their head and their interpretation of the music expressed through their personal ability to express themselves and their technical capability. For the recording engineer, it is their concept of what the instrument/band is supposed to sound like. For the Mastering engineer, it is what works best for the medium being utilized. For the electronics designers, it is faithful reproduction of the signal - or maybe it's not, maybe it's how they choose to express their creativity by coloring the signal in specific ways or the economic restrictions of the material and components they must use. For the home user, it's the compromises they have accepted in the equipment and listening space they create. It's their expectation bias of what that equipment should sound like, and their expectation bias of what the music should sound like. Acoustically, its the technical capability of the equipment to reproduce as much of the signal as will pass through the system, it's the distortion inherent to the system, it's how much of the sound wave can be generated in the air, and then the reverberations, absorptions and reflections of the room, and eventually to the listener's ears. And then once the sound wave gets to your ears things get complicated. There is no truth - it is all relative to the intent, expectation and capability of everything and everyone involved in the chain. i.e., if you like what you're hearing, that's what counts!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 14:44:50 GMT -5
For example, are the speakers the reference in replication? Or is the actual stringed violin the reference? Many varying speakers tell their tale. Some of us buy into them and some of us don't. Enjoy In audio there are many references. For the performer, it is the sound in their head and their interpretation of the music expressed through their personal ability to express themselves and their technical capability. For the recording engineer, it is their concept of what the instrument/band is supposed to sound like. For the Mastering engineer, it is what works best for the medium being utilized. For the electronics designers, it is faithful reproduction of the signal - or maybe it's not, maybe it's how they choose to express their creativity by coloring the signal in specific ways or the economic restrictions of the material and components they must use. For the home user, it's the compromises they have accepted in the equipment and listening space they create. It's their expectation bias of what that equipment should sound like, and their expectation bias of what the music should sound like. Acoustically, its the technical capability of the equipment to reproduce as much of the signal as will pass through the system, it's the distortion inherent to the system, it's how much of the sound wave can be generated in the air, and then the reverberations, absorptions and reflections of the room, and eventually to the listener's ears. And then once the sound wave gets to your ears things get complicated. There is no truth - it is all relative to the intent, expectation and capability of everything and everyone involved in the chain. I agree with your overall assessment brother as in an audiophile enthusiast and seeker of truth. To share my perspective note how many included in your observation are maligning, twisting, and distorting the truth. I'm going to back you in your observation from the perspective of relativism. As a hater of millennial music in the pop culture as synthesizers neutralized the lack of talent in vocalist. Mind you Einstein was appalled when learning his theory of relativity was being used in philosophy as relativism to combat religious moral absolutes. I'm not an advocate for religion as the central focus is human behavior rather than God centrism in the study of theology. You point out the framework of reality which I think pertinent to this discussion, whether or not the principles and methods used in interpretation are established and agreed upon. Without agreeing on principles and methods in any area of interpretation there's little fruitfulness in debating as such verbal engagement becomes nothing more than arguing. Without leaves us blind as the object of truth isn't seen clearly. The objective of debate is never to win against an opponent but to bring everyone involved closer to the truth. People tend to have a tendency to entrench or dig heels in to defend their own reality which may be at times delusional rather than having a false reality shattered in the process of moving from one perspective to another offering a more clearer line of sight of the truth. Not all hermenutical lenses are created equal. Why do some not clearly convey the violinist? Does the recording, mastering, or electronics engineer have another intent and agenda rather than clearly conveying the truth while working for the record label or individual musician? That is, if truth may be defined as who is or what is in the area of music?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 14:55:39 GMT -5
re: people digging in their heels and insisting on absolutism. In my not humble opinion, that is the root of all evil. So to speak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 15:01:10 GMT -5
re: people digging in their heels and insisting on absolutism. In my not humble opinion, that is the root of all evil. So to speak. I'm going to have to check your grammar in that. Either an absolute is or isn't. If you believe your statement, is your statement an absolute truth or nothing more than an opposing opinion? Mind you, an absolute truth doesn't depend on whether we agree or disagree. I'm very much enjoying our discussion!
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 29, 2020 15:17:28 GMT -5
re: people digging in their heels and insisting on absolutism. In my not humble opinion, that is the root of all evil. So to speak. I'm going to have to check your grammar in that. Either an absolute is or isn't. If you believe your statement, is your statement an absolute truth or nothing more than an opposing opinion? Mind you, an absolute truth doesn't depend on whether we agree or disagree. I'm very much enjoying our discussion! The problem is people speaking in absolutes when the truth is not actually an absolute. They just think it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 15:23:24 GMT -5
I'm going to have to check your grammar in that. Either an absolute is or isn't. If you believe your statement, is your statement an absolute truth or nothing more than an opposing opinion? Mind you, an absolute truth doesn't depend on whether we agree or disagree. I'm very much enjoying our discussion! The problem is people speaking in absolutes when the truth is not actually an absolute. They just think it is. Is thievery an absolute wrong? If you do not believe it is then please provide your address as I might steal your equipment And, I agree with you Garbulky, in that man is a fallible creature and source of truth.
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 15:38:50 GMT -5
re: people digging in their heels and insisting on absolutism. In my not humble opinion, that is the root of all evil. So to speak. I'm going to have to check your grammar in that. Either an absolute is or isn't. If you believe your statement, is your statement an absolute truth or nothing more than an opposing opinion? Mind you, an absolute truth doesn't depend on whether we agree or disagree. I'm very much enjoying our discussion! There is no truth, it's my perception. As I've been saying. And yours is yours.
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Sept 29, 2020 15:39:38 GMT -5
The problem is people speaking in absolutes when the truth is not actually an absolute. They just think it is. Is thievery an absolute wrong? If you do not believe it is then please provide your address as I might steal your equipment And, I agree with you Garbulky, in that man is a fallible creature and source of truth. Yeah so thievery is a good example. It is not an absolute wrong. Morality by itself is not an absolute. Sure if we got robbed, we would consider it "wrong" but it is not an absolute wrong. We would just be convinced it was wrong. It's a relative or subjective wrong. To say something is morally right or wrong has to first establish that morals are a real and validly defined thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 15:44:10 GMT -5
I'm going to have to check your grammar in that. Either an absolute is or isn't. If you believe your statement, is your statement an absolute truth or nothing more than an opposing opinion? Mind you, an absolute truth doesn't depend on whether we agree or disagree. I'm very much enjoying our discussion! There is no truth, it's my perception. As I've been saying. And yours is yours. Another absolute statement!
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 16:07:41 GMT -5
There is no truth, it's my perception. As I've been saying. And yours is yours. Another absolute statement! If you choose to perceive it that way, either consciously after consideration or unconsciously because of your personal frames.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 16:17:12 GMT -5
Is thievery an absolute wrong? If you do not believe it is then please provide your address as I might steal your equipment And, I agree with you Garbulky, in that man is a fallible creature and source of truth. Yeah so thievery is a good example. It is not an absolute wrong. Morality by itself is not an absolute. Sure if we got robbed, we would consider it "wrong" but it is not an absolute wrong. We would just be convinced it was wrong. It's a relative or subjective wrong. To say something is morally right or wrong has to first establish that morals are a real and validly defined thing. This goes into the topic of ethics and morality and I'm having a difficult time now in pulling the discussion back to the OP. I'll ask and state a few thoughts then withdrawl. Convinced stealing is or is not wrong by who or what standard? Is something not wrong when it suits my purposes? Is something right or wrong based on my own personal conscience objection or approval? Amazing to me that every 'thing' 'has a nature. In the observable universe everything operates according to certain laws from the smallest particle to the grandest galaxy. Yet, man deceives himself believing he's not bound to his very own nature in thinking, action, or deed. I just find that fascinating. On the topic of "conviction" of what is wrong or right in order to change a man's conviction one must first change what a man believes. Define "thing"? Premise: If the standard bearer of morality doesn't exist, then morality doesn't exists. The standard bearer exists [Axiom]. Therefore, morality exists. Of course who or what is the standard bearer for morality is the question. As to why one would deny a higher standard bearer I can only suggest such persons examine themselves as to whether such denial intentionally avoids accountability and responsibility for themselves. Having said that I'll end my part on this particular topic so as to not frustrate the mods. Enjoy
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 17:15:58 GMT -5
And oh by the way, I guess I should go read Boom's review.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 29, 2020 17:30:51 GMT -5
And oh by the way, I guess I should go read Boom's review. Why bother if there is no truth? For false reviews you can trust?
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,340
|
Post by DYohn on Sept 29, 2020 18:42:12 GMT -5
And oh by the way, I guess I should go read Boom's review. Why bother if there is no truth? For false reviews you can trust? Why are you so hung up on truth? I am interested in his opinion.
|
|
|
Post by gus4emo on Sept 29, 2020 19:54:33 GMT -5
In audio there are many references. For the performer, it is the sound in their head and their interpretation of the music expressed through their personal ability to express themselves and their technical capability. For the recording engineer, it is their concept of what the instrument/band is supposed to sound like. For the Mastering engineer, it is what works best for the medium being utilized. For the electronics designers, it is faithful reproduction of the signal - or maybe it's not, maybe it's how they choose to express their creativity by coloring the signal in specific ways or the economic restrictions of the material and components they must use. For the home user, it's the compromises they have accepted in the equipment and listening space they create. It's their expectation bias of what that equipment should sound like, and their expectation bias of what the music should sound like. Acoustically, its the technical capability of the equipment to reproduce as much of the signal as will pass through the system, it's the distortion inherent to the system, it's how much of the sound wave can be generated in the air, and then the reverberations, absorptions and reflections of the room, and eventually to the listener's ears. And then once the sound wave gets to your ears things get complicated. There is no truth - it is all relative to the intent, expectation and capability of everything and everyone involved in the chain. i.e., if you like what you're hearing, that's what counts! It's like the old saying, beauty is in the eye of the beholder....let me ask, has anyone thought that someone (or maybe most people) don't actually hear the frequency that we are supposed to hear, hence, the difference in opinion, just a thought....
|
|