Why do some think "music" (not gear, trading, etc.) is the ultimate end?

Maybe I missed the point of your post as a rejoinder to the other thread,

@hilde45, but who said you can’t love gear for its own sake?

I appreciate the replies so far. I was hoping to understand why some feel justified in asserting the "the music" matters more than or to the exclusion of the gear or the process or putting a system together, improving it, etc. Many are pointing out there is a spectrum of related but quasi-independent values present in this hobby, and that many can be co-present. That sounds right to me. But again, I'm trying to learn what sounds right, and why, to others.

@jdane raised an interesting question about whether any love to design/build/tinker with gear or loves to improve their system by buying/trading without having a stronger interest in music? That's a really interesting question because it asks whether someone might admit that the music is either a lesser or even negligible value. Sacrilege! Who will step forth and commit sacrilege? Good question!

@denverfred makes the point that the way he listens is often assessing the quality of the sound (recording session, playback, and all that contributes). He listens "critically" to the "sound" as well as the musical meanings being conveyed. This reminds me of a story Steve Guttenberg says; growing up, he was fascinated by the sound of static on the radio, its modulations and movements. He often talks about the impact that music has on him, too, but his origin story as an audiophile is about his fascination with different sounds. To this day, he's interesting as a reviewer because he always approaches his reviews with both sound and music and gear in mind. He rarely tilts so hard toward one of those that the others are left out. He's open to each element being the "ultimate value" but he never insists which one is the final, ultimate value. 

@yyzsantabarbara said something really intriguing, "Listening to music is easy and fun. Only problem is I spend too much time posting like this while I listen to music instead of doing my actual work." My question here would be -- Why is that a problem? Is it better to listen to music without doing something else at the same time? Why?

@whart I didn't mean to make a rejoinder to the other post (which had a wide range of opinions within it), but there were comments there (and in other places) that seem to feel a strong need to reemphasize the message that "the music is *the* point" of this hobby. I'm interested in where that urge (to make music ‘ultimate’) comes from and it's the objective (I think) of @jdane's "test question" above to see who's willing to say that "the gear not the music is the main point." @skyscraper is willing to step up on this one, though! There are "equal parts" in the equation for him/her.

@mhe asserts that we enjoy music because it is valuable, not the other way around. We can swap the equation that way if desired. Music is valuable first, then people are moved by it and notice that they enjoy that. 

Still, some who love gear or the process of building a system may want to swap things around this way, too.  They like to be active rather than just sit in the sweet spot and listen. Building, tweaking, improving or changing the character of their system turns out to be a pretty powerful value-in-itself. If music was the only end, once the system was good enough to deliver music, they'd stop futzing. But the activity of making/remaking things is their true love, and music is the vehicle to that end. The journey is the destination. Plausible.

@hickamore points out the the two elements, music and gear are both necessary, yin/yang. Agreed. Imagine a system which can just "beam" music at a person and they hear it. No intervening amps, players, cables, etc. Just say, "Alexa, play 'Misty' for me" and the music is all around you. Would it be better to have that and eliminate all these discussions?

@nd1der Yes, this is what makes this hobby a spiral and not a circle. Now that I have better gear, I not only hear more, I want to hear more better quality music. And sometimes that is for "critical" listening (as Denverfred pointed out) and sometimes it's to push myself to hear more difficult meaningful music (as mhe pointed to in the "Love Supreme" example). Somehow, the topic of "which cable" or "which amp" leads to new music. That's pretty cool.

@redwoodaudio Makes a great point about "personalizing your system to your own taste and style." That's the interactive part of the hobby which I enjoy. Changes in gear can lead to new sensations and even new emotions provoked by those sensations. The gear becomes a way to investigate what I can potentially hear and experience. And of course music helps that along. ;-)

@whart -- exactly right, it does become very personal for the reasons you cite. I am trying to understand the urge some (not all!) feel to try to re-assert that "THE music is THE point." And by asking this question, it does put me outside my comfort zone (as you call it) because I'm relatively new to the hobby and it is full of people with a lot more knowledge and experience than I have. 

And I share your quest -- to better understand the musical experience. In part, this question is getting at that because I am finding that even though I've just put a system together, I'm still interested in discussing audio. When I buy a toaster, I'm just done with that part of it; bread goes in, toast comes out. Yet here I am, talking about audio equipment with others even though my system is now good enough to just be my music-toaster. What is it about the musical experience that keeps the gear/system involved? For some reason, those things cannot be disentangled as easily.

@kingr Makes perhaps the best case I've heard for equipment -- it launched him/her into new music (and new meanings, values). I've heard people say that about the first time they ate really good food, with really good ingredients.

For me it is simple. If I had to choose between hearing the music I love on a less than optimal system, vs having to listen to music that I dislike on a great system, I’d pick the former
every time.

We can agree to disagree on what "the point" is of the book. A few key passages point me toward my judgment. 

Pirsig: “A classical understanding sees the world primarily as underlying form itself. A romantic understanding sees it primarily in term of immediate appearance. If you were to show an engine or a mechanical drawing or electronic schematic to a romantic it is unlikely he would see much of interest in it. Is has no appeal because the reality he sees is its surface. Dull, complex lists of names, lines and numbers. Nothing interesting. But if you were to show the same blueprint of schematic or give the same description to a classical person he might look at it and then become fascinated by it because he sees that within the lines and shapes and symbols is a tremendous richness of underlying form.

The romantic mode is primarily inspirational, imaginative, creative, intuitive. Feelings rather than facts predominate. “Art” when it is opposed to “Science” is often romantic. It does not proceed by reason or by laws. It proceeds by feeling, intuition and esthetic conscience. […]

The classic mode, by contrast, proceeds by reason and by laws – which are themselves underlying forms of thought and behavior. […]

Although surface ugliness is often found in the classic mode of understanding it is not inherent in it. There is a classic esthetic which romantics often miss because of its subtlety. The classic style is straightforward, unadorned, unemotional, economical and carefully proportioned. Its purpose is not to inspire emotionally, but to bring order out of chaos and make the unknown known. It is not an esthetically free and natural style. It is esthetically restrained. Everything is under control. Its value is measured in terms of the skill with which this control is maintained.

To a romantic this classic mode often appears dull, awkward and ugly, like mechanical maintenance itself. Everything is in terms of pieces and parts and components and relationships. Nothing is figured out until it’s run through the computer a dozen times. Everything’s got to be measured and proved. Oppressive. Heavy. Endlessly grey. the death force.

Within the classic mode, however, the romantic has some appearances of his own. Frivolous, irrational, erratic, untrustworthy, interested primarily in pleasure-seeking. Shallow. Of no substance. Often a parasite who cannot of will not carry his own weight. A real drag on society. By now these battle lines should sound a little familiar.

This is the source of the trouble. Persons tend to think and feel exclusively in one mode or the other and in doing so tend to misunderstand and underestimate what the other mode is all about. But no one is willing to give up the truth as he sees it, and as far as I know, no one now living has any real reconciliation of these truths or modes. There is no paint at which these visions of reality are unified.

And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a classic culture and a romantic counterculture – two world growingly alienated and hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this way, a house divided against itself. No one wants it really – despite what his antagonists in the other dimension might think.”

Now, everyone is free to approach and enjoy this hobby any way that it suits him and judging this is pointless.