ADSR is an anacronym for Attack, Decay, Sustain,Release. ASDR is the usual envelope protocol for synthetic sound manipulation. Synthesizers run off of a sound generating oscillator, The signal or tone of which is punctuated or instigated and perpetuated by the press of a key or a pad. The envelope that defines how quickly this sound reaches full volume after the key is pressed and how long it will take the tone to go away after the key has been released.
I think philosophy allows us to use this as an analogy for what is occurring. In this analogy I would propose that reality is the tone defined by The envelope. So keep in mind through this analogy, The way a synthesizer functions is that when the synthesizer is turned on signal is constantly generated by the oscillator, but we do not hear the tone until the key is pressed, at which time the tone takes on the shape of the envelope.
Philosophy gives us this analogy because what we begin to notice recently is that reality, and philosophy Can be defined, which is to say, does have definition; definition does not arise in a vacuum but rather arises against something else which Can also be defined We.e can say this due to the distinction that we find in the contrast of argument which would say that philosophy is not definable as an object but is an activity, but more so that it is not even an activity as it is a process. It is the irony involved in such arguments, such definitive statements, that allow us to find the definition we are looking for.
This is to say that reality defines only a certain ontological instance, and that the philosophy that would argue upon a unitive platform through which thought or humanity or reason or being etc. might find it’s sure placement is such a constraining assertion of power that we can really only do it justice by putting an adjective in front of it; as I say, such view orientation up on things is conventional. Ontological arguments are conventional. Then at the same time we should see that such identification is not indicating or arguing or implying or saying anything to the effect that the object of its designation is wrong or incorrect or can’t be changed. The extent to which things can be changed through a different term or by changing the definition of things is, ironically and by definition, conventional.
So my analogy goes, that at no time are we to think that the tone that is produced by synthesizer constitutes the trueness of the signal. Yet even as we can say that the reality of the signal is entirely contained, defined, and indeed has its full ontological presence within the envelope.
Hence if we are to speak of the signal that occurs outside of the envelope we are no longer speaking about ontology, or reality for that matter.
We have before us to begin to speak a certain way about things if we are to get out of the conventional equivocation about everything that is spoken.