Structural analysis of the abandoned draft [[Against Hearing Sounds - Draft]] - a paper arguing we hear sources (material objects) directly, not sounds. ## Current State **Section 1** (Hearing Sources, Hearing Sounds) is largely complete: - 1.1 on source hearing is solid - 1.2 surveys sound theories (waves, events, properties) well - 1.3 effectively critiques mediate perception accounts - 1.4 states the soundless alternative **Section 3.1** (Unknown Sources) - done, Campbell and Matthiessen responses work **Section 3.2** (Audio Playback) - strongest section, auditory images/twofoldness argument is well developed and original ## Gaps Needing Work 1. **Section 1 intro** - placeholder: "Some kind of intro goes here that summarises the section" 2. **Section 2.1** (Hearing Material Objects) - nearly empty, this is the core challenge. Notes-to-self indicate three options considered. Engagement with [[John Kulvicki|Kulvicki]] on audible profiles started but unfinished. 3. **Section 2.3** (Why are hearing and seeing different?) - starts well with touch/vision analogy and spatial field discussion, trails off after the shape argument 4. **Section 3** - promises "three types of case" but only two developed (unknown sources, recordings). Third objection missing - candidates: music/pure tones, echoes, tinnitus/hallucination 5. **Conclusion** - just a paragraph with "Tiny bit more" note ## Challenge The paper's gap is 2.1 - needs positive content for what "hearing material objects directly" actually consists in. Currently the argument is mostly negative (sounds get in the way). What does direct auditory perception of objects actually involve?