How big a deal is it?

I may be misunderstanding something in what you're saying, Don. If the self is a construct of

language (and I'm not denying that - it is a school of thought not without merit),

why would it follow that "I" can reveal it to others any more than others could reveal it to

"me?" I tend to side

with Wittgenstein in believing that there's no such thing as a "private language" to which only

"I" am privy. Language is a construct of a community. "Only I can know my own pain" and

"Only I can know/reveal my self" would be unmeaningful assertions according to Ludwig W

and I would tend to agree.

I never understood what Wittgenstein meant by "private language". The language I mean is the one we think with, usually our native tongue.

 

This is an example that is very broad: Walter Mitty, but I mean something much more common or banal than that, not just such far flung fantasy, but things more akin to our real lives only...revised, a "copy" with edits. Our "true" self, our "inner" self. The story about ourselves that we tell ourselves, including revisions where we best the bully, who pounded us, at our next meeting...a meeting we carefully plan, even though the reality is we do everything we can to avoid such a meeting. Then there's the internal dialogue we have with ourselves.

 

The I is the decisive and accountable actor in the world of external relations. The self is the actor in a world of internal relations built out of the material provided by the I, and the I is influenced by the self; it adds "color" -- mood, attitude, expression to the I, sometimes seeming to others to be "at odds" with what they see.

 

 

"...why would it follow that "I" can reveal it to others any more than others could reveal it to "me?""

 

Because you make it up, and excepting true telepathy, no one can know it unless you reveal it to them. In the same way, no one can know what you talked about in private with someone else, unless either of you reveal it. The I and the self have just such dialogues all the time.

I'll just say briefly that I don't think we are the only ones who tell ourselves that story of

ourselves. We are told a whole lot before we even begin to think in story form and I don't

think who we are (self or I) is internal. I was more inclined to agree with you when you said

"the self is not fixed; it is not a thing." Your later statements seem to be fixing the self. I

think it is not a thing and it is not attached to anything. I think, perhaps, experience falls on

a continuum (of lives and brain activity) and selves are constantly redefined along that

continuum.

Fred, in your philosophy, if "self" is already spoken for, I have no objection to using another word to label the experience of internal dialogue and internal relations. "Self" and "I" are merely the words used in the comment I replied to, and I made to distinguish them from each other and also to unify them again.

 

Of course, if I'm alone, and no one reading this recognizes what I've described...well, then, perhaps the whitecoats will have to take me away.

Fred and Don, I wonder if you wouldnt mind hearing a little piece of some lesser known doctrines in Christian theology.

 

I am a spirit,

 

I have a soul,

 

I live it a body.

 

The "ongoing activity" that motivates my body (which will perish and decompose some day) is my spirit and will continue forever. My soul is the "personality" that connects me to this world in thoughts and emotions, what makes me unique and identifiable and will continue with my spirit through the process of sanctification although it will be changed throught the filter of death.

 

In response to the origional post, philosophy is quite circular and never, ever finds a resting point saying "Eureka! That is the answer. We've arived!" It is never constant and so I imagine the genral philosophy of photography has changed as frequently as the next technological advance or next piece of information rolls along and changes the opinions of the photographer. Maybe it's more important to develop your own personal convictions where creating photographs are concerned and live there. Not to say you cant change and evolve and improve your photography, but I dont believe you have to appreciate philosophy to produce good photographs.

Couldnt you produce good work by simply being thoughtfull and following your instincts?

"Couldnt you produce good work by simply being thoughtfull and following your instincts?"

 

Of course you can, but what you're missing, you're instincts, are a compilation of your experiences, your philosophy.

 

Dictioary.com -- philosophy

 

"1.the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct."

 

"5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs."

 

"Knowledge" being your experiences in life and "practical affairs" being the act of image creation.

 

What I'm seeing is a generalized misunderstanding of what a person's personal philosophy is and how this personal philosophy affects their day-to-day existence all aspects of their life.

Nicole: Interesting... thank you! :)

A spirit that lives in a body? Who was it (Lewis? Sayers? Chesterton?) who added "Like brandy in a bottle". Plato might agree.

Philosophy of photography? It's whatever you want it to be.

I don't know about anyone else, but "I" talk to "myself" a lot. Sometimes the answers are pretty scary ;)

Don, the white coats can have me too. I do it as well. I call it self-reflection or self-

consciousness. I get the sense in your penultimate post that you were boiling the matter

down to semantics, and I don't think it's that. I think the way "self" is being used

(especially in the last several posts of others) is a bigger thing, a greater concept, than

whatever word we might choose for the internal dialogue of which you speak. What I

thought you and I were discussing was the referent of the "self" part of "self-reflection" or

"self-consciousness" and not merely those acts.

 

Nicole, of course I don't mind hearing your thoughts. That's just not the way I frame my

world.

One would have to ask: who is it that "has" a soul? Who exactly has a spirit? Who or what is it that has or creates or imagines a self? Who is it that has a consciousness? Who is the you that lives in your body?

 

All duality is falsely imagined.

Would love and explanation for that, Larry!

Nicole, the best explanation for it would not be easy to accomplish in a few short words.

Some of the best writings on the "myth" of the mind/body duality are by a contemporary

philosopher/scientist named Daniel Dennett. He's got a great book called Consciousness

Explained which tries to demystify the notion of consciousness and goes a long way

toward unraveling long-held Western beliefs about it. His basic assertion is that there is a

physicalist explanation for consciousness, as well as for feelings, quality of life, emotions,

etc. He would definitely attempt to dispel any notion that there is an "I" which is inhabited

by anything. He draws from countless fascinating brain experiments and studies of

unusual brain diseases to show some pretty remarkable progress that's been made in

understand what thought and awareness is.

Fred, the matter of the 'location' of the self -- internal, in our brain -- is a cultural construct and a recent one historically. The Greeks would have been uncomprehending of our easy use of psychology and internal states, especially in association with the brain, an organ of no sensible experience, unlike the heart which we today still refer to at least as a repository of our "deeper" feelings. Socrates certainly believed, as it was his experience, that an aspect of his self was external -- the daimon (although he would not have thought it was an aspect of his self as we mean it). And we believe, as it is our experience, that Socrates was 'talking to himself'.

 

The "I" and the "self" are one, which is something else, neither I nor self nor their sum, but it is split up (duality) because language requires it. Given the appropriate social environment, language happens to us (around age 2 or so), and there is nothing to be done about it. We will converse with others, ourselves -- in our brain, our mind, or in our 'heart' -- or with the daimon or with God.

 

Meditation is a good example at this point. The goal is non-attachment to these conundrums of language, to let the internal dialogue, and the attractions of imagination, pass on in its flow, to not engage with ourselves in language, to not even engage the gods, if they should speak to us. And once language stops, the self and the I vanish -- or so it is written.

 

What are we then? Maybe Buddha knew, but I don't.

Thanks, Don, I will let this part of the discussion rest here, not having anything more I want

to add at present.

It just occured to me that I'm going on about it because we've signed a prospect -- a mature, professional, serious, non-flake-type person -- who converses with angels or an angel. Sees them (it?), too. As long as the checks clear, no problem.

Hey, It's a Wonderful Life is one of my favorite films. I'm really just a softy!

"<i>Now there's as fine example of self-aggrandizement if I've ever read one.</i>"... well, have you? <p>I don't think I said what you think I said, but I can't be sure, because of how you said what you think you read. I was just saying I had to keep my mouth shut, smile and make good (ie: usable and useful) pictures. If you think that's self aggrandizing (and I don't think it is), then I'll let you think it.<p>Jennifer, apparently some people have such a strong will to live that they can survive crises that should halt autonomous bodily functions. Also, many yogis have show that they can control heartbeat, blood pressure, peristaltic movement, gag reflex, brainwave activity, suppress pain, etc... t<div></div>

Well, I can wiggle my ears and my pinkie toe all by istelf...

"I was just saying I had to keep my mouth shut,..."

 

That's how I understood what you wrote. Must have been very taxing of you. :)

 

"If you think that's self aggrandizing (and I don't think it is),..."

 

That's what I think.

 

"then I'll let you think it."

 

More aggrandizement as it's nice to know that you're not going "stop" me by stepping into my mind so as to control my thoughts. :)

 

You might want to go back and reread what you wrote, in a detached manner, so as to see how the comment came off.

 

A hint.... Ex. I felt so disgusted having to make reportage images of Newt and Ralph but I steeled myself and heroically (by numbing myself emotionally) made the captures, not letting my power of my personal politics poison the purpose that I was there for, reportage, not editorial. Dang, I'm good. :)

 

The above is strictly the tongue-in-cheek of how the comment came across and is not a personal attack; humor. I took your comment in the serious as in, you've got to be kidding; "...a certain degree of professionally necessary numbness... t"

 

Wow! :)

"...not letting my power of my personal politics...

 

Suppose to be: "...not letting "the" power of my personal politics..."

 

Doh! :)

"heroically"... that <i>is</i> an odd reading. <p>It doesn't read that way, and it wasn't meant that way and it isn't that way. You impose your own inaccurate meaning on it, as is evidenced by the amount of absurd embellishment required to make your point ("disgusted", "heroically" and my personal favorite "power of my personal politics poison the purpose". I do <i>so</i> love alliteration).<p>You might try administrating a little numbness occasionally yourself, especially when the stakes are so low, and what I mean by that is... <b>why do you even care?</b> <p>And what I mean by <i>that</i> (just to be clear) is: We all have something at stake if Newt and Ralph gain more power than they already have, but I'm not sure why you care about <i>me</i> and if I speak too assertively <i>for you</i>. It's quite entertaining to consider you, of all people, complaining about self aggrandizement. I actually prefer irony to alliteration, and irony is an unfortunate and bitter form.<p>Here we waste bandwidth because of some off topic aside by me, meant to offer a humorous and opposing view to my own, on topic, contributions to this good discussion. I am embarrassed by this diversion and apologize to the forum... t

"We all have something at stake if Newt and Ralph gain more power than they already have,..."

 

You're right, your comment was strictly photographic in nature. What was I thinking? You drag a thread off topic by politicizing it with your little unnecessary "...numbing..." bomb, then claim you didn't, as you continue to pull it blatantly and further off topic with your above. :) There's a difference between "politics" and "philosophy of photography." If photographing the "opposing" party's leaders upsets you so, then stop doing it cause you're not suited for the task.

 

Just fess up and get back to the intent of the OP's question as in "Oops!" I'll let you have the last word as in my mind, you're soooooo busted and your quote above, proves it.

Tom, I <i>just said</i> my comment was off topic, marginally, but still off. This redundancy is getting repetitive.<p>"I am (still) of the belief that what I think and believe informs and motivates everything I do"... thus my photography and the politics of my country collide. I thought the "Philosophy of Photography" forum would be an okay place to let that out. Evidently, you don't. Okay. Fine. Whatever.<p>"We all have something at stake if Newt and Ralph gain more power than they already have...". This true if we like their politics, or not. Please note that <i>you</i> add the "opposing" designation, not me. I was just giving an example of a moment when my personal beliefs came in conflict with my profession. <p>I still can't figure out what set you off about it. Are you the same guy that said "<i>I want to know what the civil code is that makes this act </i>(expressing a personal philosophy in the context of photography)<i> such a horrific crime that requires purposeful chastisement even with consideration of what kinda forum this is. :)</i>"?<p>... t