Why do we like what we like?

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p><big><em>"One sees great things from the valley, only small things from the peak."</em><br /></big>- G. K. Chesterton</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Charles, I came across this quote recently and it seems to fit with some of what you're saying.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>LOVE IT!!!</p>

<p>Here's an idea. I posted a link and lyrics to a love song. Shall we post links to photos that to us are love songs? I can't find one quickly. Anyone?</p>

<p>I love her. Because she saw what I was doing and thought it was funny, or so I surmise.</p>

<p> </p>

[charleswood]

<p>oops, no post photo on edit. so here:</p>

<div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, I still remember a photo you posted to a PoP forum a few years ago. Remember it? It was of a woman who posed for you and had fear and misgivings about posing. You mentioned I believe that you had a photo of her sans jacket.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You must be remembering someone else, Charles. I have never posted other than those which are now in the "Families" and "Tess" folders, none of which are or have ever been nudes.</p>

<p>Those folders are still there if you wish to peruse them, but there are no nude or semi-nude photos there.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>See, Charles did it. He said he was slightly aroused by the photo. He didn't try to gloss over that by vaguely and ambiguously calling it eternal or spiritual. He was honest.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, I was not aroused by the photo. I was honest. What I said is above. I made it clear that it was special but that I would not call it mystical.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>And, again, I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you what's mystical or eternal or spiritual about a photo. If you can't answer those questions, it is not because those questions are unanswerable. It's because you either can't be bothered or you don't know what you're talking about.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, your style of "argumentation" is to insult. I don't play that game. That is not philosophy. That is rhetoric.</p>

<p>Actually, "those questions" to which you refer are precisely what you say that they are not: they are unanswerable. You are looking for the mystical quality IN THE PHOTO. It is not in the photo, Fred. It is IN YOU--or it is not.</p>

<p>Nor is there any particular reason that your response or reaction should be the same as mine--to any type of photo. The fact that you do not see it in the photos that I see is not a judgment against you--or against me. That is just the way it is. There is no reason that any special meaning that you find in a photo should be the same as mine, or vice versa. </p>

<p>I have given my answer to this entire complex of questions. You simply seem to want to badger me into seeing it your way. Sometimes the best that we can do is to agree to disagree, but, oh no, not you.</p>

<p>As for God and spirituality, why invokes words like "spirituality" if you cannot even honestly face up to the choice of God or not-God? That choice is stark, and it is simple--it is hardly over-simplification. It really is that simple. You are wasting your powers fighting it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>. . . or you don't know what you're talking about.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There you go again. When cornered, insult people. Fred, that has been your <em>modus operandi</em> for so long that you do not know any other way to argue. You argue "to the man," <em>ad hominem</em>, and that is and has been your way of avoiding philosophy. Fallacious arguments will not get you anywhere at all in terms of bringing people over to your point of view, but I think that you fundamentally misunderstand philosophy: it is not about winning a debate. It is about seeking a higher truth that both parties can agree to. If you are not looking for that higher truth, then you will never find it or see it.</p>

<p>Your first fallacy in this latest exchange? You want to invest meaning in the artifact. <strong><em>It is not there, Fred. </em></strong></p>

<p><strong><em>Meaning does not inhere in objects or images of objects. IT IS NOT IN THE PHOTO.<br /></em></strong></p>

<p>As long as you start from your false premise that it is in the photo, then you will never make any progress, and you will fight these interminable petty wars until either you drop or. . . until you have triggered the closing of the thread by the moderators.</p>

<p>That is your legacy here: contend for the sake of contending. Insult rather than argue, and tell everyone that what you are doing is philosophy.</p>

<p>I am sorry to say that it is not. It is rationalization--and nothing more. You didn't leave philosophy, Fred. You were quite likely never doing philosophy. Learning a litany of rhetorical devices and ploys is not "doing philosophy."</p>

<p>I cannot prove to you that I see or feel something mystical when I view a photo. You insist that I point out the photo and point out what is mystical about it. You are looking in the wrong place. If you want to see it, you must look inside yourself. If you do not see it there, then perhaps that photo has no meaning or mystical significance for you. Is there any particular reason why it should?</p>

<p>I have said what I have to say on this issue, and as far as I am concerned, this particular discussion on this particular point--<em>about the meaning or mystical sense inhering in the photographic artifact</em>--is over, unless you come up with something new. If, on the other hand, you keep pounding the same old turf with the same tired old arguments and the same insults, I will simply have to ignore you--and anyone else who joins you in your game. </p>

<p>There is real work to be done. This is madness. It is so far from philosophy that it is sickening and laughable at once.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, you continue to evade the question. It's not at all important to me whether your mysticism is "in the photo" or in yourself. You referred to the photos as mystical. "The mystical nude," you said. I don't care where you locate it. I just want to know what in the hell you're talking about.</p>

<p>I don't want us to agree. I am happy to disagree with you. I just want you to do some work. Philosophy is not just tossing out hyperbolic and deep-sounding words like mysticism and spirituality when you have no idea what they mean and no idea how they relate to the photos you're applying them to. That's not Philosophy. It's pretense.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Now, why don't you do something constructive and offer a photo or a link and explain what makes it ___________ to you? --Lannie</p>

<p>No, I will not be deflected onto by you. --Fred</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred, a corollary of my view is that <em><strong>that is the best that you can do: tell what it means to YOU, and why. </strong></em> Better yet, offer it up and let other people see it--on their own terms, Fred. There is no need to club them over the head with it.</p>

<p>Perhaps it will resonate with them and their experiences. Perhaps not. If not, they can move on with what interests them. They do not answer to you. Neither do I.</p>

<p>You want persons to agree with you <strong><em>not</em></strong> on the truth value of propositions, but on <em>the meaning of a photo</em>. Arguing over the truth value of propositions is what philosophy is about. <em> Arguing over the meaning of a photo?</em> That is your game, Fred. It will remain your game. It is not philosophy. It will never be my game because MEANING DOES NOT INHERE IN OBJECTS AND ARTIFACTS. (That is my basic premise, at least, and it is diametrically opposed to yours.)</p>

<p>You may FEEL a sense of meaning when you look at your photo of Andy, and there is nothing wrong with that from my perspective. I may FEEL meaning or even something transcendent in photos that do nothing for you. It is quite possible that the same objects or artifacts or activities will never evoke a transcendent response in both of us. I would not expect that, but I see no particular theoretical reason why it could not be that way.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles, I don't know. Love song? Maybe this, though I hate to label it. Best I could come up with is <em>Ken and Mark</em>.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6381585-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /></p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>Lannie, you continue to evade the question.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>No, I am simply ignoring you. I have made it clear that our point of divergence is whether meaning (or whatever) inheres in the photo. You insist that I look at the photos and show you what is mystical about them--but "IT" IS NOT THERE IN THE PHOTO.</p>

<p>You can flagellate yourself over that issue until the end of time, but I am moving on. Your premise is so obviously false to me that I will not waste any more time arguing over it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It's not at all important to me whether your mysticism is "in the photo" or in yourself.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, I can tell you that <strong><em>it should be important</em></strong> to you: mystical qualities cannot inhere in the objects or artifacts themselves.</p>

<p>I am sorry for my sloppy language, speaking as if it was the photos themselves which are mystical. I find a mystical quality in them. You may not. I do feel that other photographers through their photos have communicated something to me--from time to time. And, from time to time, I do think that I see and perhaps even feel what they see and feel.</p>

<p>Fred, you need to seriously consider the possibility that your basic premise could be wrong. It really does matter. Your obsession with "the photo" indicates to me that you are stuck. You are spinning your wheels.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, as is often the case, you're wrong in what you just said. I do not at all want anyone to agree with me on the meaning of photos. I have never asked you to agree with me on the meaning of photos. I have asked you what about a photo makes you think of mysticism. I can't believe you can't understand that? That seems to you that I'm asking for agreement on meaning? No, I'm just asking what my third-grade teacher asked of us when we wrote "I find this book interesting." She wanted us to learn how to think and write, so she insisted we tell her not just that it was interesting, but what about it was interesting. If I said I thought a character was bad, she let me know she expected me to describe some behaviors or actions that character took that would lead to my thinking the character was bad. She may have liked the book or not liked the book. She was not asking us to agree with her on liking or disliking it. And she was not asking us to find the same meanings in it as she did. She was not asking to make the connection from my use of the word "bad" to the characters actions because she wanted us to agree about the badness. She was teaching me how to think and articulate. If we found a particular meaning in a book, she didn't care whether or not we agreed with her. She encouraged us to explain how we got that meaning from the book. If it was simple enough for a third-grade class, it ought to be simple enough for you to understand. You can rant all you want about my personality and, believe me, I agree with you to a certain extent. I know what I'm being like. But I think you deserve it, just like Mrs. Fishbein would have failed me if I had acted like you even back in third grade.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I am leaving this thread and this forum--forever. There is real philosophy to be done out there. I don't know what your game is, Fred, but from what I can gather it is not and has never been philosophy.</p>

<p><br />Fred, the next time you want to masturbate in public, don't call it "philosophy."</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Your obsession with "the photo" indicates to me that you are stuck. You are spinning your wheels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is too funny. We're talking about photos here, Lannie. You are saying that you feel a mystical quality when you look at certain photos, these mystical nudes you refer to. Again, I assure you I understand the mysticism is in you and not in the photo. But the mysticism came into your head when looking at the photo. We weren't talking about you swimming or playing volleyball. We were talking about you looking at John Peri's and Jim Phelps's photos. So, why did mysticism pop into your head when you thought about or looked at those photos vs. when you thought about or looked at other photos when mysticism did not pop into your head?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, I only wish I could send this thread to the chairman of your Philosophy department to see what he or she thinks of it. What you got out of this thread was that it was an argument between us as to whether mysticism inheres in a photo or is a feeling one has or a construct one uses? That would mean you missed this thread entirely. How is it possible for you not to understand what was being asked of you. I was not asking you to think of mysticism as inhering in a photo. I was asking you why mysticism occurred to you when looking at the photos you looked at. That would require your talking about the photo. It would not require you to believe the photo itself contained the mysticism as opposed to it being a feeling you had or a construct you chose to use in describing your feelings upon looking at the photo.</p>

<p>You, in fact, turned this into an esoteric philosophical issue about whether qualities inhere in photos or not. I was not doing that at all. I was asking a question of you about why you thought of or felt mysticism when looking at a particular photo or body of work. That would require your talking about the photo but not thinking the mysticism was IN the photo.</p>