lightwait

<p>Bernard,</p>

<p>Thanks. Offer accepted.</p>

<p>I'm glad you didn't take me wrong. Still, I need to work on the delivery.</p>

<p>I am sure there are some reading who immediately place a voice with my words based on their reaction to my terms which are often purposefully void of any customary attempt to hide my emotional investment. It's not that I am ill-mannered, it's just that writing with manners hides clarity to some extent. And as lazy as I am, I just haven't the energy to give much time to worrying about putting makeup on the face of my thoughts.</p>

<p>Besides, one never knows if or when ones post will be deleted here (knock on wood).</p>

<p>I do stand behind what I am attempting to articulate. If you press me for clarity I will attempt to dig deeper instead of fleeing in a burst of ink (the octopus escape), a common escape method found online.</p>

<p>I don't think my response earlier was presupposing a definite object -- soul or image. The idea was that "image" is no better than "soul." The "image" you speak of, in such possessive terms, may as well be a soul. Both seem to be based in religious thought.</p>

<p>I guess I am saying the whole "my image" concept is mistaken. What I object to are actions that violate a person's reasonable expectation not to be exploited merely by being in a public space.</p>

<p>It is a perversion to inflict ones momentary interests over the "reasonable privacy expectations" of a fellow human being. And those who do it for money are not only perverts, but whores as well.</p>

<p>There. How's that?</p>

<p>"The activity of art is based on the fact that a man, receiving through his sense of hearing or sight another man's expression of feeling, is capable of experiencing the emotion which moved the man who expressed it." - Tolstoy</p>

<p>Except that, the man experiences his own emotions Not the emotion that moved the artist. The work serves as a focal point for the man's attention and in this way becomes instrumental to his current lived experience, which will always have an emotional layer. But much of that layer is an integration involving the viewer's, or the listener's, own history and development.</p>

<p>Each "taking in" of an artwork is at once a 'sense reading' and a 'sense giving' enterprise. As your cartoon antidote demonstrates, any given assessment of a matter will most often depend on where you happen to be standing and where you happen to have been.</p>

<p>"As to not treating the mistakes of <em>neophytes</em> with respect, I'm afraid a teacher who fails to do this is in the wrong job, 'honest' mistake are respected by me. "</p>

<p>I am afraid you are mistaken. You respect the student, not the errors. Or, perhaps 'respect' is not the word you really wanted. We attempt to teach students how to find and correct error. We acknowledge error, we attempt to understand it (as a means to accessing a student's processing), we do not respect it.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Stephen,<br>

"Just because one believes that souls are twaddle, that the existance of an after life is impossible so therefore it can't exist or in the purity of science, doesn't mean that anothers beliefs are unworthy of consideration."</p>

<p>It is in considering beliefs (their articulated forms, and the basis for them), that we come to understand them.</p>

<p>Maybe you have something different in mind when you say 'consideration.'</p>

<p>Hi Fred,</p>

<p>"That being said, I am much more inclined to yours and Stephen's approach regarding the photographic question. Generally speaking, I shoot others from a standpoint of respect and I try to avoid exploiting people. It would be rare that my need to take a shot would trump in my own mind someone else's request for privacy. Their reason would be secondary to their desire in this case. I would have no trouble judging their reason absolutely ridiculous, even false. I might have little or no respect for that reason, and in the case of souls that would be precisely my position. But that wouldn't stop me from respecting their request not to have their photograph taken."</p>

<p>You wouldn't know it from Bernard's responses to mine, but this IS my approach as well. Thanks for your contributions to this discussion.</p>

<p>"Because these people are not generally neophytes, maniacs or fools. Because these people see our blind faith in western scientific method* as fundamentalism, just as you see their beliefs thereas."<br /> <br /> These statements are nonsense. And for your information, Blind faith refers to faith without reason. You don't know who these people are or might be. In contrast, I am defining them by their stated beliefs. You are running in circles. Why?<br /> <br /> "But most importantly, again, we should not expect to have to be given a good reason not to take what is not ours to take."</p>

<p>You are making the huge leap that there is something there that is stolen. You are merely playing a shell game with words.</p>

<p>And as I have already repeated several times, I agree that if someone objects to you taking his picture, then courtesy dictates that we don't. (Please indicate that you grasp this by nodding once, please.)<br>

For the record, the matter of giving good reason is what is done in a philosophical discussion ... you know -- HERE, in this forum.</p>

<p>"A person's soul is fundamental to their being, if they don't have one then you can't steal it. But if they believe they do, it must be treated with the utmost respect."</p>

<p>We don't treat the delusions of the maniac with the utmost respect. We don't treat the logical errors of the neophyte with utmost respect. So why treat the rantings of the mystic, the repetitious copying of the fool, or the uninformed literalistic pronouncements of the fundamentalist with our utmost respect? Inquiring minds want to know.</p>

<p>It all begins, for the mind, in repetition.</p>

<p>From repetition, slowly, patterns emerge, are formed, are registered. Eventually, we have memories.</p>

<p>A cliche is a memory you're tired of having.</p>

<p>A cliche is always ... you.</p>

<p>Yeah, 42.</p>

<p>"Thomas K - I have to say I just shake my head. Because the bleedingly obvious response to "No amount of sympathy and respect for cultural myth will change this" is that no amount of rational scientific analysis will change the views of people who hold deep cutural or religious beliefs."<br /> <br /> Bernard, look at what your rhetoric is doing, it makes the same categorical mistake that the false equivocation does. You are suggesting a mirror relationship exists between myth-based and fact-based, but only things that are based in fact, cast reflections (to extend the metaphor), myths do not. <br /> <br /> A mirror relationship DOES exist in that each of us are human beings and are centers of awareness and action, but it doesn't follow that our concepts are equal.<br /> <br /> Yes, it is certainly true that I may not change the views of the native believer, but it is not a certainty by any means. Still, whether or not I can change the native's view is irrelevant in terms of the philosophical issue of ascertaining veracity independent of our respective tribal beliefs. Incidentally, in your own country, plenty of natives no longer believe in the dreaming. So it's clear that education and exposure to outsiders can (and does) work.<br /> <br /> And besides, I wouldn't be arguing with the 'stealable soulist', I would be shooting something or someone else, as I have already indicated, but I would still be correct in my knowledge of there being no such thing as a 'material soul.' <br /> <br /> What more do you understand me as saying?</p>

<p>And finally, I guess I should have written this in all caps:</p>

<p>"I am willing to concede that the kinds of encounters photographers have with their subjects, as outlined by the original post, are more social than anything, and thus manners and mutual respect should win the day."</p>

<p>"And I guess this all brings me back to my original comment on this issue. We are putting our beliefs ahead of those of our subjects."<br /> <br /> <br /> I guess I missed that. If I had seen it I would have pointed out that you are making the same error of equivocation. The knowledge that "the camera won't steal your soul" is factual; based on laws of mechanics and optics. The belief that "the camera will steal the soul" is not. No amount of sympathy and respect for cultural myth will change this.</p>

<p>"Australian aboriginals have a very strictly and deeply felt traditions which forbid the viewing of images of deceased people."<br /><br>

It's one of a bazillion beliefs built upon superstition. This is what our species does when in a state of ignorance regarding aspects of physical causation -- the 'lost generations' is a perfect example of beliefs run a muck (in this case, yours, if you happen to be one of the invaders). <br /><br>

We are the species that makes stuff up ... but as long as some of us continue to ask why, we will have a future.</p>

<p>Bernard, thanks for the response. I'm not seeing the points I was trying to make reflected in your response. Let me try again.<br /> <br /> I was not making any assumption about the photographer's project in any way.<br /> <br /> I was revealing an inconsistency (a self deception) that believers make when making the sorts of arguments they do to justify (in some way) the unjustifiable. And the believers in mind were not the natives but rather those in this forum.<br /> <br /> When the jump is made from the particular to the general ('soul vs no soul' to 'belief vs belief'), important features are stripped away in order for one party to preserve his unjustified belief.<br /> <br /> In short, my argument is that we all use forms of justification and verification in living out our lives. These efforts are what makes a belief believable. The better the beliefs fit reality, the better they serve the believer. Our beliefs either serve us well or not so well depending on how well they match or meet the demands of our real environments.<br /> <br /> When the 'belief equals belief' argument is used, the particulars are purposefully (literally) left out of the equation, and in place, the pseudo logic (false equivocation) is supposed to win the day. I'm merely pointing out what is being done, namely that the support of one argument is ignored in order that the unsupported belief has equal footing.<br /> <br /> I am willing to concede that the kinds of encounters photographers have with their subjects, as outlined by the original post, are more social than anything, and thus manners and mutual respect should win the day. (I mean, unless you are fluent in the native tongue, and your education levels are similar, a dialectic on the nature of belief and imaginative entities is usually going to be out of the question). But in any kind of philosophical exchange (as opposed to a street encounter with a native), it's important to see what is going on and to get it out there on the table.<br /> <br /> The table we're at is the philosophy of photography forum, so I was trying to say something of value in that respect.<br /> <br /> To repeat my position: It should be enough for the native to indicate that he or she does not want to be part of your project. However, to toss in a religious explanation is uncalled for but certainly lies within the bounds of acceptable human behavior.<br /> <br /> And I do wonder if perhaps it (the soul stealing defense) is merely a learned strategy handed down through generations by the locals because it's known to work on many gullible Westerners.</p>

<p>There is a scene in "Oh Brother Where Art Though" when a hitch-hiking guitarist is given a ride and a religious conversation ensues.<br>

<br /> HITCHHIKER<br /> Thank you fuh the lif', suh. M'names <br /> Tommy. Tommy Johnson.<br /> <br /> Delmar is genuinely friendly:<br /> <br /> DELMAR<br /> How ya doin', Tommy. I haven't seen <br /> a house in miles. What're you doin' <br /> out in the middle of nowhere?<br /> <br /> Tommy is matter-of-fact:<br /> <br /> TOMMY<br /> I had to be at that crossroads las' <br /> midnight to sell mah soul to the <br /> devil.<br /> <br /> EVERETT<br /> Well ain't it a small world, <br /> spiritually speakin'! Pete and Delmar <br /> just been baptized and saved! I guess <br /> I'm the only one here who remains <br /> unaffiliated!<br /> <br /> DELMAR<br /> This ain't no laughin' matter, <br /> Everett.<br /> <br /> EVERETT<br /> What'd the devil give you for your <br /> soul, Tommy?<br /> <br /> TOMMY<br /> He taught me to play this guitar <br /> real good.<br /> <br /> Delmar is horrified:<br /> <br /> DELMAR<br /> Oh, son! For that you traded your <br /> everlastin' soul?!<br /> <br /> Tommy shrugs.<br /> <br /> TOMMY<br /> I wudden usin' it.</p>

<p>Ironically, Tommy had more soul than anyone as his (real) guitar playing more than made clear.</p>

<p>"Anyway bottom line is that to me it has nothing to do with the battle of beliefs. Its much more simple than that. Its about basic respect."</p>

<p>This is pretty good advice in general, but doing philosophy is a different enterprise, it's about examining concepts and beliefs.<br>

So, the philosopher is asking something like this: Given that respecting the beliefs of others is often the best thing to do in some social situations, what do we do when conflicting beliefs is causing us to suffer? Isn't there a point at which we must set 'respect for respect's sake' aside and deal with the troubling belief systems instead?</p>

<p>The best that soul believers can do is to try for a stalemate. That is, they move any particular 'belief argument' to the more general category of belief and hope no one will notice.<br>

Then they say, this is my belief (soul) and that is yours (no soul). Then they say one is no better than the other by virtue of being a mere belief; so (they reckon), in fairness, if you want me to acknowledge your belief, you must also tolerate my unsupported one.<br>

It's as if they forget the whole concept of value. That is to say, we all experience good beliefs and bad ones throughout our lives. A good belief is characterized by sound reasons. A poor belief has no support in fact and so must appeal to some form of authority (believer deflects responsibility to another ... or some authoritative, <em>a priori</em> 'book of truth').<br>

Hitler believed certain Europeans were superior and this justified the murder of over six million (inferior) Jews. Hey, don't frown, it was his BELIEF.<br>

We all acknowledge some kind of valuing when it comes to beliefs ... except (it would seem) when it comes to defending the indefensible.<br>

There is no plausible defense for the physical existence of an immortal soul unless one is willing to undermine the character of their own well-founded beliefs (i.e. throwing away the ever important value distinctions we all tacitly make).<br>

As cognitive science continues to unravel the knot of the animal mind/body, there is nothing left for a soul to do. All the things that a soul is supposed to do in the afterlife are now known to require a physical body. No body, no experience. No experience, no memory. No memory, no personal history (nothing to distinguish one soul from the next, so, no way for souls to reunite in heaven).<br>

No body means, no mouth to communicate with. And without a brain there is no way to read your soul-mate's mind.<br>

It's just magical thinking -- ignorance's last stand.<br>

-----------------<br>

Someone said people don't change, essentially referring to people's beliefs. Do those of you who share this belief believe that your present knowledge is the same as it was when you were first born?<br>

People, as well as the rest of the animals, change every day as they go about experiencing and interacting with others in their environments. And at least one creature we know of actually has institutions devoted to conceptual CHANGE. The brain/body systems that inhabit this planet are essentially ... change machines. Even the basic animal activities of processing information about ones immediate environment will generally result in change.<br>

Surely those of you posting in this forum LEARNED to read and write at some point.<br>

If you've followed any of this, you've changed.</p>

<p>Yes? No?</p>

<p>In answering Yes or No, you can't help but commit an error.</p>

<p>Almost any collection of people will yield a group with differently developed skills, so in arriving at a generality of this kind, you can't help but commit an error of attribution.</p>

<h1>the end of photographing children??</h1>

<p>Probably not, but one can hope.</p>

<p>However, to put a philosophical spin on the question: are 'children shots' a subset of 'pet shots,' or is it the other way around?</p>

<p>I'm thinking it's one set.</p>

<p>Wouldn't the trick be in finding something meaningful in all the billions of graphically-inert images?</p>

<p>Or put another way, even if you owned the Laplacean ideal of complete knowledge of the universe (consisting of a complete mapping of every particle in the universe in terms of its mass, momentum, and direction of spin) you still wouldn't have any means to tell a bad photo from a good one.</p>

<p>I mean, it's not hard to imagine it taking half a lifetime just to find a lousy shot of your neighbor's cat.</p>

" "Spontaneity" is an out-dated notion that was once marketed by people who wanted obedience to people who were already frozen in their tracks...its more modern equivalent is "out of the box," a phrase used only by people raised-up and perfected for the very boxes they decry."

 

Amen, brotherman.

"However, at the same time, I have read several what I consider silly comments putting down thinking and thought in art and photography."

 

I think that sometimes people forget that there's a world of difference between what passes for thought from one individual to the next. I'd just once like to see people who advance anti-thought positions to proivide some of the thoughts they are actually against.

 

Do you think it probable that those who scorn cerebral guidance in art and such may not have developed that aspect much -- may not think very well? May they in fact be getting better results using "creative algorythms" of some sort (leave your box at home, shoot upside down, limit or restrict your use of lenses, use lens baby, etc.).

 

In this forum in particular, the whole enterprise is always in question because critical discourse is confused or mixed up with the notion of "helping." Philisophical discourse should not be weighed down with some overall goal of having to be of help to someone.

 

Help, is not a big, red gumball that emerges from the depths after inserting a quarter.

 

Truly hope this helps.

"Creative planned shooting applies a different part of the mind, or right side of the brain, where the shot is consciously "made" by the photographer, applying notions of composition, lighting, staging and other considered elements of the final image."

 

When you say 'part of the mind' are you referring to something real? It sounds like a metaphor. But then you seem to be using it to mean 'right side of brain.' So are you saying that the right side of the brain is a different part of the mind? Isn't that the same as equating brain and mind?

 

Also, when you say 'right side of the brain' as if you had something meaningful location "in mind," isn't it a lot like saying, when asked where your canoe is located, "Canada?" That is, it sounds authoritive, but not at all informative.

 

Instead of mind, why not just say 'ghost in the machine?' One is just as developed as the other.

 

Do you see what I am getting at with all this? Much of what you are saying is rather a lot like a collection of unexamined assumptions.

 

So, while I'd love to engage you on this topic, there is a lot in the way. Just wondered if you were aware of this.

There is an added benefit to the crop factor that I've not seen mentioned yet. Your images do not contain as much information from the outer, less sharp, areas of a lens.

>>Just what are you going to do when you find out who is giving you low ratings? Make more work for moderators?<<

 

No way, Bob. You all have enough stuff to do.

 

I can't say what I'd do (don't know who is trashing my work), But whatever I did, I'd do it from a slightly more-informed position.

 

But for conversational purposes, I might, if I saw a pattern, ask the offender to reconsider the poor/rates. Or I might ask them to give me some sense of what they're thinking . . . in light of Other images they've rated better but yet are clearly prone to the same rationale -- that sort of thing.

 

That's about the extent of it. You state your position, and hope others are capable of seeing it.

 

I'd then, if I still cared, might try my best to articulate why I felt a particular rate fell outside the boundary of intelligent disagreement -- because that's really what we're talking about for the most part on rate discrepencies.

 

If persuassion doesn't work, then the only alternative is to pray for the offender's soul.

 

Once that's done, in a civil world, you've done what you can.

 

I think it's not unreasonable to believe that, for many, all that's needed is a slight relief from some of the Frustration that comes from posting an image you believe in and not being able to make sense out of its reception. Not that this measure would promise that -- but it might help.

 

Ya know . . . if you turn a hose on a blaze and it doesn't put it out, you can always turn off the water.