Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, Peirce and all the rest of them still had to live in the real world... Immanuel Kant was a real pissant, Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out consume Schopenhauer and Hegel; And Wittgenstein was a beery swine, Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel... There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist, Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed... John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill Plato they say, could stick it away, Half a crate of whiskey every day! Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram-- And René Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink, therefore I am. Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed-- A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's pissed! ...well, somebody had to do it. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Funny... Tom C. From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 08:17:40 + Hi, Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, Peirce and all the rest of them still had to live in the real world... Immanuel Kant was a real pissant, Who was very rarely stable. Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar Who could think you under the table. David Hume could out consume Schopenhauer and Hegel; And Wittgenstein was a beery swine, Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel... There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist, Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed... John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill Plato they say, could stick it away, Half a crate of whiskey every day! Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram-- And René Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink, therefore I am. Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed-- A lovely little thinker, But a bugger when he's pissed! ...well, somebody had to do it. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:16:51 -0500 (EST), John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suspect you are thinking of a Dave Berg The Lighter Side Of ... strip - it sounds far more like his style than like Don Martin. You are correct, Sir!! Thanks, John, it was The Lighter Side of... and it was Dave Berg. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with external reality. A common mistake. I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference? This isn't a trap, I really don't know. cheers, frank === There are consensual shared truths (families, nations, political parties). But not going to get into that. True: In accordance with the actual state of affairs. Being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed. Well, some people believe there are hard and fast universal objective truths. Right? And some people also feel those truths can be found in external reality. That they exist independent of us, just laying out there waiting to be discovered. My original statement was that we always perceive reality through the filter of our own world view, our own experience, our own lens -- whatever you want to call it. How can we not? We are inside ourselves, looking out. Are you confusing belief with reality maybe? What we perceive, what we believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things. But it would be very strange to think there is no reality without a perception of it or a belief of it. So how do you know what's true? What's a universal objective truth out there in reality? Are you sure? Or is it something someone else told you? Let's take scientific truths. Don't they change all the time? Isn't that what someone else told you? (Or did you do experiments in the lab to prove it? :-)) And don't scientists disagree all the time? And, even now, don't they not know how some basic things work? So what is scientific truth? Again, I think that what we believe and what is reality are two different things. If we didn't exist, then do these realities go away? This would mean that the world and everything we know would go away as soon as we die. So why is everything still here, yet people have died. Take political truth -- George Bush, I think he is the worst President, the worst thing to happen to the US in my life time. Others thing he is an okay guy. I also think, no, he isn't our President, that he only apparently won by fraud and lying, but he didn't actually win (in the previous election). Others think he did win. You don't think he's the President because you don't believe he won? Does that alter reality? It is only your perception. But is there a fact here: The person signing the bills presented by congress is who? If its not George Bush, then who is signing these bills? Who lives in the White House? John Kerry? Is it John Kerry because you believe it should have been John Kerry, so now in your perception/belief he lives there? Is 1 + 1 = 2? Or is this simply what you believe. Is it false because I do not believe that 1 + 1 = 2? What's true, what I believe, or what they believe? If you think there are hard and fast truths out there that you can discover, you believe there are some immutable facts. You believe that things don't change. That our perception of them doesn't change. That cultures doesn't change truths. That science doesn't change truths. That we don't change truths sometimes just by our very existence, and our investigations. Aren't simple mathematical facts true and immutable? And you can build up these facts into more abstract concepts that can be reduced to these basic mathematical truths. Just because our understanding/belief/perception of the universe is not complete, and we are constantly revising our theory about its composition, does not imply that there is no basis in reality for it. If this was the case, then all theories would be false. Including the one that says that there is no reality. Assuming we can perceive reality untainted by our own perspective is rather presumptuous. IMHO. This is true, our senses and sensibility is limited. We are not god like with the ability to be totally impassive. To stand outside ourselves. And I can't explain it any better than that. And I don't want to. That's it. I also said, I don't believe we have discovered the nature of reality yet. And it may never be discovered, but I detect a hint of acknowledgement that there is a fundamental reality here. As a postscript -- debating rules are silly, because they have a person take one side and another person take another side. And somehow by debating, the truth is supposed to emerge. When maybe to the person on one side, that is their truth, and to the person on the other side, that is their truth. No amount of arguing is going to change that. Debating doesn't arrive at truths, it just sometimes arrives at a winner and loser (if both sides agree to abide by debating rules). The winner is just the most persistent and articulate. See, there is a presumption that by arguing, one side will see the logic of the other side, and give way. But maybe both
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 2/8/2005 9:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you confusing belief with reality maybe? What we perceive, what we believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things. But it would be very strange to think there is no reality without a perception of it or a belief of it. = Don't think I said that. But what we believe may affect reality. I don't want to discuss this: 1.) I don't have time. 2.) With difficult concepts, it takes me a long time to verbalize what I mean -- or verbalize effectively enough that I know I am making my conceptualization come across clearly. 3.) I don't turn my verbalizations of difficult concepts into writing easily. It takes a lot of pain and effort on my part to write that kind of thing down effectively. See 3. 4.) I don't have time. 5.) I don't need my belief system to be nailed down in every small detail for my own satisfaction. My belief system is coherent enough for me, and I do not need for anyone else to believe it and I do not need to defend it. 6.) Read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra instead of trying to debate me. 7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? 7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe If you are not willing to debate it, you should probably keep it to yourself. HTH William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? 7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe If you are not willing to debate it, you should probably keep it to yourself. Exclamation point! What an avant-garde position, William! Most folks whose positions are cast in concrete are more than willing to debate (aka proselytize.) HTH William Robb keith
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real, what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***. Tom C. William Robb wrote: If you are not willing to debate it, you should probably keep it to yourself. KW wrote: Exclamation point! What an avant-garde position, William! Most folks whose positions are cast in concrete are more than willing to debate (aka proselytize.)
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/8/2005 9:49:32 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Are you confusing belief with reality maybe? What we perceive, what we believe, and what is reality may be 3 different things. But it would be very strange to think there is no reality without a perception of it or a belief of it. = Don't think I said that. But what we believe may affect reality. I don't want to discuss this: Thats ok, I just had bookmarked your discussion because I thought that it sounded like you were mixing up the concept of reality with the concept of truth (subjective). 1.) I don't have time. 2.) With difficult concepts, it takes me a long time to verbalize what I mean -- or verbalize effectively enough that I know I am making my conceptualization come across clearly. 3.) I don't turn my verbalizations of difficult concepts into writing easily. It takes a lot of pain and effort on my part to write that kind of thing down effectively. See 3. 4.) I don't have time. 5.) I don't need my belief system to be nailed down in every small detail for my own satisfaction. My belief system is coherent enough for me, and I do not need for anyone else to believe it and I do not need to defend it. 6.) Read The Tao of Physics by Fritjof Capra instead of trying to debate me. Its been a long time, but I remember alot of mysticism in it, rather similar to what you are saying. Once you get into that realm, then its hard to argue anything outside of belief systems. 7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless. I agree, let everyone believe what they want to. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe Thanks, rg
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 16:16:51 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real, what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***. We can say smartass on this list. At least ~I~ can say smartass... vbg BTW, WRT to all this is reality really real? discussion, I remember reading somewhere (but I'll be damned if I can remember ~where~) that for all his talk about being and nothingness, when Heidegger walked in a room and saw a chair, he knew damned well that the chair really was ~there~, and if he sat on it, he had every confidence that it would really hold him up! Kant, Heidegger, Husserl, Peirce and all the rest of them still had to live in the real world... vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Frank wrote: BTW, WRT to all this is reality really real? discussion, I remember reading somewhere (but I'll be damned if I can remember ~where~) that for all his talk about being and nothingness, when Heidegger walked in a room and saw a chair, he knew damned well that the chair really was ~there~, and if he sat on it, he had every confidence that it would really hold him up! Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my 13-year old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I returned from refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the floor dribbling my wine out on the carpet. Needless to say, we had a little chat regarding practical jokes when we got home. Tom C.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:03:55 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my 13-year old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I returned from refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the floor dribbling my wine out on the carpet. Needless to say, we had a little chat regarding practical jokes when we got home. Tom C. Perhaps your son wanted you to experience ~angst~, which as anyone who has read Being and Time knows, is required before one can experience the nausea of ~nothingness~. Or maybe he was just being a snotty teenager, who just needed a smack upside the head. vbg cheers, frank (who would never advocate violence) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Funny... I think he was equally embarrassed by the result. He knew he had gone too far. Not wanting to experience angst like that again, I doubt he'll repeat *that* trick. He's a pretty good kid overall, just reaching that age where he *perceives* himself to be almost as smart as dear old dad. Tom C. From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:21:45 -0500 On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:03:55 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my 13-year old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I returned from refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the floor dribbling my wine out on the carpet. Needless to say, we had a little chat regarding practical jokes when we got home. Tom C. Perhaps your son wanted you to experience ~angst~, which as anyone who has read Being and Time knows, is required before one can experience the nausea of ~nothingness~. Or maybe he was just being a snotty teenager, who just needed a smack upside the head. vbg cheers, frank (who would never advocate violence) -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 2/8/2005 3:21:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real, what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***. Tom C. = Another thing I never said. I said that believe all TRUTHS are subjective. That is all I said. And phooey. But I hate being misquoted. Bowing out... completely. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:29:31 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip He's a pretty good kid overall, just reaching that age where he *perceives* himself to be almost as smart as dear old dad. What was that Don Martin strip in the old Mad Magazines? I can't remember it's name, but I do remember one strip quite vividly. A hippy kid, long hair, headband, beads, tie-dye t-shirt, is reaming out his old man, telling him among other things, how stupid he is. Dad smiles smugly, and retorts, Yeah, but I was way smarter than you when I was your age! LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 2/8/2005 2:54:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William Robb wrote: - Original Message - Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? 7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe If you are not willing to debate it, you should probably keep it to yourself. Exclamation point! What an avant-garde position, William! Most folks whose positions are cast in concrete are more than willing to debate (aka proselytize.) HTH William Robb keith My belief system is more grey than most people's bw. It's extremely flexible. And that is my business. Okay, I am totally pissed, though probably I shouldn't be. I am dyslexic and having a written debate where I can truly express myself well, on the Internet, is simply beyond my linguistic skills. I have found this out in the past, and I refuse to indulge someone else's need to bash my logic anymore. Not in a written form where I have to strain and strain and never nail down what I really want to say. In person, where I am not required to WRITE, then I do much better. rg dug an old thread and threw it back at me -- I felt I was being semi-polite in responding at all. Make that of that what you will. Marnie aka Doe :-(
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hey Marnie... I was just yanking your chain... that's why there was a smiley. I still don't believe ALL truths are subjective however... Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:37:35 EST In a message dated 2/8/2005 3:21:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real, what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***. Tom C. = Another thing I never said. I said that believe all TRUTHS are subjective. That is all I said. And phooey. But I hate being misquoted. Bowing out... completely. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
This thread reminds me of a junior college philosophy class. Hey Marnie... I was just yanking your chain... that's why there was a smiley. I still don't believe ALL truths are subjective however... Tom C. From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:37:35 EST In a message dated 2/8/2005 3:21:51 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Yeah, but if you steadfastly hold to the viewpoint that nothing is real, what is there to debate? :) Sorry Marnie, being a smart***. Tom C. = Another thing I never said. I said that believe all TRUTHS are subjective. That is all I said. And phooey. But I hate being misquoted. Bowing out... completely. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 01:05:51 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This thread reminds me of a junior college philosophy class. Hell, it's not nearly up to ~that~ level! g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my 13-year old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I returned from refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the floor dribbling my wine out on the carpet. Needless to say, we had a little chat regarding practical jokes when we got home. Well, thats better than the excuse you gave for doing the same thing in that nice motel is New Denver. William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
What? I don't have any recollection. Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 18:18:59 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Yeah... well during the Super Bowl party at a neighbor's house, my 13-year old son decided to pull the chair out from under me when I returned from refeshing my wine glass. I consequently sat on the floor dribbling my wine out on the carpet. Needless to say, we had a little chat regarding practical jokes when we got home. Well, thats better than the excuse you gave for doing the same thing in that nice motel is New Denver. William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? What? I don't have any recollection. I can well believe that... b...
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? What? I don't have any recollection. I can well believe that... b... I think you guys should take your sordid little alcohol-sodden cheap-motel stories off-list. I'm going to have supper now, and when I come back, I want a stop to all these low-brow adolescent shenanigans! -frank (once a father, always a father...) VBG -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Purely medicinal... Tom C. From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:16:44 -0600 - Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? What? I don't have any recollection. I can well believe that... b...
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - From: Tom C Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Purely medicinal... BTW, was I drooling too? b...
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
frank theriault mused: On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 17:29:31 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip He's a pretty good kid overall, just reaching that age where he *perceives* himself to be almost as smart as dear old dad. What was that Don Martin strip in the old Mad Magazines? I can't remember it's name, but I do remember one strip quite vividly. A hippy kid, long hair, headband, beads, tie-dye t-shirt, is reaming out his old man, telling him among other things, how stupid he is. Dad smiles smugly, and retorts, Yeah, but I was way smarter than you when I was your age! I suspect you are thinking of a Dave Berg The Lighter Side Of ... strip - it sounds far more like his style than like Don Martin.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I apologize Marnie for digging up dead old threads on you. :( I found the thread a fascinating read and your point of view was the most fascinating of all. It just took me a long time to get on the top of my to do list. Now its taken a whole life of its own again. Including an excursion into the antics of a couple of drunk pdml teens. vbg OK. Back to photography. Esp all things Pentax. ;) rg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 2/8/2005 2:54:08 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: William Robb wrote: - Original Message - Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? 7.) I don't debate (at least anymore and at least not on the Net). I've been involved in too many knock down and drag out usenet/list -- mainly usenet -- conversations to find it amusing or entertaining anymore. I also think debate about religion/politics/belief systems to be fairly pointless. HTH!, Marnie aka Doe If you are not willing to debate it, you should probably keep it to yourself. Exclamation point! What an avant-garde position, William! Most folks whose positions are cast in concrete are more than willing to debate (aka proselytize.) HTH William Robb keith My belief system is more grey than most people's bw. It's extremely flexible. And that is my business. Okay, I am totally pissed, though probably I shouldn't be. I am dyslexic and having a written debate where I can truly express myself well, on the Internet, is simply beyond my linguistic skills. I have found this out in the past, and I refuse to indulge someone else's need to bash my logic anymore. Not in a written form where I have to strain and strain and never nail down what I really want to say. In person, where I am not required to WRITE, then I do much better. rg dug an old thread and threw it back at me -- I felt I was being semi-polite in responding at all. Make that of that what you will. Marnie aka Doe :-(
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On 26/1/05, Graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed: Wow, you give your wife a salary? Not to many do, usually just an allowance at best. Do you deduct FICA and Taxes? Oh boy. Gw, you meet my mrs and you better have some Hedex ready Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. This is a representation of my dogs lying on the floor, shot from above. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/fellas2.html Please tell me where I am obfuscating the truth. Regards Of course, you are proving my point by showing that the only way to get away from my statement is to keep to the most obvious things shown in the photograph. But, if you want to draw this discussion into absurdities (and I'm sure you know that any discussion about such a statement could be) I could respond that this photo says nothing about the dogs, except that they are flat and positioned on (or being part of) a flat surface. You claim that they are yours and that the photo is taken from above, but the photo says nothing about that so I have to trust you, as I must in relation to photo journalism. Being flat, the dogs on the photo could be on a wall. Nice photo... DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:32 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange (strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest profession) This is my part, to which Mishka refers: On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective reality. Mishka: I wrote the paragraph to which you refer very carefully. I attempted to write it in such a way that every word had meaning, and was meaningful. So, I did fudge things a bit. I said that a report should be ~grounded~ in facts, that a reporter should present that which he ~believes~ to be true, and that what's being reported should be ~based~ on an objective reality. Each of those key words gives a lot of wiggle room. I know that every journalist and editor (and publisher, for that matter) has their personal bias and agenda. If they're good at what they do, they try to suppress those things to present as fair and objective report as possible. But even the best efforts will sometimes fall short. So, I guess that what I expect is not 100% accuracy, but rather an honest attempt to be fair and objective. Some attain this, most don't. I recognize that. For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank. However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession. ERNR mother of two NPPA member
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
i thought that professional mother, that is someone who is paid for giving births, by a third party, is a pretty recent invention. i would say, it's the second oldest hobby :) best, mishka (father of one, no memberships whatsoever) On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank. However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession. ERNR mother of two NPPA member
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
ft maniplation should be allowed. A bit of dodging and burning, ft cropping, that's about it. Even tilting is verboten, AFAIK. Tilting? Does that mean that all of my PJ photographs (which are even more tilted that all Kratochvil's g) are useless now :-( ? Or did you mean some other tilting? :) Good light! fra
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Motherhood is not a profession, nobody pays for that (grin). Generally the oldest profession is considered to be prostitution, and the second oldest to be spying. I guess I can see where reportage could be equated to spying. BTW, prostitution is common amongst the other primates too. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:32 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange (strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest profession) This is my part, to which Mishka refers: On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective reality. Mishka: I wrote the paragraph to which you refer very carefully. I attempted to write it in such a way that every word had meaning, and was meaningful. So, I did fudge things a bit. I said that a report should be ~grounded~ in facts, that a reporter should present that which he ~believes~ to be true, and that what's being reported should be ~based~ on an objective reality. Each of those key words gives a lot of wiggle room. I know that every journalist and editor (and publisher, for that matter) has their personal bias and agenda. If they're good at what they do, they try to suppress those things to present as fair and objective report as possible. But even the best efforts will sometimes fall short. So, I guess that what I expect is not 100% accuracy, but rather an honest attempt to be fair and objective. Some attain this, most don't. I recognize that. For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank. However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession. ERNR mother of two NPPA member -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Graywolf, taking his life in his hands, said, Motherhood is not a profession, nobody pays for that (grin). I'm guessing that you've never been married vbg. I've been paying a mom for 33 years, and she's worth every penny.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Wow, you give your wife a salary? Not to many do, usually just an allowance at best. Do you deduct FICA and Taxes? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Graywolf, taking his life in his hands, said, Motherhood is not a profession, nobody pays for that (grin). I'm guessing that you've never been married vbg. I've been paying a mom for 33 years, and she's worth every penny. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.4 - Release Date: 1/25/2005
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Well put, Bob W. Thankyou. I personally believe there is an ultimate truth, an ultimate reality. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by an 'ultimate' truth. I was talking about external / objective reality / truth. I'm informed that it's a common mistake to equate objective truth with objective reality. However, all my investigations have led me to the conclusion that each implies the other, so they are equivalent. Unfortunately, time, space and the off-topicness of the subject mean I'm not going to attempt to justify the claim. The internet is quite a good resource for finding out about this sort of thing, and for learning the arguments which support the idea. You could try googling for 'debating tricks', but you might be more successful with 'critical thinking'. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 14:57:32 +0100, Frantisek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ft maniplation should be allowed. A bit of dodging and burning, ft cropping, that's about it. Even tilting is verboten, AFAIK. Tilting? Does that mean that all of my PJ photographs (which are even more tilted that all Kratochvil's g) are useless now :-( ? Or did you mean some other tilting? :) Good light! fra What I meant is that tilting in the darkroom is bad (for photojournalists, at least). In other words, the tilt of the photo (as taken) must be left as is. No straightening horizons or otherwise changing tilt after the fact. If you ~took~ the photo tilted, that's okay. Hell, I do it all the time! vbg But then again, I'm not a professional journalist. BTW, that tilting rule was one that I read on another list somewhere. I personally would view it the same as cropping (ie: okay, but I'd choose not to do it myself). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank. snip I would have thought that agreeing with me is worth ~something~... LOL -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank. However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession. ERNR mother of two NPPA member Eleanor, NPPA? National Proud Parents' Association? Am I close? If anything, I'm thinking the Proud is wrong, the rest right. cheers, frank father of three (that I'm aware of) g -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I suppose by using the word 'ultimate', that I'm trying to say that if I believe in an external objective reality, that I believe it to exist everywhere. Maybe that was a given and I'm confusing the point by using the wrong word. Interesting discussion. Tom C. From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 18:52:42 + Hi, Well put, Bob W. Thankyou. I personally believe there is an ultimate truth, an ultimate reality. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by an 'ultimate' truth. I was talking about external / objective reality / truth. I'm informed that it's a common mistake to equate objective truth with objective reality. However, all my investigations have led me to the conclusion that each implies the other, so they are equivalent. Unfortunately, time, space and the off-topicness of the subject mean I'm not going to attempt to justify the claim. The internet is quite a good resource for finding out about this sort of thing, and for learning the arguments which support the idea. You could try googling for 'debating tricks', but you might be more successful with 'critical thinking'. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Quoting frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 06:06:16 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: For what it's worth, if anything, I agree with Frank. However, I thought *motherhood* was the second oldest profession. ERNR mother of two NPPA member Eleanor, NPPA? National Proud Parents' Association? Am I close? If anything, I'm thinking the Proud is wrong, the rest right. National Press Photographers' Association. I was trying (unsuccessfully, I suspect) to show my credentials for addressing both motherhood and journalism. (My comment about journalism consisted of agreeing with your comment about it.) ERNR
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
fra: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. In other words, a photograph is a representation of the photographers opinion of something. So an opinion is always a lie? Interesting take. I think we will have to agree to not completely agree on this one. An opinion presented as the truth can be a lie. And a problem with photography is that it often is misinterpreted. Yes, It was late last night, so I was a little bit unclear... DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:50:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! === We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet, undiscovered. The observer affects the observed. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Comments below fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 1/24/2005 2:58:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some objective truth. Something concrete out there that is true. And that subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a lie. I believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no separate universal truth. What exists or doesn't exist or appears to exist out there must always be filtered through our own lens; passed through our own subjectivity. We cannot ever truly stand outside ourselves, outside our own heads, outside our own world view. If there is a universal concrete truth (which I do not believe), we cannot actually perceive untainted. We always perceive it through our own subjective experience. Whew. Probably not clear. (And I think I am losing myself in my own argument. :-)) :-) I agree with most of what you say. As a physicist part of the job is to describe the part of the world that cannot be interpreted by our senses. We never really know how good the description is, except that the predictions we make based on these description get more accurate, so we think we are on to something. OTOH, I think photojournalism as used in reporting, is a tricky area and anything that manipulates an image to present something that was not *apparently* there in the first place, could well be a lie. In that case, the photography should admit any manipulation. The problem is, of course, that the thing you add or remove could have been removed by the photographer by simply changing position, or timing. But, I was a bit short last night and ended up with a very wide defintion of lies. This is what I ment to write: To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some objective truth. Something concrete out there that is true. And that subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a lie. I believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no separate universal truth. What you are describing is solipsism. Although it's not possible to disprove the idea, it is fairly easy to demonstrate that nobody really believes in it. To believe in the idea would be indistinguishable from insanity. What exists or doesn't exist or appears to exist out there must always be filtered through our own lens; passed through our own subjectivity. We cannot ever truly stand outside ourselves, outside our own heads, outside our own world view. If there is a universal concrete truth (which I do not believe), we cannot actually perceive untainted. We always perceive it through our own subjective experience. If there is no external reality - in other words, if everything is in your mind, and yours is the only mind that exists - then the idea of 'filtering' it is absurd. If there is an objective reality, can we perceive any part of it untainted by subjectivity? It seems to me that that is what science, history and other evidence-based disciplines try to do. Whew. Probably not clear. (And I think I am losing myself in my own argument. :-)) That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! OTOH, I think photojournalism as used in reporting, is a tricky area and anything that manipulates an image to present something that was not *apparently* there in the first place, could well be a lie. In that case, the photography should admit any manipulation. as Frank has already pointed out, photography is no different to other forms of journalism. Whether or not we accept a report from a journalist depends on our previous experience of the journalist, the publication, the nature of the story, etc. If Seymour Hersh writes in the New Yorker that the US government is looking askance at Iran, I'm inclined to believe him. On the other hand, if he writes in the National Enquirer that he's having Elvis's alien baby, I'd be less inclined to believe him. The same standards apply to photography. I don't know why people think any other standards should apply. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, An opinion presented as the truth can be a lie. Hmm, well, not sure about that. An opinion is not a matter of fact, so it's rather hard to present one as a truth or a lie. E.g. Picasso was the best artist since Leonardo da Vinci. This is a matter of opinion. By definition it's neither true nor false. And a problem with photography is that it often is misinterpreted. Misinterpreting is something that the viewer does; lying is something that the photographer does. Just because someone can misinterpret something, that something doesn't become a lie. Yes, It was late last night, so I was a little bit unclear... perhaps you still need some more sleep g -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT == More concise, better explained. Of course, we get hung up on those words, lie and truth, again. Hehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
fra: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 1/25/2005 12:48:12 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT == More concise, better explained. Of course, we get hung up on those words, lie and truth, again. Hehehehehe. :-) Of course, we could go on discussing why language is unsuitable for communication... :-) DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
The fact that human beings and animals can successfully survive on a daily basis makes it a pretty good bet that our senses and the representations of the world the brain constructs from them has some meaningful relation to what's actually going on in nature. The human ability to extent this concepts using imagination, symbolic thinking, and extrapolation to future effects lets us make predictions about the future and extends our ability to manipulate our environment to our own ends. This same ability also allows us to deceive ourselves and others. All photographs are in some way removed from the natural object, at least by a limited spatial perspective and a frozen slice of time. This issue is always the more complex one of intent to deceive. When NASA and ESA enhance these photos from Titan and Saturn, their goal is to extract more information not to create false images. The very same photographic techniques can be used to make more clear what was going on in the real world or to confuse and mislead. The only real test is to compare the perceptions of a group of actual observers and a group who have simply seen the photos. The extent to which they perceive the event in a similar way is some indication of how good the photo was as a news device. Notice I did say a group; even observers on the seen rarely agree completely on the facts. To say that you can never gauge anything about the world since we have not absolute picture of reality is just a cop out IMHO. It just means there are no simple tests.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! === We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet, undiscovered. The observer affects the observed. Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If there is no external reality then there is no observed. Many people claim that there is no external reality - everything is a product of their mind. However, they all act consistently with the belief that there is an external reality. For example, by emailing people to claim that there is no external reality, you act as though you believe there is at least one mind out there who can read your email. In making your claim you refute it. Similarly, when you leave your flat to go outside, you demonstrate that you believe there is a flat to be inside, and there is an outside to go to. When you hesitate before crossing the road you show that you believe there is a road to cross, that cars and trucks go very fast on it, and that they have the power to crush you. Somebody who truly believed that there was no external reality would be unable to do any of these things. That's why I said earlier that their behaviour would be indistinguishable from insanity. During the Red Terror in Ethiopia, the killers in Mengistu's death squads took a dislike to 'pointy-headed intellectuals'. Just before they shot them, they would say 'and this, my friend, is the objective reality'. The idea that the observer affects the observed is a piece of folk-philosophy nonsense from quantum theory which is meaningless at the level we live at. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 10:53:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If there is no external reality then there is no observed. === Don't agree. No inconsistency to me. And if you boil it down -- I think what I originally said was that there was no universal objective truth. Only subjective truth. BTW, no one can debate me into a corner because I do not play by debating rules. I find them totally silly. (Message resent, because it did not appear -- sorry if there are duplicates.) I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with external reality. A common mistake. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 10:53:15 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If there is no external reality then there is no observed. === Don't agree. No inconsistency to me. If you boil it down -- I think I what I originally said was that there was no universal objective truth. Only subjective truth. BTW, no one can debate me into a corner because I do not play by debating rules. I find them totally silly. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Well put. I personally believe there is an ultimate truth, an ultimate reality. Do I claim to know it? No. Will I or other humans ever fully understand it? Likely not. But it doesn't keep me from believing that one exists. Age old questions. Did the universe (our physical universe) have a beginning or was it always here? Was life created or did it evolve? Just two of the many questions we can ask. If there are answers to those questions, then there is a reality. Ultimately things are one way or another. Rhetorical... Isn't getting a glimpse of reality, albeit a partial one, what many scientists, philosophers and theologians, as well as the comman man have been trying to achieve since the beginning of time as we know it? Tom C. From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:54:19 + Hi, That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! === We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet, undiscovered. The observer affects the observed. Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If there is no external reality then there is no observed. Many people claim that there is no external reality - everything is a product of their mind. However, they all act consistently with the belief that there is an external reality. For example, by emailing people to claim that there is no external reality, you act as though you believe there is at least one mind out there who can read your email. In making your claim you refute it. Similarly, when you leave your flat to go outside, you demonstrate that you believe there is a flat to be inside, and there is an outside to go to. When you hesitate before crossing the road you show that you believe there is a road to cross, that cars and trucks go very fast on it, and that they have the power to crush you. Somebody who truly believed that there was no external reality would be unable to do any of these things. That's why I said earlier that their behaviour would be indistinguishable from insanity. During the Red Terror in Ethiopia, the killers in Mengistu's death squads took a dislike to 'pointy-headed intellectuals'. Just before they shot them, they would say 'and this, my friend, is the objective reality'. The idea that the observer affects the observed is a piece of folk-philosophy nonsense from quantum theory which is meaningless at the level we live at. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:56:32 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange (strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest profession) This is my part, to which Mishka refers: On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective reality. Mishka: I wrote the paragraph to which you refer very carefully. I attempted to write it in such a way that every word had meaning, and was meaningful. So, I did fudge things a bit. I said that a report should be ~grounded~ in facts, that a reporter should present that which he ~believes~ to be true, and that what's being reported should be ~based~ on an objective reality. Each of those key words gives a lot of wiggle room. I know that every journalist and editor (and publisher, for that matter) has their personal bias and agenda. If they're good at what they do, they try to suppress those things to present as fair and objective report as possible. But even the best efforts will sometimes fall short. So, I guess that what I expect is not 100% accuracy, but rather an honest attempt to be fair and objective. Some attain this, most don't. I recognize that. Thanks for your comment, though. Interesting thread. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:01:18 -0500, Graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: TRUTH? But we weren't arguing about truth. We were arguing about how much manipulation of a photo is acceptable or allowed. And, the answer is, it depends. For photojournalism, very little maniplation should be allowed. A bit of dodging and burning, cropping, that's about it. Even tilting is verboten, AFAIK. At the other end of the extreme would be certain forms of artistic photographs, where one would have no expectations of any or much connection between the image and what one may think of as reality. Between those extremes falls everything else. cheers, frank cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:27 -0600, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. You've had legal training. William Robb Despite my legal training, I still find this relatively simple... LOL cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:24:56 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Don't agree. No inconsistency to me. And if you boil it down -- I think what I originally said was that there was no universal objective truth. Only subjective truth. But, some things are objectively true. G.W. Bush is the president of your country. In fact he was just inaugurated for his second term. Are those two facts not objectively true? If they're true everywhere, are they not universal? BTW, no one can debate me into a corner because I do not play by debating rules. I find them totally silly. I have no idea what the rules of debate are... (Message resent, because it did not appear -- sorry if there are duplicates.) I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with external reality. A common mistake. I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference? This isn't a trap, I really don't know. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Sending again after 5 hours since it was never returned to me. Not that I said anything really important... Well put, Bob W. I personally believe there is an ultimate truth, an ultimate reality. Do I claim to know it? No. Will I or other humans ever fully understand it? Likely not. But it doesn't keep me from believing that one exists. Age old questions. Did the universe (our physical universe) have a beginning or was it always here? Was life created or did it evolve? Just two of the many questions we can ask. There must be a real answer to those questions. If there is a real answer, there is a reality. Ultimately things are one way and not another. Rhetorical... Isn't getting a glimpse of reality, albeit a partial one, what many scientists, philosophers and theologians, as well as the ordinary comman man have been trying to achieve since the beginning of time as we know it? Tom C. From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 18:54:19 + Hi, That's what happens when you try to argue the solipsistic position. It's incoherent. There's a lesson to be learned there! === We have to agree to disagree. I think the nature of reality remains, as yet, undiscovered. The observer affects the observed. Your position is inconsistent. One the one hand you claim to believe that there is no external reality. On the other you claim that the observer affects the observed. These positions are incompatible. If there is no external reality then there is no observed. Many people claim that there is no external reality - everything is a product of their mind. However, they all act consistently with the belief that there is an external reality. For example, by emailing people to claim that there is no external reality, you act as though you believe there is at least one mind out there who can read your email. In making your claim you refute it. Similarly, when you leave your flat to go outside, you demonstrate that you believe there is a flat to be inside, and there is an outside to go to. When you hesitate before crossing the road you show that you believe there is a road to cross, that cars and trucks go very fast on it, and that they have the power to crush you. Somebody who truly believed that there was no external reality would be unable to do any of these things. That's why I said earlier that their behaviour would be indistinguishable from insanity. During the Red Terror in Ethiopia, the killers in Mengistu's death squads took a dislike to 'pointy-headed intellectuals'. Just before they shot them, they would say 'and this, my friend, is the objective reality'. The idea that the observer affects the observed is a piece of folk-philosophy nonsense from quantum theory which is meaningless at the level we live at. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph presented as the truth is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. This is a representation of my dogs lying on the floor, shot from above. http://users.accesscomm.ca/wrobb/peso/fellas2.html Please tell me where I am obfuscating the truth. Regards William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
damn lawyer! :) but, even given all the fine print, i still find the presumption overly optimistic. as a side note, maybe some people here have noticed that in my country there were elections (which have finally ended in an inauguration) not that long time ago. and i have to say that the coverage, in the most official and, presumably, neutral news, on *both* sides could be said to be grounded on reality only as much as the the names of the candidates were spelled (mostly) correctly. nothing more. no, i'm not talking about USA. best, mishka On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:07:03 -0500, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mishka: I wrote the paragraph to which you refer very carefully. I attempted to write it in such a way that every word had meaning, and was meaningful.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with external reality. A common mistake. I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference? This isn't a trap, I really don't know. cheers, frank === There are consensual shared truths (families, nations, political parties). But not going to get into that. True: In accordance with the actual state of affairs. Being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed. Well, some people believe there are hard and fast universal objective truths. Right? And some people also feel those truths can be found in external reality. That they exist independent of us, just laying out there waiting to be discovered. My original statement was that we always perceive reality through the filter of our own world view, our own experience, our own lens -- whatever you want to call it. How can we not? We are inside ourselves, looking out. So how do you know what's true? What's a universal objective truth out there in reality? Are you sure? Or is it something someone else told you? Let's take scientific truths. Don't they change all the time? Isn't that what someone else told you? (Or did you do experiments in the lab to prove it? :-)) And don't scientists disagree all the time? And, even now, don't they not know how some basic things work? So what is scientific truth? Take political truth -- George Bush, I think he is the worst President, the worst thing to happen to the US in my life time. Others thing he is an okay guy. I also think, no, he isn't our President, that he only apparently won by fraud and lying, but he didn't actually win (in the previous election). Others think he did win. What's true, what I believe, or what they believe? If you think there are hard and fast truths out there that you can discover, you believe there are some immutable facts. You believe that things don't change. That our perception of them doesn't change. That cultures doesn't change truths. That science doesn't change truths. That we don't change truths sometimes just by our very existence, and our investigations. Assuming we can perceive reality untainted by our own perspective is rather presumptuous. IMHO. We are not god like with the ability to be totally impassive. To stand outside ourselves. And I can't explain it any better than that. And I don't want to. That's it. I also said, I don't believe we have discovered the nature of reality yet. As a postscript -- debating rules are silly, because they have a person take one side and another person take another side. And somehow by debating, the truth is supposed to emerge. When maybe to the person on one side, that is their truth, and to the person on the other side, that is their truth. No amount of arguing is going to change that. Debating doesn't arrive at truths, it just sometimes arrives at a winner and loser (if both sides agree to abide by debating rules). The winner is just the most persistent and articulate. See, there is a presumption that by arguing, one side will see the logic of the other side, and give way. But maybe both sides firmly believe what they believe. And maybe what they are arguing are opinions, beliefs, and there is no point arguing those. Unless you want flame wars. And maybe both sides will never give way. Debating rules also don't really allow for humor, they encourage straightlaced black and white thinking, allow for no tangents, don't allow for changing viewpoints, and I think were designed by men for men. ;-) They are a formalized way to manage verbal aggression. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. I don't think I said it as well as I could have, but I have to run and make Mom her dinner. If someone wants to debate it, find someone else who likes that kind of thing. I don't. :-) Marnie
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:36:34 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/25/2005 4:36:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, k [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I will add to this resend, that you are equating universal object truth with external reality. A common mistake. I'm intrigued. Since you brought it up, what's the difference? This isn't a trap, I really don't know. cheers, frank === There are consensual shared truths (families, nations, political parties). But not going to get into that. True: In accordance with the actual state of affairs. Being that which is the case rather than what is manifest or assumed. Well, some people believe there are hard and fast universal objective truths. Right? And some people also feel those truths can be found in external reality. That they exist independent of us, just laying out there waiting to be discovered. My original statement was that we always perceive reality through the filter of our own world view, our own experience, our own lens -- whatever you want to call it. How can we not? We are inside ourselves, looking out. So how do you know what's true? What's a universal objective truth out there in reality? Are you sure? Or is it something someone else told you? Let's take scientific truths. Don't they change all the time? Isn't that what someone else told you? (Or did you do experiments in the lab to prove it? :-)) And don't scientists disagree all the time? And, even now, don't they not know how some basic things work? So what is scientific truth? Take political truth -- George Bush, I think he is the worst President, the worst thing to happen to the US in my life time. Others thing he is an okay guy. I also think, no, he isn't our President, that he only apparently won by fraud and lying, but he didn't actually win (in the previous election). Others think he did win. What's true, what I believe, or what they believe? If you think there are hard and fast truths out there that you can discover, you believe there are some immutable facts. You believe that things don't change. That our perception of them doesn't change. That cultures doesn't change truths. That science doesn't change truths. That we don't change truths sometimes just by our very existence, and our investigations. Assuming we can perceive reality untainted by our own perspective is rather presumptuous. IMHO. We are not god like with the ability to be totally impassive. To stand outside ourselves. And I can't explain it any better than that. And I don't want to. That's it. I also said, I don't believe we have discovered the nature of reality yet. As a postscript -- debating rules are silly, because they have a person take one side and another person take another side. And somehow by debating, the truth is supposed to emerge. When maybe to the person on one side, that is their truth, and to the person on the other side, that is their truth. No amount of arguing is going to change that. Debating doesn't arrive at truths, it just sometimes arrives at a winner and loser (if both sides agree to abide by debating rules). The winner is just the most persistent and articulate. See, there is a presumption that by arguing, one side will see the logic of the other side, and give way. But maybe both sides firmly believe what they believe. And maybe what they are arguing are opinions, beliefs, and there is no point arguing those. Unless you want flame wars. And maybe both sides will never give way. Debating rules also don't really allow for humor, they encourage straightlaced black and white thinking, allow for no tangents, don't allow for changing viewpoints, and I think were designed by men for men. ;-) They are a formalized way to manage verbal aggression. Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree. I don't think I said it as well as I could have, but I have to run and make Mom her dinner. If someone wants to debate it, find someone else who likes that kind of thing. I don't. :-) Marnie Well, thank you Marnie. I just wanted to know what the difference (in your mind) is between a universal objective truth, and external reality (terms that you used), as I really didn't know what you were talking about without some idea of what you meant by those terms. Now I think I have ~some~ idea. I do, however, happen to disagree with much of what you said. However, this is getting quite far afield (even for this list), so like you, I have no intention of debating.or prolonging this much more. Have a good supper. I had chili. Mm! vbg cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:09:49 -0500, Mishka [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: damn lawyer! :) but, even given all the fine print, i still find the presumption overly optimistic. as a side note, maybe some people here have noticed that in my country there were elections (which have finally ended in an inauguration) not that long time ago. and i have to say that the coverage, in the most official and, presumably, neutral news, on *both* sides could be said to be grounded on reality only as much as the the names of the candidates were spelled (mostly) correctly. nothing more. no, i'm not talking about USA. Just a bike messenger, Mishka, just a bike messenger... vbg I understand your cynicism, BTW, and share your wariness of some (many?) journalists (despite my optimism g). One of these days, we'll share a couple of beers, and have a wonderful conversation! g cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/25/2005 7:59:03 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I just wanted to know what the difference (in your mind) is between a universal objective truth, and external reality (terms that you used), as I really didn't know what you were talking about without some idea of what you meant by those terms. Now I think I have ~some~ idea. I do, however, happen to disagree with much of what you said. However, this is getting quite far afield (even for this list), so like you, I have no intention of debating.or prolonging this much more. Have a good supper. I had chili. Mm! vbg cheers, frank === Well, actually, I didn't come up with the term external reality. It was someone who wanted to debate me that came up with that. I would describe reality otherwise. And, yeah, I know there were some inconsistencies in what I said, but I dashed that off in a couple of minutes. There is so much traffic on this list I can't spend a lot of time on reading/writing each post. And I only answered because it was you who asked, frank. :-) But this is getting boring. Thanks, afraid my dinner isn't as interesting as yours. Marnie :-)
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Answers below: fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how. Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference. Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition? Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters. We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe in but lie so easily. DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In your example the lie was not the photo but in the context, where it was used as if it was a puddle of blood. You could also say that the intent in the manipulation was to lie, but again, this could have been acieved by the photographer in many ways. The photographer is a lier, not the photograph. I have another example: If you want to describe the feeling of sitting around a camp fire under the stars this is impossible to describe with one exposure, because you can't capture both the stars and the camp fire in the same picture, the contrast is to big. To give a truthful description of the situation you have to use two exposures, and add the stars to the picture of the people around the fire. I picture without stars tells a lie, the manipulated photo tells the truth. Photographs in mass media are illustrations, not proof. It is the photographer you have to choose whether you want to believe or not. He will always chose the picture that reflects his understanding of the situation. Usually in such discussions (appologies to those who are bored by it) I usually give this link: www.uelsmann.com which shows how much manipultion you can do in the darkroom, and to my own unmanipulated photos: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=366144 in which all manipulation is performed during the exposure. My point is that any rules will lead to absurdities. My series show the truth as it was seen through the camera, but still they lie, because they show something that wasn't real. Could the orapple be shown in an article about fruit, and gene technology? DagT fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] dato: 2005/01/24 ma PM 12:42:03 CET til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net emne: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? I can't agree with you. I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it? I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it look a little more redish. Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you would agree. But were is the borderline? I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as art. If anybody can see it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic magazine - you can't tinker around. Michael
RE: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Michael wrote: Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (I mean: worked hard in Photoshop) a picture? My opinion is that like a lot of ethical questions it depends on the intended use. I would expect that an image used in a newspaper or magazine to report a newsworthy event should have a disclaimer. I would not expect one for an ad in those same publications. Nor would I expect one from an entertainment article such as SI's swimsuit edition. My 2 Butch
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Quoting Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? Yes and no. It all depends on the context the pic is presented in. If a photo is presented to be authentic, or unmanipulated, it puts a trust on the photographer to document as objectively as he or she can, to the extent that all essential elements of a story is told. However, no photographer is entirely objective. A picture is always a crop out of reality. The photographer manipulates in the selection of what to shoot. For that reason, I find no reason to trust a photographer to express more than the photographers vision. Manipulated or not. Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Lucidly stated. Everyone seems up in arms about manipulated photos. Never mind that the whole news article is slanted to say the least, the photos are supposed to be true to life. Silly. I had a friend once who was a news anchorman. He told me that the media never outright lied (presumably he was not talking about the papers you buy at the grocery counter). If you saw it on the news you could be sure something happened at the place and time. But any conclusions beyond that would be stupid because the editors would always slant the story to fit their agenda. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In your example the lie was not the photo but in the context, where it was used as if it was a puddle of blood. You could also say that the intent in the manipulation was to lie, but again, this could have been acieved by the photographer in many ways. The photographer is a lier, not the photograph. I have another example: If you want to describe the feeling of sitting around a camp fire under the stars this is impossible to describe with one exposure, because you can't capture both the stars and the camp fire in the same picture, the contrast is to big. To give a truthful description of the situation you have to use two exposures, and add the stars to the picture of the people around the fire. I picture without stars tells a lie, the manipulated photo tells the truth. Photographs in mass media are illustrations, not proof. It is the photographer you have to choose whether you want to believe or not. He will always chose the picture that reflects his understanding of the situation. Usually in such discussions (appologies to those who are bored by it) I usually give this link: www.uelsmann.com which shows how much manipultion you can do in the darkroom, and to my own unmanipulated photos: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=366144 in which all manipulation is performed during the exposure. My point is that any rules will lead to absurdities. My series show the truth as it was seen through the camera, but still they lie, because they show something that wasn't real. Could the orapple be shown in an article about fruit, and gene technology? DagT fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] dato: 2005/01/24 ma PM 12:42:03 CET til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net emne: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? I can't agree with you. I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it? I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it look a little more redish. Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you would agree. But were is the borderline? I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as art. If anybody can see it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic magazine - you can't tinker around. Michael -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of mirrors and the like. His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures truthful since they are what the lens saw. Obfuscating the truth is still a lie. William Robb - Original Message - From: Michael Heim Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? I can't agree with you. I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it? I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it look a little more redish. Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you would agree. But were is the borderline? I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as art. If anybody can see it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic magazine - you can't tinker around. Michael -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Answers below: fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how. Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference. Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition? Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters. We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe in but lie so easily. DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of mirrors and the like. His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures truthful since they are what the lens saw. Obfuscating the truth is still a lie. William Robb - Original Message - From: Michael Heim Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? I can't agree with you. I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it? I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it look a little more redish. Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you would agree. But were is the borderline? I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as art. If anybody can see it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic magazine - you can't tinker around. Michael -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Answers below: fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how. Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference. Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition? Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters. We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe in but lie so easily. DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote: And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't trying to deceive anybody. The characteristic property of a lie is the intent to deceive. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary line. Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal. But how much evidence does the artist have to offer in order to escape the lie? Are painters who use a photo realist style obligated to paint only things that really exist? I think not. An attempt to deceive in the cause of artistic expression is not necessarily nefarious. Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. Paul Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote: And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't trying to deceive anybody. The characteristic property of a lie is the intent to deceive. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. The telling of beautiful, untrue things is the proper aim of art - Oscar Wilde -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 8:28:05 PM, pnstenquist wrote: Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary line. Why? Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal. So what? It doesn't mean it was a lie But how much evidence does the artist have to offer in order to escape the lie? I don't understand the question Are painters who use a photo realist style obligated to paint only things that really exist? Nobody's obliged to do anything. Did you think I implied in my comment that they were? I think not. An attempt to deceive in the cause of artistic expression is not necessarily nefarious. Nor is lying necessarily nefarious. But if somebody tells you something that is not true, and they know it's not true, and they intend to deceive you, then it's a lie. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule. -- Cheers, Bob Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote: And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't trying to deceive anybody. The characteristic property of a lie is the intent to deceive. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
I said: Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. Bob added: That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule. HAR! Then I guess we agree. Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 8:28:05 PM, pnstenquist wrote: Based on your definition of a lie, one must draw an arbitrary line. Why? Although Dali mimiced reality, most of his work (but not all) departed sufficiently from the real to make it unmistakably surreal. So what? It doesn't mean it was a lie But how much evidence does the artist have to offer in order to escape the lie? I don't understand the question Are painters who use a photo realist style obligated to paint only things that really exist? Nobody's obliged to do anything. Did you think I implied in my comment that they were? I think not. An attempt to deceive in the cause of artistic expression is not necessarily nefarious. Nor is lying necessarily nefarious. But if somebody tells you something that is not true, and they know it's not true, and they intend to deceive you, then it's a lie. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Art should never be subject to arbitrary rules. That sounds to me like an arbitrary rule. -- Cheers, Bob Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 7:44:52 PM, pnstenquist wrote: And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul Dali's work isn't a lie. He wasn't trying to deceive anybody. The characteristic property of a lie is the intent to deceive. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Sure, but who cares where the lie is made, before, after or during the exposure. And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT På 24. jan. 2005 kl. 20.04 skrev William Robb: Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of mirrors and the like. His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures truthful since they are what the lens saw. Obfuscating the truth is still a lie. William Robb - Original Message - From: Michael Heim Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? I can't agree with you. I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it? I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it look a little more redish. Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you would agree. But were is the borderline? I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as art. If anybody can see it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic magazine - you can't tinker around. Michael -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Answers below: fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how. Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference. Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition? Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters. We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe in but lie so easily. DagT
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 10:56:18 PM, DagT wrote: Sure, but who cares where the lie is made, before, after or during the exposure. And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. that's not what a lie is. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - From: DagT [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. In other words, a photograph is a representation of the photographers opinion of something. So an opinion is always a lie? Interesting take. I think we will have to agree to not completely agree on this one. William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
My own two eyes always 'represent my own personal representation of something' to my brain. If this is the definition of a lie then to discuss the ability of a photo to lie is moot. Tom C. From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:23:56 + Hi, Monday, January 24, 2005, 10:56:18 PM, DagT wrote: Sure, but who cares where the lie is made, before, after or during the exposure. And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. that's not what a lie is. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:43:12 -0700, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My own two eyes always 'represent my own personal representation of something' to my brain. If this is the definition of a lie then to discuss the ability of a photo to lie is moot. Well, here's the bottom line: Photography is nothing more than communication. It can be misleading, or it can be truthful. It can be intentionally misleading, or unwittingly so. In that way, it's no different from any other way that we use to express thoughts or feelings to other beings. As with any other form of communication, it is subjective, and dependant on the biases and abilities of the communicator(s); I should also say, it is almost certainly subject to the biases and particular perceptual abilities of the viewer, as well. So, what's allowed? Well, everything, of course! Well, nothing of course! It's like asking if a work of fiction or a poem is a lie, because what's represented has never existed in reality (whatever the hell reality is!). Of course, truth (if truth means that something represents a tangible reality) has nothing to do with that equation. On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective reality. Why hold photography to a different standard than any other form of communication? If photography can be completely subjective (as with some of Dag's smoke-and-mirrors photos), then any form of manipulation can be allowed, either in the darkroom or in the computer. If photography can, on the other hand, hold itself out as being grounded in reality (as photojournalism holds itself out), then restrictions as to what manipulations are allowed are certainly in order - as they always have been for those types of photos. Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
frank, i agree with you 99%, wxcept this part, which i find a bit strange (strange that someone has this kind of expectations of the second oldest profession) On the other hand, if I pick up a newspaper, I expect that what's being reported should be grounded in facts, and represent that which the reporter believes to be true, accurate, and based on an objective reality. ... cheers, frank best, mishka
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
TRUTH? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.7.2 - Release Date: 1/21/2005
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/24/2005 5:02:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: TRUTH? graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof Possibly. But actually I think it was cartoon. Hehehehehehe. Marnie aka Doe --- frank theriault wrote: Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me.
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
In a message dated 1/24/2005 2:58:23 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: And I do agree that it is confusing that I sometimes switch from my perspective to the opponents. To simplify things: To me, a photograph is always a lie, since it always represents the photographers personal representation of something. DagT Just to confuse things... Your above statement implies that there is some objective truth. Something concrete out there that is true. And that subjectivity, by its very nature, because it is one person's viewpoint, is a lie. I believe, however, that there is no objectivity --no separate universal truth. What exists or doesn't exist or appears to exist out there must always be filtered through our own lens; passed through our own subjectivity. We cannot ever truly stand outside ourselves, outside our own heads, outside our own world view. If there is a universal concrete truth (which I do not believe), we cannot actually perceive untainted. We always perceive it through our own subjective experience. Whew. Probably not clear. (And I think I am losing myself in my own argument. :-)) OTOH, I think photojournalism as used in reporting, is a tricky area and anything that manipulates an image to present something that was not *apparently* there in the first place, could well be a lie. In that case, the photography should admit any manipulation. Marnie ;-)
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
- Original Message - From: frank theriault Subject: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Exactly what are we arguing about, anyway? This seems pretty simple and straightforward to me. You've had legal training. William Robb
Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed?
It would be difficult to call Dali's work a lie since he was not trying to fool anyone into thinking it was reality. I would consider something to be a lie if it were trying to make me truly believe it was the truth. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And a beautiful. well-executed lie can be artful and valuable. Would anyone say that Dali's work was not artful, although it mimiced reality while twisting it to suit the artist's intention? Paul Dag is a bit of a master at photographic trickery through the use of mirrors and the like. His definition of the truth is, to me, rather suspect, since his lies happen in front of the lens, but he is able to call his pictures truthful since they are what the lens saw. Obfuscating the truth is still a lie. William Robb - Original Message - From: Michael Heim Subject: AW: Dogmatism: what is allowed? I can't agree with you. I know that pictures have ever been manipulated, people have even been cut out of images because of political reasons. But does that give as a carte blanche to manipulate pictures without telling anybody about it? I give you a practical example. A few years ago htere was a terroristic incident in luxor, egypt, where many people died. There were a lot of pictures. One of them showed the plaxe and a puddle of blood. So thought we. In real, it was an ordinary puddle of water, but some guy made it look a little more redish. Some newspaper printed the picture. It was a big scandal. I would say, in a journalistic environment, that wasn't OK. I think you would agree. But were is the borderline? I'm more tolerant, if a picture is declared as art. If anybody can see it was manipulated. But, if you shoot a picture for national geografic magazine - you can't tinker around. Michael -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Gesendet: Montag, 24. Januar 2005 12:11 An: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Betreff: Re: Dogmatism: what is allowed? Answers below: fra: Michael Heim [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that we are speaking about looking away and do's don'ts. Lets get ethical: Should photographers make a declaration when having manipulated (i mean: worked hard in photoshop) a picture? No. Any photograph is already manipulated, from the moment you choose what to photograph and how. Examples: - adding grain digitally ;-) - putting objects in or taking them out of a picture - changing colours (with digital colour filters) - cutting pimpels out of faces These are things that were done in the darkroom a hundred years ago. Photoshop makes no difference. Does it make a difference if the photos are for - newspapers - magazines - a photo exhibition? Only if the tekst say something that isn't true. If a journalist or artist claims that an altered photograph shows something that is true, he is telling a lie. The photograph just shows something, it is the context that matters. We should never believe photographs, because they are so easy to believe in but lie so easily. DagT -- I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime. --P.J. O'Rourke
