An interesting conversation.

And that, my friend, is the heart of the matter. All else is torofecalia.
snip

Thomas Gardner said:

Shameful that we're only allowed one lifetime

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/emagowan
Various stuff. Some broken, some not.

Hi Thomas

I saw your image of the Library and staircase and I thought fairly interpreted my thoughts of it.

I do agree that depending on where/who you submit a photo it is very much accepted or is garbage. As the saying goes "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder"

William Gordon

Thomas Gardner said:

While out saving the world from insect invasions, I get the
pleasure of being able to sit at the kitchen table with my
customers. Just as I'm chatty here, I'm chatty there also We
can all act surprised

With that in mind, the conversation of photography came up; more
surprised faces The customer and husband were both into
photography and been members of a San Jose camera club.

She commented about how she had submitted an image to the camera
clubs three judged at the monthly meeting and the short of the very
pleasant story, they ripped her image.

She took the same image and submitted it to a multi-state contest
and took best in show. Same image...... totally different results.

Now the point of this posting has to do with perception of an image
and your experiences with other people's reactions to your images
and what "really" is an excellent image!

Example for though; Duchamp's and "Nude Decending a Staircase".
This was clearly an avante garde image that introduced three
dimentional thinking into a two dimensional world of painterly art
that added the dynamics of movement to the image. By the
traditional thinking of the Photo-Realists of the time and the
Pointalists of the time this was some wacked out stuff.

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html

Valid or invalid?

I posted an image here and it was shredded by the animals that live
in the zoo, but on photo.net it was well received and based on the
comments, some even enjoyed the photographic humor.

(Image/comment were posted as nothing more then a personal example.)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1256675

What came out of the conversation this morning is that the
acceptance of an image is very dependent on the individual that's
looking at the image.

I went to a customer's art show and thought her images of "Women in
the Bible", done in acrylic were wonderful interpretations but
others I know, didn't like this sort of art. Does that make the
artist invalid because someone didn't like the images. Does it
make an artist valid because others do like the image?

Hence the question to be pondered by all the intellectuals and
non-intellectuals that poke around among these posts on this
forum.....

What constitues a valid image?

Is an image not valid if it doesn't get approved of by a panel of
camera club critics? Is a critique only valid if it's a tri-state
competition and the image gets at least an honorable mention? Are
all the other submitted images invalid that don't get so much as an
honorable mention? Is an image invalid if it doesn't pass muster
on dpreview.com but passes muster on photo.net?

What makes a valid image? Is it valid, only if it follows some
rule of composition? Is it valid only if the image has no
distractions in it, such as a piece of trash. How about, is it
valid only if the image has no negative space. What makes the
image valid, what constitues an invalid image.

Is it like the definition of porn? "I don't know how to define it
but I sure know it when I see it."

I hope you don't find the rambling to distracting as I wanted to
post the point of the conversation and get your indepth reaction to
the questions above as this ties into photography and what it is
your doing and validity of what it is you're currently doing today.

Click to expand...

Edward Magowan said:

And that, my friend, is the heart of the matter. All else is
torofecalia.

Click to expand...

Had to work on that one Let's see..... Toro.....fecal..... Toro.... fecal.

Oh, I get it:-0)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

B.S.

Thomas Gardner wrote:
"Shameful that we're only allowed one lifetime"

Different panels of judges will give you different verdicts on THAT one, too!

Larry

Kevin Lyness said:

Here's a definition of reality I use in teaching social
constructionism (the worldview that reality is a social
construction). Certainly, photography judging is socially
constructed, and it depends upon the social group whether something
is "valid".

-Reality-
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.

Click to expand...

Kevin Lyness said:

What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
– Zukav, 1979

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like bull sh*t to me, its just a play with words, to confuse people who's thick....

The second half is exactly the same as the first half, e.g.

What we take to be true is what we believe = What we believe determines what we take to be true.

so the second half might as well be ignored. and without the second half the whole thing looses its strength and point.

The first half doesn't give much information either, and since it is only what the writer precieves, it cannot be determined to be accurate or not.

So you might as well condense it to:

Reality is what we think.

This is the only information yielded from the whole text. Which is pretty useless and uninteresting, and is only an opinion.

--
blamuk

blamuk said:

Kevin Lyness said:

Here's a definition of reality I use in teaching social
constructionism (the worldview that reality is a social
construction). Certainly, photography judging is socially
constructed, and it depends upon the social group whether something
is "valid".

-Reality-
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.

Click to expand...

blamuk said:

What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
– Zukav, 1979

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like bull sh*t to me, its just a
play with words, to confuse people who's thick....

The second half is exactly the same as the first half, e.g.

What we take to be true is what we believe = What we believe
determines what we take to be true.

so the second half might as well be ignored. and without the second
half the whole thing looses its strength and point.

The first half doesn't give much information either, and since it
is only what the writer precieves, it cannot be determined to be
accurate or not.

So you might as well condense it to:

Reality is what we think.

This is the only information yielded from the whole text. Which is
pretty useless and uninteresting, and is only an opinion.

Click to expand...

I'll give you one that's fact and not fiction.

Reality it the true master of life, we just have to learn to become it's unwilling servent.

In the same vein.

The truth is, no matter whether we perceive it or not.

And finally.

There are no mysteries, there's only ignorance.

Once you come to these conclusions, life's easy

blamuk said:

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like bull sh*t to me, its just a
play with words, to confuse people who's thick....

The second half is exactly the same as the first half, e.g.

What we take to be true is what we believe = What we believe
determines what we take to be true.

so the second half might as well be ignored. and without the second
half the whole thing looses its strength and point.

The first half doesn't give much information either, and since it
is only what the writer precieves, it cannot be determined to be
accurate or not.

So you might as well condense it to:

Reality is what we think.

Click to expand...

blamuk said:

Kevin Lyness said:

Here's a definition of reality I use in teaching social
constructionism (the worldview that reality is a social
construction). Certainly, photography judging is socially
constructed, and it depends upon the social group whether something
is "valid".

-Reality-
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.

Click to expand...

blamuk said:

What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
– Zukav, 1979

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like bull sh*t to me, its just a
play with words, to confuse people who's thick....

The second half is exactly the same as the first half, e.g.

What we take to be true is what we believe = What we believe
determines what we take to be true.

so the second half might as well be ignored. and without the second
half the whole thing looses its strength and point.

The first half doesn't give much information either, and since it
is only what the writer precieves, it cannot be determined to be
accurate or not.

So you might as well condense it to:

Reality is what we think.

This is the only information yielded from the whole text. Which is
pretty useless and uninteresting, and is only an opinion.

Click to expand...

This is an easy on. Reality doesn't care about you or I. Reality exists with or without our blessing or awareness. You can reach out and touch reality or you can turn your blind eye to it. Again, reality is a concept, it isn't alive so it doesn't care.

I'll give you one that's fact and not fiction.

Reality is the true master of life, we just have to learn to become it's unwilling servent.

In the same vein.

The truth is, no matter whether we perceive it or not.

And finally.

There are no mysteries, there's only ignorance.

Once you come to these conclusions, life's easy

Thomas Gardner said:

blamuk said:

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like bull sh*t to me, its just a
play with words, to confuse people who's thick....

The second half is exactly the same as the first half, e.g.

What we take to be true is what we believe = What we believe
determines what we take to be true.

so the second half might as well be ignored. and without the second
half the whole thing looses its strength and point.

The first half doesn't give much information either, and since it
is only what the writer precieves, it cannot be determined to be
accurate or not.

So you might as well condense it to:

Reality is what we think.

Click to expand...

blamuk said:

Kevin Lyness said:

Here's a definition of reality I use in teaching social
constructionism (the worldview that reality is a social
construction). Certainly, photography judging is socially
constructed, and it depends upon the social group whether something
is "valid".

-Reality-
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.

Click to expand...

Thomas Gardner said:

What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
– Zukav, 1979

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that just sounds like bull sh*t to me, its just a
play with words, to confuse people who's thick....

The second half is exactly the same as the first half, e.g.

What we take to be true is what we believe = What we believe
determines what we take to be true.

so the second half might as well be ignored. and without the second
half the whole thing looses its strength and point.

The first half doesn't give much information either, and since it
is only what the writer precieves, it cannot be determined to be
accurate or not.

So you might as well condense it to:

Reality is what we think.

This is the only information yielded from the whole text. Which is
pretty useless and uninteresting, and is only an opinion.

Click to expand...

This is an easy on. Reality doesn't care about you or I. Reality
exists with or without our blessing or awareness. You can reach
out and touch reality or you can turn your blind eye to it. Again,
reality is a concept, it isn't alive so it doesn't care.

Click to expand...

aggreed, its a concept, thats why people can only attempt to describe it, but it is a concept with flaws, it cannot be defined.

Thomas Gardner said:

I'll give you one that's fact and not fiction.

Reality is the true master of life, we just have to learn to become
it's unwilling servent.

Click to expand...

'reality' has no strict definition, because it is only a concept invented by man to attempt to describe/catogorize things precieved by man. By the definition of perception and conception, 'reality' cannnot be defined.

so 'Reality is the true master of life' is just another perception and therefore cannot be justified, by definition. It is yet another way of looking at a concept.

This way of thinking about 'reality' is only useful when one want to 'escape from reality' i.e. it is yet another excuse to make oneself feel better in certain circumstances, e.g. uncontrollable situations.

At the same time this way of thinking about reality is yet another excuse to stop identifying 'reality'.

So in conclusion this statement is again a play with words, designed for those who does not think deep enough. It sounds good, it has no obvious flaws and therefore can't be argued easily (due to the incapability in defining/identifying 'reality')

so is it a fact - no
is it fiction - yes

is it useful fiction - yes, as an excuse for those who doesn't understand its meaning
Are there any useful information deduced from it - no

Thomas Gardner said:

In the same vein.

The truth is, no matter whether we perceive it or not.

Click to expand...

'the truth' is yet another concept, but this time it can be defined, and has been defined by many great philosophers. the big debates concerning 'the truth' is normally if it exists or not.

The above is one of the simplist definition for 'the truth' i have ever seen. Shame this definition is not vigorous enough for my taste.

is it a fact - yes
is it useful - yes if it is more precise...

Thomas Gardner said:

And finally.

There are no mysteries, there's only ignorance.

Click to expand...

Sweet! I like this one. Intresting way of thinking about it. But have you thought about it this way: if there ARE no myteries, then ignorance would not exsist

Thomas Gardner said:

Once you come to these conclusions, life's easy

Click to expand...

I don't really except these conclusions, may be thats why my life is not so easy.....

These conclusions can't actually be (have not been?) justified. Which means they are invalid. Even if you could argue and attempt to justify them, they are far too inprecise and inaccurate.

--
blamuk

blamuk said:

Even if you could argue and attempt
to justify them, they are far too inprecise and inaccurate.

Click to expand...

I use to argue but no more. Now, I make a pronouncement and let others argue with each other. Once you come to the above truths that I posted, you find you don't need to argue the points as argument is fruitless. It took years of beating my head against very hard walls and then I realized that the truths are there, whether or not we see them.

The water settled and now I'm busy enjoying life

Each of the pronoucements are solid. It's your choice whether or not to accept and it's your choice whether or not to argue. Me, I just get on down the road

You have to understand how sites like Photosig work. They actively encourage 'clubs'. An image gets posted. Depending upon the time posted and inclinations of those viewing, it gets a number of points in the first three or four pages. After that it is consigned to history. Marks after that are down to the people one has 'cultivated'. You do that by having a list of people whose work you mark always with three thumbs and loads of unction. They will then reciprocate.

I left the site completely as a waste fo time. The site is too slow to brown-nose enough to get high marks. But I could not bring myself to do that anyway. Added to which is if you say honestly what you think of a shot, you get attacked.

Dave

Lin Evans said:

Member said:

I really despise those tyrannical judges of art, especially at the
academic level, who feel that they have the real poop on what is or
isn't art. (Actually, what they do have is an awful lot like real
poop!)

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Hi Walter,
That's actually very similar to my own observations - and one that
is validated daily by astute observers.

After spending many years teaching in University classrooms, I
decided that preservation of "tradition" and the reputations of
prestigious faculty members are far more likely to drive curriculum
than a search for truth and validity.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but is that not their truth against yours? Are you all not part of the same goal? I think, see below, that this struggle between conservative and liberal is good. It is a balance between the two which is needed.

Member said:

It’s a shame that our ivory towers have become bastions of perfidy,
but in many cases that’s exactly what has happened. One wonders why
this has become so. I suppose there has always been an iterative
process of refining knowledge, sort of a Hegelian thesis,
antithesis, synthesis process, and that it takes many years to
sort through the issues and arrive at consensus . This seems to
work much better for the quantitative sciences than for more
esoteric subjects like art, but the arrogance of some of our
“experts” and “authorities” in these venues defy logic.

Click to expand...

I think fear of loss of control drives this conservatism. A stable society is more productive. Yet it needs new ideas to move forwards. So, it has to be a balance between liberal and conservative thinking. Either extreme seems to be counter productive. This is what Arab countries need to embrace (the conservatism of their religious ideas against the need to progress) and what the West and former Communist countries have embraced. It is the best model we humans have arrived at for human progress.

Member said:

To me, art is an outward manifestation or expression of a mental
state; an attempt to convey to others what the individual sees or
feels inwardly. It can take many forms, and trying to define an
abstract concept in concrete terms is usually an exercise in
futility. As has been said, one either appreciates it or not – but
failing to appreciated it by one certainly doesn’t “invalidate” it
for all.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Dave

Thomas Gardner said:

blamuk said:

Even if you could argue and attempt
to justify them, they are far too inprecise and inaccurate.

Click to expand...

I use to argue but no more. Now, I make a pronouncement and let
others argue with each other. Once you come to the above truths
that I posted, you find you don't need to argue the points as
argument is fruitless. It took years of beating my head against
very hard walls and then I realized that the truths are there,
whether or not we see them.

The water settled and now I'm busy enjoying life

Each of the pronoucements are solid. It's your choice whether or
not to accept and it's your choice whether or not to argue. Me, I
just get on down the road

Click to expand...

ahh, your dissmissial of my thoughts is accepted. I was just trying to make an even more interesting conversation out of your interesting wiew of life. But obviously you don't have the time. But still I have to urge you not to stop thinking for deeper meaning and settle with excuses, otherwise our brains will stop working very quickly!!!

regards
--
blamuk

Dave Deacon said:

Lin Evans said:

Dave Deacon said:

I really despise those tyrannical judges of art, especially at the
academic level, who feel that they have the real poop on what is or
isn't art. (Actually, what they do have is an awful lot like real
poop!)

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

After spending many years teaching in University classrooms, I
decided that preservation of "tradition" and the reputations of
prestigious faculty members are far more likely to drive curriculum
than a search for truth and validity.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but is that not their truth against yours?
Are you all not part of the same goal? I think, see below, that
this struggle between conservative and liberal is good. It is a
balance between the two which is needed.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. To imply this is to assume that truth is an internal and thus unverifiable entity. When a conscious effort is made to "doctor" physical evidence or systematically discount evidence not in accord with prevailing theories, then the goal of progress is sublimated to personal ambition.

I do agree that a balance is needed between conservative and liberal, but there are "theories" which impact the "why" and quantifiable evidence which impacts the "what." When quiantifiable evidence is ignored to preserve theory, then progress ceases.

Dave Deacon said:

I think fear of loss of control drives this conservatism. A stable
society is more productive. Yet it needs new ideas to move
forwards. So, it has to be a balance between liberal and
conservative thinking. Either extreme seems to be counter
productive. This is what Arab countries need to embrace (the
conservatism of their religious ideas against the need to progress)
and what the West and former Communist countries have embraced. It
is the best model we humans have arrived at for human progress.

Click to expand...

I have no qualms with stability, but for true progress to be made we must face new evidence and weigh it fairly with the tools at our disposal. We must not adhere to ideas which run counter to the preponderance of physical evidence for the sake of "tradition." Our world is "round" regardless of our history of "flat" thinking and the desire to preserve it.

Dave Deacon said:

Dave Deacon said:

To me, art is an outward manifestation or expression of a mental
state; an attempt to convey to others what the individual sees or
feels inwardly. It can take many forms, and trying to define an
abstract concept in concrete terms is usually an exercise in
futility. As has been said, one either appreciates it or not – but
failing to appreciated it by one certainly doesn’t “invalidate” it
for all.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Dave

Click to expand...

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

Hi Thomas

It is interesting that different people appreciate different images. I shot this one, that I really like myself. I haven't met many other people that like it though. I just take that as an indicator that I'm ahead of my own time



What I find interesting about art is that it bypasses most of our concious thought processes and speaks more or less directly to our subconcious. Of course we can always think about what it is that is appealing in an image, but we more or less know whether we like it or not straight away.

Cheers,
Hans

Thomas Gardner said:

While out saving the world from insect invasions, I get the
pleasure of being able to sit at the kitchen table with my
customers. Just as I'm chatty here, I'm chatty there also We
can all act surprised

With that in mind, the conversation of photography came up; more
surprised faces The customer and husband were both into
photography and been members of a San Jose camera club.

She commented about how she had submitted an image to the camera
clubs three judged at the monthly meeting and the short of the very
pleasant story, they ripped her image.

She took the same image and submitted it to a multi-state contest
and took best in show. Same image...... totally different results.

Now the point of this posting has to do with perception of an image
and your experiences with other people's reactions to your images
and what "really" is an excellent image!

Example for though; Duchamp's and "Nude Decending a Staircase".
This was clearly an avante garde image that introduced three
dimentional thinking into a two dimensional world of painterly art
that added the dynamics of movement to the image. By the
traditional thinking of the Photo-Realists of the time and the
Pointalists of the time this was some wacked out stuff.

http://www.beatmuseum.org/duchamp/nude2.html

Valid or invalid?

I posted an image here and it was shredded by the animals that live
in the zoo, but on photo.net it was well received and based on the
comments, some even enjoyed the photographic humor.

(Image/comment were posted as nothing more then a personal example.)

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1256675

What came out of the conversation this morning is that the
acceptance of an image is very dependent on the individual that's
looking at the image.

I went to a customer's art show and thought her images of "Women in
the Bible", done in acrylic were wonderful interpretations but
others I know, didn't like this sort of art. Does that make the
artist invalid because someone didn't like the images. Does it
make an artist valid because others do like the image?

Hence the question to be pondered by all the intellectuals and
non-intellectuals that poke around among these posts on this
forum.....

What constitues a valid image?

Is an image not valid if it doesn't get approved of by a panel of
camera club critics? Is a critique only valid if it's a tri-state
competition and the image gets at least an honorable mention? Are
all the other submitted images invalid that don't get so much as an
honorable mention? Is an image invalid if it doesn't pass muster
on dpreview.com but passes muster on photo.net?

What makes a valid image? Is it valid, only if it follows some
rule of composition? Is it valid only if the image has no
distractions in it, such as a piece of trash. How about, is it
valid only if the image has no negative space. What makes the
image valid, what constitues an invalid image.

Is it like the definition of porn? "I don't know how to define it
but I sure know it when I see it."

I hope you don't find the rambling to distracting as I wanted to
post the point of the conversation and get your indepth reaction to
the questions above as this ties into photography and what it is
your doing and validity of what it is you're currently doing today.

Click to expand...

blamuk said:

ahh, your dissmissial of my thoughts is accepted. I was just trying
to make an even more interesting conversation out of your
interesting wiew of life. But obviously you don't have the time.
But still I have to urge you not to stop thinking for deeper
meaning and settle with excuses, otherwise our brains will stop
working very quickly!!!

Click to expand...

Not dissmissing. It's just that I've been there and done that. Now I've moved on.

Part of the problem is the above requires a deeper understanding that we only have so much control and awareness of our surroundings.

A lot of time there's a truth out there that we're seeking and we can't see it for what ever reason. It doesn't mean the truth isn't there, it just means that we have yet to achieve enlightenment but it doesn't mean that there's not a truth out there to have contact with.

I purposely avoided the word perceive as perceive could be construed to be a subjective term and in life there are ultimates. Everything isn't up to our perception or interpretation. There are truths out there in life. Immutable truths.

With that in mind comes my comment that "The truth is there, whether or not we perceive it." Lack of perception is not a lack of truth.

Reality is another word for truth; ultimate stop sign. There is such a thing as a philosophical brick wall and you can't go any further, no matter how much one pouts.

Once you see this "Matrix" you can back up and do what you were suppose to be doing in the first place, enjoying life How you do this varies and we have laws to control our naturally excessive behavior.

Thank you for your compliment. It's hard to develop these sorts of ideologies on a web forum in an accurate methodology

As to the brain and not working. I'm fast trying to become the dullest tac in the box:-0 Why? Personal satisfaction and happiness.

There's nothing out there to search for. Life is. There's nothing more. Anything else, in my mind, is nothing more then a search for the "Holy Grail" of security.

Once you come to the conclusion that there are ultimate truths and realities (stop signs), your mind settles out and you then get to do things like enjoying a small bottle of Courvoisier or the thrill of moving living room furniture and redecorating the living room.

This all sounds like life has stopped but far from it, it's call embracing life.

Now you can climb a mountain but in my mind, how many people have to die on K3 before people realize that it's stupid. It's been done to death, literally and now the mountains are being destroyed because of this illness that requires people to leave O2 bottles at the vertical limit.

Sitting on the side of a river is a good thing. Enjoying sunshine or rain is a good thing. Stopping and smelling many roses is a good thing but challenging your mortality is insecurity at it's finest.

Beating on the book of philosophy is a good thing but ignoring the teaching that you have learned along the road is a bad thing.

Sooooo, I stopped challenging my mortality. I'm mortal. Coming to the conclusion that the Universe is bigger then me is settleing. Okay, I'm a little nothing in the Universe. Cool! So now, I can enjoy that what is set before me. The quiet of the morning. The cool of the breeze on my face. The smells of the morning. The rustle of the leaves in the tree or the sound of fallen leaves on the pavement, driven by the afternoon breeze.

When you've got your brain all chewed up with thoughts of mortality or trying to be bigger (omniscents) than the Universe, you get lost in the cacophony.

Soooooo, it all comes full circle. There are truths as perception has nothing to do with their existence. And truth and reality are the same, perceived or otherwise

Hopefully this helps flesh out my comments Thanks for your interest and sorry if I seemed uncommunicative.

Hans Kilian said:

Hi Thomas

It is interesting that different people appreciate different
images. I shot this one, that I really like myself. I haven't met
many other people that like it though. I just take that as an
indicator that I'm ahead of my own time



What I find interesting about art is that it bypasses most of our
concious thought processes and speaks more or less directly to our
subconcious. Of course we can always think about what it is that is
appealing in an image, but we more or less know whether we like it
or not straight away.

Click to expand...

Wow! A legitamit definition of art! Now that's profound

Hans Kilian said:

"...art...bypasses most of our concious thought processes and speaks
more or less directly to our subconcious."

Click to expand...

Wow! Now that takes the image past the "pretty picture" definition to something more profound. Love it

Thanks for the though.

oh...I was so excited when I saw your lengthy reply.....what an enjoyable read it turned out to be, I'll thank you for your time before anything else!

I think now I see the difference between us -

I am just 18 and I still think there is much MUCH more in life, and therefore I enjoy thinking about it. On the other hand you talk as if you're 81, having experienced everything life has to offer and have everything sused out, thought through (and given up?), and now embrassing the time you have left.

You have also hit the right point! - I'm a dedicated rock climber, I love climbing, the higher the better, the more dangerous the more exciting. Climbiing is infact what I enjoy most for now, followed by diving and snowboarding. My mum always complain how dangerous all these activities are, but if I don't do them, then my life would become pretty boring (and they give me lots of very interesting oppertunities for photography too!)

I do accept my mortality, and that the universe is big, but doesn't mean you can't/shouldn't question it. The fact that I have to accept my mortality makes it even more intersting and worth thinking about. You said you have gone through all this and have settled for some answers which, to me, are more like excuses to give up. On the otherhand the advantages you have pointed out for setteling with these excuses are understood and accepted.

ultimate stop sign? philosophical brick wall? thats one thing I'm not going to settle with. I still believe that one can always seek deeper meanings and unearth more secrets. Philosophers may have spent thousands of years and have come to nothing, and hit what you call the philosophical brick wall at every subject they think about. But they have only been thinking for thousands of years, humanity have many more thousands...and when they fail with philosophy, they go the other way (completely opposit?) and try sicence instead. Sicence seem to be pregressing quite well and finding many new answers... And when sicence get stuck they consult mathematics (which was at the very begining thought of as a useless game, completely useless for survival, yet our brains evolved to have the skill to do it? ever thought why?) and then they found that mathematics is even closer to reality?!(general relativity equations yield answers accurate to 14 significant figures!!!) Who knows if we can go yet another way and get ever close to 'the truth'? And if there is a brick wall at every turn, limited by our intelegence, we might evolve to push that wall further and further. But one thing for sure is that if everyone give up and settle for nothing then we'll get nowhere.

But then may be you are now just laughing and thinking I'm so naieve.

Your conclusion of how life should be lived cause me to wonder:

do you believe in god or do you even care

do you think that our life(fate?) is govened by something (be it god or mathematics)

what is the difference between the truth which you refer to and mathematical truth?

I would be even more greatful if you would define vigorously what you mean by 'truth'

Of course you don't have to answer any of the above questions, they are just questions raised in my mind during our conversation. Your time is appreciated greatly already and I have truly enjoyed exchanging ideas with such an intelegent and experienced individial.

--
blamuk

blamuk said:

oh...I was so excited when I saw your lengthy reply.....what an
enjoyable read it turned out to be, I'll thank you for your time
before anything else!

Click to expand...

My pleasure.

blamuk said:

I think now I see the difference between us -

I am just 18 and I still think there is much MUCH more in life, and
therefore I enjoy thinking about it.

Click to expand...

There's not anymore in life. But there is the process of exploring life.

blamuk said:

On the other hand you talk as
if you're 81, having experienced everything life has to offer and
have everything sused out, thought through (and given up?), and now
embrassing the time you have left.

Click to expand...

Not given up, just seen the truth. No matter how hard you fight, it's usually you that you're fighting, not anybody else. When you pop an attitude on the guy next to you, it's you that you're fighting. When you let you're grumpies loose on the world, it's you that you've lost to. When you contain yourself, then you get to live. I'm not embrassing the time left, I'm enjoying the ease of the time I have left. I'm fifty and the time left is ever so short. I'm not going to waste it tilting at windmills.

blamuk said:

You have also hit the right point! - I'm a dedicated rock climber,
I love climbing, the higher the better, the more dangerous the more
exciting. Climbiing is infact what I enjoy most for now, followed
by diving and snowboarding.

Click to expand...

Are there any old rock climbers? Putting ones self at risk, purposefully is an act of insecurity. I use to race on windy roads in a 67 mustang, just to prove to myself I could. Many a time the car did one eighties because I overpowered the curve but never went over the side. Why? To prove to myself I wasn't scared Was it fun? Heck yeah! Was it smart? No. Did I need to do it? Yes. Why? Because I was young and had to define my existence by proving I was alive. Pretty dumb but necessary.

blamuk said:

My mum always complain how dangerous
all these activities are, but if I don't do them, then my life
would become pretty boring (and they give me lots of very
interesting oppertunities for photography too!)

Click to expand...

What does your Dad say? Mom's always say no

blamuk said:

I do accept my mortality, and that the universe is big, but doesn't
mean you can't/shouldn't question it. The fact that I have to
accept my mortality makes it even more intersting and worth
thinking about. You said you have gone through all this and have
settled for some answers which, to me, are more like excuses to
give up.

Click to expand...

Not excuses to give up. Just grew up. It's genetic. It'll happen to you also Take out a sledge hammer. Walk over to a biiiiig rock and start to pound on it until that rock is dust. Now walk over to the next big rock and do the same. The road of life is an infinite number of large bolders and after turning as many bolders into dust as you like, you realize the number of bolders is infinite. So you've now proven that you can turn a bolder into dust. The fact you stop does not mean you given up, there's just no point after a while. At your age, you're suppose to be turning bolders into dust and at my age, I'm suppose to be worring about other things, what ever that might be but I'm not suppose to be seeing if I can turn a bolder into dust. Been there, done that

blamuk said:

On the otherhand the advantages you have pointed out for
setteling with these excuses are understood and accepted.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you understand the error of your above now.

blamuk said:

ultimate stop sign? philosophical brick wall? thats one thing I'm
not going to settle with.

Click to expand...

Sure you will, you don't see the "Matrix" yet, when you do, you'll realize the folly and settle. It's normal, natural and you'll find down the road, you'll have no choice.

blamuk said:

I still believe that one can always seek
deeper meanings and unearth more secrets.

Click to expand...

There are no deeper meanings and there are no secrets to uncover, the box is empty. The realization of this fact is the hidden gem that most never realize and therefore go though life unhappy. My brother died doing what you are doing at forty-two, he never was happy because he thought there was more. The search only brings frustration because you're looking for something that doesn't exist. Why you find the box and you see that it's empty, you realize that happiness is all there is. Happiness at what? What ever it is you want.

Thomas Gardner said:

Philosophers may have
spent thousands of years and have come to nothing, and hit what you
call the philosophical brick wall at every subject they think
about. But they have only been thinking for thousands of years,
humanity have many more thousands...and when they fail with
philosophy, they go the other way (completely opposit?) and try
sicence instead. Sicence seem to be pregressing quite well and
finding many new answers...

Click to expand...

Finding solutions to problems or finding answers to life's questions. Science isn't finding any answers to life's questions as it's only coming up with solutions to mechanical problems. Disease is a mechanical problem. Silicon is a mechanical problem. You might throw life elsewhere in the Universe in there to skew my comments but other then that, Science is mostly a mechanical thing.

Thomas Gardner said:

And when sicence get stuck they consult
mathematics (which was at the very begining thought of as a useless
game, completely useless for survival, yet our brains evolved to
have the skill to do it? ever thought why?)

Click to expand...

No. I just use the math. What's to worry about. That's sort of like wondering about O2 and why it's there

Thomas Gardner said:

and then they found
that mathematics is even closer to reality?!(general relativity
equations yield answers accurate to 14 significant figures!!!)

Click to expand...

I too use to marvel at small numbers and then you come to realize that a small number is the same as a big number. They're both relative to the reason they were created and nothing more.

Thomas Gardner said:

Who
knows if we can go yet another way and get ever close to 'the
truth'?

Click to expand...

Math won't bring you closer to the truth. The truth, slip on a rock and gravity exacts it's toll. You can quantify the results mathematically but that's all you're doing.... quantify it but math's not going to mitigate the results of the slip. The slip is the truth.

Thomas Gardner said:

And if there is a brick wall at every turn, limited by our
intelegence, we might evolve to push that wall further and further.
But one thing for sure is that if everyone give up and settle for
nothing then we'll get nowhere.

Click to expand...

The good news, there are few brick walls in life, so you can relax. There are many stop signs but more good news, after you stop for the sign, you can go forward. Most people don't realize this and park it at the stop sign Stop signs are a normal and natural part of life's landscapes but they're only a stop sign, not a brick wall.

I think you ran a bit to far with the everybody giving up part Some do, the weak but most don't, the strong. The strong are the majority fortunately

Thomas Gardner said:

But then may be you are now just laughing and thinking I'm so naieve.

Click to expand...

More inexperienced then naieve. Make a copy of this interchange and look back at it on your forty-fifth birthday. Not your fortyith but your forty-fifth. The five years makes a difference.

Thomas Gardner said:

Your conclusion of how life should be lived cause me to wonder:

do you believe in god or do you even care

Click to expand...

Sure I care as I hate being played the fool. God is a tricky entity that hides behind each persons arrogance. Humbling oneself so he'll show himself to you takes time as he doen't come out and wack you over the head but rewards you in a carrot and stick fashion. Quite wierd if you ask me but he set the rules up.

Thomas Gardner said:

do you think that our life(fate?) is govened by something (be it
god or mathematics)

Click to expand...

No. That's wishful thinking on the part of mathematics. As to religion, that's a story of humbleness and becoming receptive to the process. Ego will slow the process down.

Thomas Gardner said:

what is the difference between the truth which you refer to and
mathematical truth?

Click to expand...

A truth. "A person is what they do, not what they say." Math has nothing to do with this truth. Listen to the wisdom of this truth and people will reveil themselves to you all day long. Math can never do that.

Another truth. "Be true to yourself and people will be true to you also." Math will have nothing to do with how people will treat you in life but if you're true to yourself, people have no choice but to be true to you also.

Thomas Gardner said:

I would be even more greatful if you would define vigorously what
you mean by 'truth'

Click to expand...

A truth is the conclusion of the journey when there's no more road for anybody, philosophically to travel. A truth is when you're finished going though the process..... you find the box empty You now know the truth

Thomas Gardner said:

Of course you don't have to answer any of the above questions, they
are just questions raised in my mind during our conversation. Your
time is appreciated greatly already and I have truly enjoyed
exchanging ideas with such an intelegent and experienced individial.

Click to expand...

I think you're the first person that's called me intelligent on this board.

How kind of you