[Leica] Re: Our existential pleasures

[Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com>]

Leon,

Does this have anything to do with "spontaneous combustion?" I saw a
charred spot on a floor once. They said that "he" was thinking so hard,
that the grey matter and neurons got all fired-up and "poof"... He was gone.

Jim


At 04:17 PM 3/15/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>					3 Fundamental Ways to Value Ourselves:
>				        			Needed: Balance
>Basics:  
>
>1.  In terms of belonging to something:  e.g.,  National Geographic
>Photograpaher.   Boston Globe Photographer.  US Airforce Photographer.
>Excessive role definition of the self  = S Valuation/Dysvaluation.  A
>photographer that carries this too far is in trouble behind the lens.  
>
>2.  We may value ourselves as primarily a special "hunk"  with enormous
>appeal.  Such narcisism is better on stage than behind the lens.  Or, a
>personality may swing the other way and disvalue "itself" as some sort of
>looser...maybe just a "thing" an "it" of some sort.  E.g., in sexual
>encounters merely a sex object where the relationship is devoid of feeling and
>depth.  Such coldness and emotional anesthesia ain't going to perform well
>behind the lens either....= E- valuation or dysvaluation.
>
>3.  Finally, we may value ourselves as unique and having infinite
>possibilities while belonging to a human and spiritual world.  E.g., in nature
>mysticism, we experience ourselves as one with nature.  This feeling, this
>state of mind, healthier than the other two, has special implications behind
>the lens,,,, = U -valuation.   
>
>Conclusions:
>
>In the real word we need a relative (not perfect) blance of I = E = S value
>skills behind the lens, as photographers, to give us our optimal shot at
>maximizing a good lens.
>
>We also need something else:  We would better make I-valuation most important,
>E-valuation second and S-valuation third in importance as we break away from
>perfect balance (I = E = S) which doesn't exist in personalities anyhow.  
>
>Thus relative balance with a shift to I and E dominance gives personalities
>behind the lens of cameras a leg up as photographers!  Your probbably
>wondering what your I-vision, E-vision and S-vision is...read on:     
>
>It may be obvious to some; but, it bears stating that personalities come in
>all sorts of value-packages:  1.  some are out of wack, I prefer baslance,  in
>that they order the relative importance of these dimensions as S > E > I.  
>
>In peace time, and in nature work this personality value profile is a a dam
>poor one for photographic success.  On the other hand, in times of war this
>"contrarian" profile might have adaptive value (self protective value in
>battle); but, the resulting photography will still suffer!   If you let war
>numb you down this way (the very essence of the S > E > I profile) you will
>loose your edge behind the lens!     
>
>                               Self Valuation Shapes our "Photoagraphy":
>
>Further Conclusions:
>
>1.  Our I, E, S Categories of  Valuation are Bench Mark Dimensions and in the
>real world we combine them in different orders...and with different weights
>(sensitivites).  
>
>1.  Apart from valuing the self we value the world through the same I, E, and
>S lenses of the mind.  Behind the optical lens of the camera are the three
>lenses of the "minds eye".  We see the world and self through the I-Lens, the
>E-Lens and the S-lLens.  These lenses can suffer astigmatism (metaphorically)
>and they can be seized upon to double duty.  E..g., we might see a flower (E
>object) as a person (I Object).  This is intrinsification of the flower...we
>do this with cars we fall in love with don't we?  
>
>3.  If we have intrinsified our car, overvalued it as some sort of living
>thing or person; why, then, this shapes our photography of the car.  If we
>disvalue ourselves and fall into a largely Systemic Identity then we will
>always see people as belonging to something or in terms of their role only (as
>against seeing their uniqueness and individuality and inner beauty) and this
>will make our photography rather shallow!
>
>4.  S-Photographers run the risk of being too stiff, of missing the deeper
>meaning that can guide composition.  They also focus excessively on the
>photographic forest and miss the photographic trees. No vital balance...the
>stuff of creativity.  
>
>5.  E-Photographers would focus excessively on photogralphic trees, missing
>the photogralphic forrests, so to speak.  Also, loosing vital balance and
>creativity.  
>Even a career of macrophotography focusing on the minute details of nature etc
>would suffer because of a lack of better I, E and S balance!  
>
>6.  I-Photographers are probably the best equipped to capture good photographs
>and work their lenses to the optimum.  Yet, even here the I-Value dimension
>ought to remain in relative balance with the E and S Dimensions to optimize
>creativity.  
>
>7.  Thus our ideal photographer should exhibit a spontaneous ordering of the
>importance of his or her value dimensions as I > E > S; yet, have this
>hierarchical ordering remain in rought balance, avoiding extreme deviations (I
>= E = S).  In the real world nobody so balances his or her dimensions of value
>and not everyone ranks them I > E > S in importance.  But the closer we come
>to the ideal hierarchy and balance the better will be our skill in
>photography.  
>
>Shall We Test this Theory?
>
>If enough LUG members would like to take my values test (the HVP-PVI) and
>anonymously is ok, we would have a LUG SAMPLE to test all this stuff and
>nonsense which I have spent over fifteen years exploring in other directions!
>Here our generous but reasonable assumption would be that LUG members are all
>a cut above the crowd when it comes to photography.  
>
>For those reading through this post, thanks for your interest and patience and
>your comments would be appreciated.  
>
>The Best of Value Vision and The Best of Light,
>
>Leon
>LP6@aol.com
>
>
>