[Leica] Re: Our existential pleasures

[Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>]

Leon,

I must be dense. I still don't understand. I understand E=IR, P=IE,
E=MC**2, but S>(I=E) does not compute. Does it have anything to do with the
speed of light? Even though there are 10,000 silver halide molecules in the
average "grain", the equation S>(I=E) will cause over exposure. Perhaps
spontaneous combustion.

Jim


At 11:26 PM 3/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Re: 1.   Our Existsential Thread 
>      2.   The post:  <<  People who love photography because it's cool,
>meaningful, powerful,  communicative in significant ways.  >>
>
>Note: I am pleased to offer the following in response... and in the spirit of
>sharing my views in friendly debate:  Key Terms:  I = Intrinsic Values
>(emphathy, persons); E= Extrinsic Values (Social, Pratical Situations and
>Thilngs); S = Systemic Values (Systems, Order, Concepts, Ideas, Theories).  
>
>1.  This is the I-Photographer...you've defined him (her) well.  (I > (E=S) )
>The I-focus leaves one particularly sensitive to the uniqueness and
>individuality of persons.
>
>2.  The same post refers to the old fashion psychological concepts of  Ego
and
>Supergo.  Such Freudian concepts (I don't use them...they're pre-scientific
>ideologies and mythologie) may be said to be the dominant influences in the
>personality of the S-Photographer  (S > (I=E)  ).  Both are S-Value
Dimensions
>The S-Photogapher is attracted to line, form, formal composition for
>compostion's sake, geometry, architecture, rules, regulations, and
>manifestations (symbols or metaphors as proxies) of systems and order.
>
>3.  Modestly and matter of factly, even if your statement were true (that I
>have merely re-invented the wheel; i.e,  poured the old wine of Freud's Id,
>Ego, Superego into the new bottles of  our Value Science categories (I, E,
and
>S value dimensions) our work remains original, valid and useful.  
>
>4.  I.e., we are still ahead in the "game"; for, we have succeeded in
>meassuring what we're talking about and with a precision never known to
>psychologists.  Freud and psychology could never measure what they're talking
>about!   This has left these fields open to the criticism summed up in the
>epithet "psychobable"; for, their language is pre-scientific, ideological and
>mythical.  Indeed, I would argue that both general psychology and Freud's
>psychoanalysis get in our way and are largely irrelevant to our work on human
>values, valuation and morals.   
>
>5.  Moreover, I would argue that psychology, and psychoanalysis especially,
>have contributed to the weakening, if not destruction of moral consciousness
>in our society. 
>
>6.  Finally, traditional psychological thought possesses all the flaws of
>contemporary health care and medicine generally: namely, a sickness care that
>is focused on the treatment of symptoms only...leaving prevention out of the
>picture.  We have inherited a health care system (including mental health
>operations) that constitutes the fastest growing, failing business in America
>and the world today! 
>
>I conclude this post with a remember that these are just my views and I don't
>expect everyone to agree with me and that's ok...I do feel this discussion is
>on topic...existential considerations in photogoraphy...and for those who
>disagree we have a clearly stated subject heading to trigger
>filtrationdeletion and that's ok too!
>
>Best of Value Vision, Best of Lenses, and Best of Light,
>

>Leon
>LP6@aol.com
>
> .  
>