Who needs the Northern or Southern Poles?

[N80]

Except, N80, that I was replying to Tony, and not you.  I never said that YOU were appealing to a transcendent source nor that you refused to do anything.  I most certainly did not misappropriate almost everything you said, because I wasn't responding to you.

Perhaps including quotes might help avoid confusion. Further, Tony refusing to reply about slavery is immaterial to the topic at hand. It is a diversion. It is an interesting one for sure, but Tony weighing in on it does not suggest a defeater for my premise or his.

I have said all along there are no moral absolutes.

Good. I can't imagine why the argument need go any further..........except for that one nagging little thing.....the consequences of that understanding that there are no moral absolutes. That's were most atheists and contemporary existentialists get all squeamish and defensive. That consequence is, of course, that with no moral absolutes there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or evil. Literally anything goes as long as you are strong enough. This is logically consistent.

It is logically inconsistent to suggest that anyone has a moral duty to work to reverse or stabilize global warming (the original topic). If I'm not worried about global warming, of if I profit from worsening it or profit from the consequences of it that is my business. It is not wrong. Its just another opinion.

In that regard, global warming activists can try to scare me about global warming, but they can't logically suggest that I have an obligation to do anything about it.

(For the record, I'm all for doing all the logical common sense things to preserve the environment).

As an aside, I also say there is no proof of an absolute authority (and, as you say, there can therefore be no moral absolutes).

Good for you. And you might be right. But you cannot likewise prove that there isn't either.

So, perhaps you'd like to try again after realising that my reply came after Tony's and was in respond to him?

Don't get all high and mighty over a little mistake that you contributed to by not replying with quotes or even a name. It is unbecoming.

[Farmer]

Perhaps including quotes might help avoid confusion. Further, Tony refusing to reply about slavery is immaterial to the topic at hand. It is a diversion. It is an interesting one for sure, but Tony weighing in on it does not suggest a defeater for my premise or his.

Yes, but really it's not that hard to follow from one to the other.  Still, yes, demonstrably it makes it easier.

Tony's refusal about slavery is linked only to his initial call for me to quote chapter and verse, which I did.  As I said to him, his decision to subsequently not reply says nothing negative about him - it's a message board, it's not important, it doesn't reflect on him one way or the other.

Good. I can't imagine why the argument need go any further..........except for that one nagging little thing.....the consequences of that understanding that there are no moral absolutes. That's were most atheists and contemporary existentialists get all squeamish and defensive. That consequence is, of course, that with no moral absolutes there is no objective right or wrong, no objective good or evil. Literally anything goes as long as you are strong enough. This is logically consistent.

Yes, hence authoritative morality.

It is logically inconsistent to suggest that anyone has a moral duty to work to reverse or stabilize global warming (the original topic). If I'm not worried about global warming, of if I profit from worsening it or profit from the consequences of it that is my business. It is not wrong. Its just another opinion.

No, if society views it as a moral imperative, then it is consistent to say that members of that society have a moral duty to act accordingly.  Authoritative morality.  If they don't, they are subject to the ire of the society, in whatever form it may take.  Morality exists without an absolute, and it does vary from person to person, but since an individual rarely has sufficient power to enforce it, let alone over the power of a society, then the societal moral (authoritative morality) are effective (whether you like them or not).  This is logically consistent.

In that regard, global warming activists can try to scare me about global warming, but they can't logically suggest that I have an obligation to do anything about it.

(For the record, I'm all for doing all the logical common sense things to preserve the environment).

They can make such a logical suggestion that you are obligated, either by law or by authoritative morality.  If you don't, you suffer the consequences (whatever they may be).  There is no need for an absolute morality to enable this, merely for the society to be able to enforce its morality upon you, through whatever means.

This is logical.

Good for you. And you might be right. But you cannot likewise prove that there isn't either.

Of course.  Asking me to prove a negative (the non-existence of something) is a logical fallacy.

Since such a transcendent entity as presented in modern religion (as an example) typically relies on faith, it is not a matter of logic, and asking me to logically disprove it is as absurd as me asking you (generally you, not specific) to prove its existence.  But if someone does ask for me to logically prove a negative, it's not unreasonable for me to point out that's a fallacy and respond in kind asking them to prove, logically, its existence (if they want to set a ridiculous paradigm, they must also live with it).

Don't get all high and mighty over a little mistake that you contributed to by not replying with quotes or even a name. It is unbecoming.

All I did was invite you to try again based on the clarification, after you tried to lecture me. 

[Ray]

There seems to be a growing consensus in psychology and philosophy that there are two classes of moral process: 1) rational, effortful and explicit, and 2) emotional, quick and intuitive. The controversy remains in how they interact. Certainly, the neural underpinnings of morality are not yet well understood.

Good point!

We create our own classifications in order to facilitate some process of understanding. The separate disciplines in science, such as Biology, Physics and Chemistry, do not exist as separate entities in external reality, but are restrictions and labels we've created in order to help us focus on a particular, narrow part of the spectrum of 'all knowledge'.

In reality there are no boundaries, just as there's no boundary between the color green and the color blue. This is why I keep bringing up the issue of duality in such discussions. There's a tendency to categorise things in common language so that they are 'either this' or 'that'.

As regards morality, perhaps the most fundamental of all moral principles is the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. This moral principle, in its broad meaning, includes other more recently expressed moral principles such as, 'Love thine enemy', and 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'.

However, without emotion and empathy, the Golden rule is deeply flawed. Empathy is required in order to understand the rule.
To give you a specific example, imagine a male who sees a female stranger in the woods, or wherever. They both look at each other and say hello. The woman thinks, 'I hope he moves on. I don't like him'. The man thinks, 'I hope she rushes towards me, and embraces me, and rubs my body, and so on'.

However, the woman doesn't do that, as one might understand. The man, however, thinks of the Golden Rule, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Lacking empathy, he rationalizes along the lines, 'I would like her to rush towards me and smother me with kisses, so I'll do unto her what I would have her do unto me'.

He rushes towards her, and embraces her and smothers her with kisses, and she screams, 'Get off me you bastard. Help! Help! I'm being raped'. 

I can't believe I'm writing this sort of thing on a Photography forum. 

However, I have used some photography-related analogies, so perhaps it's justified. The part of the electromagnet spectrum known as 'visible light' ranges from 400 to 700 nanometres. (A nanometre is one thousand-millionth of a metre.)

Between the colors Red and Violet there are therefore 298 different colors. How many have we named? This is not the same question as how many shades of different colors can we distinguish, which would presumably be much greater than 298 because of different degrees of luminosity, and the mixing of different colors from different parts of the spectrum.

I use this analogy to highlight the imprecision of dualistic, 'either/or' concepts.

[JNB_Rare]

I use this analogy to highlight the imprecision of dualistic, 'either/or' concepts.

Despite a seeming obsession with classification, many scientists would agree. With respect to morality, the "cognitive and emotional integration theory" posits that behavioral choices cannot be split into cognitive vs. emotional. Complex contextual situations can make behavioral decisions exceptionally difficult. One of the tools that researchers use is the moral dilemma – a theoretical situation in which every possible course of action breaches some otherwise binding moral principle. Pity the person who is faced with a real moral dilemma.

I've read that the "Golden Rule" is more often a Western moral maxim, whereas the subtly different "Silver Rule" is more often found in Eastern religions: "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do unto others" (Confucious, in Analects, circa 500BCE). Of course, there are many examples of the so-called Silver Rule in western teachings. Some would argue that they amount to the same thing, but I'm not so sure. I see them as two sides of the same ethical coin. Oh, oh. Have I just used a dualistic analogy? 

[N80]

No, if society views it as a moral imperative, then it is consistent to say that members of that society have a moral duty to act accordingly.

Wrong. It is only logically consistent to say that they are bound to act that way under risk of punishment. Again, that sort of "morality" is what accounts for slavery and holocausts.

Authoritative morality.

That is only a euphemism for might-makes-right. But in that regard you are correct that it is authoritative but you are incorrect that it is moral as per my statement above.

If they don't, they are subject to the ire of the society, in whatever form it may take.

Again, might-makes-right. That is all you are describing. Nothing more.

Morality exists without an absolute, and it does vary from person to person, but since an individual rarely has sufficient power to enforce it, let alone over the power of a society, then the societal moral (authoritative morality) are effective (whether you like them or not).

Depends on how you define effective. If by effective you mean slavery, genocide, abuse of the planet then you are right. But those things are not moral no matter how you abuse the word moral. You cannot get around this.

This is logically consistent.

It is becoming clearer by the minute that you do not understand the word logical.

They can make such a logical suggestion that you are obligated, either by law or by authoritative morality.  If you don't, you suffer the consequences (whatever they may be).  There is no need for an absolute morality to enable this, merely for the society to be able to enforce its morality upon you, through whatever means.

Yep. Might makes right. Survival of the fittest. That is what you are describing. The logically inconsistency is that what you describe includes, again, slavery, genocide, rape, child abuse and a host of other atrocities most people would say were immoral. By your definition of moral, as long as those things are agreed on by a society and enforced by its laws then they are by definition "moral".

No amount of wiggling can extract you from the absurdity of you reasoning.

[Ray]

Since such a transcendent entity as presented in modern religion (as an example) typically relies on faith, it is not a matter of logic, and asking me to logically disprove it is as absurd as me asking you (generally you, not specific) to prove its existence.  But if someone does ask for me to logically prove a negative, it's not unreasonable for me to point out that's a fallacy and respond in kind asking them to prove, logically, its existence (if they want to set a ridiculous paradigm, they must also live with it).

I'm getting the impression, George, that you've missed the point in the distinction between 'proving that something that is postulated does not exist', and 'proving that what is postulated actually does exist'. (But correct me if my impression is wrong.) 

The processes are vastly different. To prove that something does not exist, period, would require a total, real and scientific awareness of everything that exists in the universe, and all universes if there is more than one. Within such an impossible context it could then be declared that a specific entity, such as God, did not exist, period.

However, to prove that something does exist, all we have to do is detect its presence in some way, directly through our senses, and/or using sophisticated scientific equipment.

The practical consequences of this distinction can perhaps be summarized by that famous Mark Twain quote;

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

[N80]

I'm getting the impression, George, that you've missed the point in the distinction between 'proving that something that is postulated does not exist', and 'proving that what is postulated actually does exist'. (But correct me if my impression is wrong.) 

Ray, I'll be honest with you but I don't remember making the statement that you quoted as being mine. At first I thought it came from someone else but it does have my name attached to it. And quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it right now or your response to it. That's not a dig on you, I just think my hearts not into this discussion anymore. You can take this as an admission of utter defeat if you will, or a cop out or whatever but I think it is time for me to bow out with whatever small measure I grace I might possess. 

[Rob C]

Ray, I'll be honest with you but I don't remember making the statement that you quoted as being mine. At first I thought it came from someone else but it does have my name attached to it. And quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it right now or your response to it. That's not a dig on you, I just think my hearts not into this discussion anymore. You can take this as an admission of utter defeat if you will, or a cop out or whatever but I think it is time for me to bow out with whatever small measure I grace I might possess.

George, that's how LuLa maks me feel every few months or so.

It's an emotion that extends to photography itself: an internal battle of wits manifest in pointless attempts to create something new, when the realisation is that nothing new remains to be created in photography, the best outcome being that we, too, may replicate some version of the best of what's gone before.

Forum chats are no better; nobody really listens, and the best one finds are well-written expressions of unchangeable, determined points of view.

Frankly, it's all somewhat depressing. I think the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique. Once you can do whatever you want to do, the only point in doing it is if somebody wants to pay you for doing it. To do, for yourself, something that is just a constant reaffirmation of your ability to do it, seems crazy. Better moving on and trying to conquer some other discipline. It's now several weeks since I took a picture; at first I felt conscience, now I feel nothing. The mistake - or revelation - was in asking myself why I wanted to take them; what in hell was I hoping to find or to prove? Was it just to justify the continuation of a website? What is amateur photography, anyway? Is it just a form of self-expression; is it the following of a few tricks one learns, repeated formulaic games that could be played in paint just as well as in files or prints? All that's certain is that one can spend a lot of time and money playing, and that as one ages the cost in time becomes greater.

Rob C

[Ray]

Ray, I'll be honest with you but I don't remember making the statement that you quoted as being mine. At first I thought it came from someone else but it does have my name attached to it. And quite frankly, I can't make much sense of it right now or your response to it. That's not a dig on you, I just think my hearts not into this discussion anymore. You can take this as an admission of utter defeat if you will, or a cop out or whatever but I think it is time for me to bow out with whatever small measure I grace I might possess.

George,
No worries! as we say in Australia. Hope I haven't upset you. I know that issues involving religion can be very sensitive.

Best regards

Ray

[Ray]

Frankly, it's all somewhat depressing. I think the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique. Once you can do whatever you want to do, the only point in doing it is if somebody wants to pay you for doing it. To do, for yourself, something that is just a constant reaffirmation of your ability to do it, seems crazy. Better moving on and trying to conquer some other discipline. It's now several weeks since I took a picture; at first I felt conscience, now I feel nothing. The mistake - or revelation - was in asking myself why I wanted to take them; what in hell was I hoping to find or to prove? Was it just to justify the continuation of a website? What is amateur photography, anyway? Is it just a form of self-expression; is it the following of a few tricks one learns, repeated formulaic games that could be played in paint just as well as in files or prints? All that's certain is that one can spend a lot of time and money playing, and that as one ages the cost in time becomes greater.

Rob C

Some interesting points you've made there, Rob, although as an amateur I tend to disagree with most of them.

For example, whilst I think it's true that a part of the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique, it is only a part. Also, that part is a never-ending process in some respects, considering the new and/or improved features that are continually added to Photoshop and the new models of cameras that become available every year. (I'm currently eagerly waiting for Nikon to release a full-frame DSLR with pixels that are the quality and size of D7200 pixels.) 

For me, as an amateur, the major joy of photography is in the act of capturing any scene which I think is beautiful, or unusual, or meaningful, or intriguing, or amusing, or simply interesting in whatever way.

When I later process the images, as I sit at my desk in front of a large-screen monitor, with Wallabies often visible through the window when I occasionally turn my head, I relive to some extent those interesting moments I had at the time I captured the images, as well as getting additional satisfaction from the creative aspect of selecting the various processing options in Bridge and Photoshop.

Attached are a couple of shots I took recently during Chinese New Year in Brisbane, Australia. I thought the scenes were quite unusual, although I wasn't pleased with the intensity of the crowds which made it difficult to move around, so I didn't stay long.

[Rob C]

Some interesting points you've made there, Rob, although as an amateur I tend to disagree with most of them.

For example, whilst I think it's true that a part of the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique, it is only a part. Also, that part is a never-ending process in some respects, considering the new and/or improved features that are continually added to Photoshop and the new models of cameras that become available every year. (I'm currently eagerly waiting for Nikon to release a full-frame DSLR with pixels that are the quality and size of D7200 pixels.) 

For me, as an amateur, the major joy of photography is in the act of capturing any scene which I think is beautiful, or unusual, or meaningful, or intriguing, or amusing, or simply interesting in whatever way.

When I later process the images, as I sit at my desk in front of a large-screen monitor, with Wallabies often visible through the window when I occasionally turn my head, I relive to some extent those interesting moments I had at the time I captured the images, as well as getting additional satisfaction from the creative aspect of selecting the various processing options in Bridge and Photoshop.

Attached are a couple of shots I took recently during Chinese New Year in Brisbane, Australia. I thought the scenes were quite unusual, although I wasn't pleased with the intensity of the crowds which made it difficult to move around, so I didn't stay long.

"Some interesting points you've made there, Rob, although as an amateur I tend to disagree with most of them."

Feel free, it's life; just don't ask yourself too many questions or, better still, don't allow yourself to get too close to what you do. It can ovetake you and change from fun to self-imposed obligation.

;-)

Rob

[Rob C]

Rob, a few reasons to be cheerful to continue pressing that shutter release:- 

1.  It gets me out of the house, fills my day, feeds my obsessive compulsive disorder need to make images, gives me the perfect excuse to travel and or explore my surroundings which in turn gives me the perfect excuse to make images, provides interest and purpose, allows me to waste my time replying to photography related threads and to correspond with other interesting photographers…

2.  What else can deliver all the above and more?

;-)

1.  Thing is, when Ann was around I never felt I wanted to get out of the house other than for reasons of work: it was fantastic just being within that house - with house used mainly but not exclusively as metaphor for the holistic experience, of course. Truth to tell, I couldn't wait for the time when we had the shoot budgets to include her - legitimately - as a contributor to foreign shoots, much as V is your own travelling companion and adds spice; in short, the added dimension of special company made all the difference to the level of the experience.

It was exactly the endeavour to fill the vacuum that sent me off into a website etc. and the self-imposed need to keep updating the thing with fresh blood. As I realise, now and again, it's all just a substitute. Which leads me directly to (2).

2.  So far, nothing else comes close to filling voids; as it (photography) filled my working life too, that's hardly surprising; the problem is that now and again the realisation hits that it's become a self-delusion being practised on a full-time scale, that scares me. Fortunately, it goes the cycle and I come out the other end doing something else. For a while it was Ms Coke that both provided and fed a cont¡nuing need to think graphically, then it became subjects not particularly focussed in any specific genre, which meant it was just a vague drift, and why I can't even think what the hell it was. (Oh yes, it was shooting little scenes that I stumbled onto from the car park to wherever I eat lunch. You see the problem. It's the equivalent of doing anything without assignment, and why stock was always a bit difficult for my particular mindset.) Then I rediscovered Leiter, which renewed the creative buzz, but it really requires specific big-city conditions that I haven't got. Even I can't continue looking into the same few windows ad infinitum and feeling fulfilled.

So at best, it's back to the drawing board. Of course, there's no doubt that insofar as I'm concerned, winter brings its own bad vibe. Here's lookin' at spring!

;-)

Rob

[N80]

George, that's how LuLa maks me feel every few months or so.

Sure. But here at LuLa I usually feel like I've benefited from the discussion even when it has runs its course or I have run mine.

It's an emotion that extends to photography itself: an internal battle of wits manifest in pointless attempts to create something new, when the realisation is that nothing new remains to be created in photography, the best outcome being that we, too, may replicate some version of the best of what's gone before.

Frankly, it's all somewhat depressing. I think the joy of photography lies in the learning of technique. Once you can do whatever you want to do, the only point in doing it is if somebody wants to pay you for doing it. To do, for yourself, something that is just a constant reaffirmation of your ability to do it, seems crazy. Better moving on and trying to conquer some other discipline.

Rob C

Dang Rob. That's pretty dark for a place called the Luminous Landscape but it is an interesting perspective. As I mentioned, I've moved on from the initial topics of this thread but I'm responding here once more because your take on photography here is thought provoking and I'd like to take it up in another thread here in the Coffee Corner. Would it be okay to quote you as I have done above in a new thread?

[Rob C]

Sure. But here at LuLa I usually feel like I've benefited from the discussion even when it has runs its course or I have run mine.

Dang Rob. That's pretty dark for a place called the Luminous Landscape but it is an interesting perspective. As I mentioned, I've moved on from the initial topics of this thread but I'm responding here once more because your take on photography here is thought provoking and I'd like to take it up in another thread here in the Coffee Corner. Would it be okay to quote you as I have done above in a new thread?

Be my guest, George; by all means take it from here.

Rob C