Ignorance

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I just found this on Eric Myrvaagnes' Website about the "consequences" gallery where he took the images from which he posted in this thread before:

"This project began a number of years ago when I started taking snapshots of signs that seemed to convey either ambiguous information or no information at all.

They all seem eager to convey their messsages, but sometimes there is just a failure to communicate."

Couldn't help laughing nor hold back posting it here.

Cheer up everyone!
Life is short!
~C.
 

Addendum:
My recommendation for everyone involved in the discussion is to watch the very old japanese film "Rashomon" from 1950 by Akira Korosawa before going on.

[jeremypayne]

Why don't you post some images?
I'd suggest for every 1000 words in this thread one should post one image.

* Christoph C. Feldhaim starts searching for more images in his fundus ...

Sir, I respectfully suggest you stop looking here for images.  Seems a futile effort on your part. 

Go look in the sub-forums where you might find some ... You might find that while you were sitting at home trying to predict the content and direction of this thread that some - me included - have been busy posting images .... Where they belong ...

Thank you for your concern.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Actually thats my way of contributing to this highly interesting discussion as good as I can.
There is no irony in what I wrote in the above sentence. I'm serious.

And to take out some steam:
My before-before post (the one with the "spread" thing in it) wasn't directed at you personally.
You might have thought that, because it was following your other post. Just to have that clear.
It was more about the general nature of the matter and something I was observing to begin much earlier in this thread.

Respectfully.
~C.

[Joe Behar]

Joe,
       the crux of the problem is the amount of refugees that entered Palestine and settled on land that didn't belong to them. The UN vote meant that a large amount of people were forcibly removed from property that they legally owned. How would you feel if someone voted to force you out of your house and land and removed you in some instances to Syria? Was that democracy?

Stamper,

If we're going to look at history and what belongs to whom, we cannot stop at 1948. You are again conveniently forgetting facts. The people in "Palestine" up to 1948 were the ones that took it away from the Jews in the first place. It did not belong to them. We just simply got back what belonged to us in the first place.

[JohnKoerner]

Somehow I saw it coming ....
Its the nature of ignorance, hatred, war and all this disgusting stuff:
It infects, it spreads and it touches even the innocent.
Though I'm not at all against discussion I feel obliged to say, even discussing it can be contagious.

* Christoph C. Feldhaim starts searching for more images in his fundus ...

In other words, it's impossible to roll around in the (ahem) dirt and not get muddy. If you're afraid of getting your hands dirty, there are other places you can play.

Why don't you post some images?

This is insane. Why don't you go to a thread where "images" are the main subject? Speaking of ignorance, that would seem to be a more mentally-aware choice of topics to visit for someone looking to enjoy images.

* Christoph C. Feldhaim starts searching for more images in his fundus ...

Why do you refer to youself in the third person? This is possibly one of the most annoying habits people sometimes pick-up for themselves ...

Jack




.

[JohnKoerner]

I get it. And I already got it in my post #134, where I said you are right under the assumption that it is a dual-player, single-stage game.
But isn't it exactly what happened in Iraq: you did obliterate their army in a very short time, using "shock & awe", as close to your beloved 100% theory as it gets. So, who are you fighting there today? Not the army, but "insurgents" as you call them, or "freedom fighters" as they see it. That is already a multi-stage game (the first stage being fighting the army, the second stage being fighting the insurgency). And if you want to win that stage, you would have to further obliterate an additional male population... and say you succeed... in a few years, the children of fathers you killed will grow up and pick up where their fathers left... that is the third (and fourth, and fifth...) stage, something we already see in the Middle East, Northern Ireland... etc.)

Well, for starters, we didn't use every means at our disposal to win, nor did we continue at that level until 100% victory.

And, actually, (2) if you "got" the real gist of my post, you would realize that I never supported the Gulf War and that I think we should have simply not used oil instead.

Isn't that what happened to Soviets in Afghanistan: a relatively quick military victory (stage one), only to be bogged for years in a querilla-stile fighting (stage two). And now it is your turn.
Isn't that what happened to Austro-Hungarian empire in WWI against Serbia? They drove the complete Serbian army out of the country (to Greece) relatively quickly, killing in the process 40% of the male population at the time (stage one)... only to see the remaining Serbian army (and the Allies)  drive them out a few years later (stage two).
Isn't that what happened to Germans in Yugoslavia in WWII? The then-Yugoslav army was swiftly defeated in only 12 days (stage one)... only to see a guerilla (partisan) stile uprising several months later, which over the four years of war grew into a new Yugoslav army, comprising women and teenagers as well, who almost single-handedly drove Germans out of the country (stage two). And before you complain, yes, it did help tremendously that the Allies weakened Germans on other fronts, but it does not change the fact that Germans had to face a stage two fight with Yugoslavs.

Well, if you want to simplify these examples to fit your own bias, then allow me to do the same for my own: all these examples you used only go to show is that the resolve of the lesser armies proved to be far greater than the resolve of the (apparently) superior armies, which again was my whole point.

And I can go on and on and on with examples. So how do you apply your 100% theory in stage two? Without further obliterating population, that is. And that is exactly what you did in WWII in Germany and Japan: further obliterating civilian population, not just "persons in power and their active armies". And if they did not surrender, you would continue obliterating until they do. And some nations are more stubborn and resilient than others. And some terrain is more suitable for guerilla fighting. So do not tell me that your 100% theory does not lead to the logical end: a complete annihilation. Can you please explain what your 100% commitment would mean today in Afghanistan and Iraq, where you already won stage one? Who do you suggest to obliterate now, which subset of the population? And how? Nuke them?

And I could go on and on showing how your examples, in fact, actually support my own position. Do NOT go into any war, unless you are prepared to use EVERY means available to vanquish a foe and unless you are 100% convinced you have the the right to do so (which facilitates the first part). The right to do so did not exist in any example, besides Japan, and 100% force was not used in any of your examples, besides Japan, and in that instance the exact preferred end was achieved and there was NO furter attempt to retaliate precisely because these two facts were in place first.

In other words, those who really, truly believe they are right will always fight harder and longer than those who, deep down, know they are not. And further, from the perspective of the rest of the outside world, only in the Japan scenario was there pretty much universal agreement we were in the right also ...

And on that note... sweet dreams.

Sweet dreams are for sissies, I dream of war

Jack




.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

In other words, it's impossible to roll around in the (ahem) dirt and not get muddy. If you're afraid of getting your hands dirty, there are other places you can play.

Yup. Thats the problem. I'm a physician and psychotherapist. And I can tell you, I am used to get muddy and more for a certain purpose. But I don't usually play with mud. Just sometimes - to realize it is was dirt, is dirt and will remain dirt after all.

This is insane. Why don't you go to a thread where "images" are the main subject? Speaking of ignorance, that would seem to be a more mentally-aware choice of topics to visit for someone looking to enjoy images.

You can believe me - I know really a lot about insanity. Do you remember the world famous picture of that soldier falling with the gun in his hand? Please don't tell me photography is irrelevant! Its a valid means of discussion, examination, explication, symbolism, relevation and many other things more. You are not seeing or ignoring the purpose!

Why do you refer to youself in the third person? This is possibly one of the most annoying habits people sometimes pick-up for themselves ...

Its that "/ me" option in the forum which is somewhat adopted from IRC. You may see it as a sickness of online communications. Should I have annoyed you with that I herewith want to apologize.

Cheers
~C.

[JohnKoerner]

Yup. Thats the problem. I'm a physician and psychotherapist. And I can tell you, I am used to get muddy and more for a certain purpose. But I don't usually play with mud. Just sometimes - to realize it is was dirt, is dirt and will remain dirt after all.

Which position would you like to commit to: (1) that you are used to getting muddy or (2) that you usually don't play with mud?

They seem to be diametrically-opposed, mutually-exclusive positions

You can believe me - I know really a lot about insanity. Do you remember the world famous picture of that soldier falling with the gun in his hand? Please don't tell me photography is irrelevant! Its a valid means of discussion, examination, explication, symbolism, relevation and many other things more. You are not seeing or ignoring the purpose!

Within this context, I do agree that seeing photographs could enhance the discussion, so your clarified point is well-taken

Its that "/ me" option in the forum which is somewhat adopted from IRC. You may see it as a sickness of online communications. Should I have annoyed you with that I herewith want to apologize.
Cheers
~C.

Well, from a phsychological perspective, I see the pathology of referring to oneself in the third person as either (1) a bit narcissistic and/or (2) implying a kind of dissociative identity disorder ... for in order for "one part" of you to step out of yourself and refer to that "other self" in the third person, there must exist another, separate perceived entity within you to form this outside perspective

Cheers!

Jack




.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Which position would you like to commit to: (1) that you are used to getting muddy or (2) that you usually don't play with mud?
They seem to be diametrically-opposed, mutually-exclusive positions

Statement one: I am used to get muddy.
Statement two: I usually don't play with mud.
There is no contradiction, because I usually get muddy not by playing with mud, but by practising my profession.

Within this context, I do agree that seeing photographs could enhance the discussion, so your clarified point is well-taken

Thank you. I feel relieved.

Well, from a phsychological perspective, I see the pathology of referring to oneself in the third person as either (1) a bit narcissistic and/or (2) implying a kind of dissociative identity disorder ... for in order for "one part" of you to step out of yourself and refer to that "other self" in the third person, there must exist another, separate perceived entity within you to form this outside perspective

"Stepping out of myself" is another word for what I would call "taking another perspective". This is actually a very human ability which can help a lot, especially in heated and complicated discussions. In this special case You may also call it "self irony" which could be interpreted on a scale from humourous to narcisisstic, depending on the background and assumptions of the interpreter.

Best wishes
~C.

[JohnKoerner]

Statement one: I am used to get muddy.
Statement two: I usually don't play with mud.
There is no contradiction, because I usually get muddy not by playing with mud, but by practising my profession.

Nice try at evasion. Your attempt to avoid the most basic of contradictions, by making a distinction between real, physical mud and "psychological mud" is blatant pettifoggery. It's ingenuine.

We both know the use of the word "mud" was never intended to suggest actual dirt-and-water; it was implying psychological mud all along.

Thus you did contradict yourself at the most basic level. You should have merely said you are used to dealing with psychological mud, through practicing your profession, and left it at that.

Thank you. I feel relieved.

Me too.

"Stepping out of myself" is another word for what I would call "taking another perspective". This is actually a very human ability which can help a lot, especially in heated and complicated discussions. In this special case You may also call it "self irony" which could be interpreted on a scale from humourous to narcisisstic, depending on the background and assumptions of the interpreter.
Best wishes
~C.

The fact that you admit to the use of self-irony, and further admit to the very real potential of its implied narcissism, only goes to underscore the first part of why I have a problem with those who refer to themselves in the third person: narcissism. You simply fail to acknowledge the second potential factor, regarding a possible dissociative personality disorder.

I hereby re-affirm this possibility. The fact is you are you. Thus you are not in a position to "take another perspective," as again you are you. This is why people with a normal sense of identity refer to themselves in the first-person "I" more than 99% of the time in regular discussion. Your being a member of the less-than-1%-club is therefore abnormal.

Since I qualified my point in an either/or context, identifying the possible cause of your disorder as narrowing-down to two factors, either narcissim or a dissociative personality disorder, meaning one or the other (though possibly both), I think I have pegged the potential reasons for referring to yourself in the third person correctly.

However, I don't believe it is a matter of my background which would bring to light the truth or falsity of which of the two possibilities best fits, but rather a familiarity with your background ...

Cheers!

Jack




.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Nice try at evasion. Your attempt to avoid the most basic of contradictions, by making a distinction between real, physical mud and "psychological mud" is blatant pettifoggery. It's ingenuine.

We both know the use of the word "mud" was never intended to suggest actual dirt-and-water; it was implying psychological mud all along.

Thus you did contradict yourself at the most basic level. You should have merely said you are used to dealing with psychological mud, through practicing your profession, and left it at that.

In all cases I was referring to psychological/existential "mud", not physical mud or dirt. There still is no contradiction. Please re-read.

The fact that you admit to the use of self-irony, and further admit to the very real potential of its implied narcissism, only goes to underscore the first part of why I have a problem with those who refer to themselves in the third person: narcissism. You simply fail to acknowledge the second potential factor, regarding a possible dissociative personality disorder.

I hereby re-affirm this possibility. The fact is you are you. Thus you are not in a position to "take another perspective," as again you are you. This is why people with a normal sense of identity refer to themselves in the first-person "I" more than 99% of the time in regular discussion. Your being a member of the less-than-1%-club is therefore abnormal.

Since I qualified my point in an either/or context, identifying the possible cause of your disorder as narrowing-down to two factors, either narcissim or a dissociative personality disorder, meaning one or the other (though possibly both), I think I have pegged the potential reasons for referring to yourself in the third person correctly.

However, I don't believe it is a matter of my background which would bring to light the truth or falsity of which of the two possibilities best fits, but rather a familiarity with your background ...

Honestly - I am not sure if you are either just joking and enjoying yourself by doing so, trying to tensly win something in this discussion by some sophistic tactics or are simply misguided.
Self irony or taking another perspective and leaving the normal day to day identity for a moment generally is not a sign for any sort of personality disorder, but a basic means of communication. If mothers couldn't take the perspective of the baby to supply it properly we all would be much more disturbed than we usually are. There are also tons of other and maybe even better suited examples where taking another perspective is helpful. Of course we can never 100% take over another persons identity and thus perspective, but using that strict interpretation in this discussion would just lead towards sophism and not help the cause of the discussion at all.
As a full blown professional in the matter I can just suggest concerning your psychodiagnostic skills, you inform yourself about the proper context and situation of psychodiagnostics and get some basic training before trying to do so.

Cheers
~C.

[JohnKoerner]

In all cases I was referring to psychological/existential "mud", not physical mud or dirt. There still is no contradiction. Please re-read.

I strongly suggest that you do the re-reading.

Honestly - I am not sure if you are either just joking and enjoying yourself by doing so, trying to tensly win something in this discussion by some sophistic tactics or are simply misguided.

LOL, thank you, I am enjoying myself immensely

Self irony or taking another perspective and leaving the normal day to day identity for a moment generally is not a sign for any sort of personality disorder, but a basic means of communication.

Self-examination, for the purpose of attempting to acertain one's own behavior, and how it might look from "another's" perspective, can indeed be a good thing. However, this is typically done in silence, and for the purposes of introspection.

Talking publicly about oneself, from the perspective of being "another self," however, in some habitual manner is something else entirely, and is neither normal nor a basic means of communication.

If mothers couldn't take the perspective of the baby to supply it properly we all would be much more disturbed than we usually are.

Your example here completely misses the point. A mother taking the perspective of a baby is called "empathy." Empathy (or even sympathy) for another being, when used to try to understand its needs properly, is not the same thing as referring to oneself as another being separate from oneself.

A mother acting and speaking as if she's the child would be pathological, and so too is referring to oneself as if you're something other than yourself.

There are also tons of other and maybe even better suited examples where taking another perspective is helpful.

Yes there are better examples. I gave one, in fact, where I suggested self-examination can be a good thing.

Of course we can never 100% take over another persons identity and thus perspective, but using that strict interpretation in this discussion would just lead towards sophism and not help the cause of the discussion at all.

I never suggested you were trying to take another's identity. I suggested that your speaking of yourself, as if you were separate from yourself, which is both annoying and abnormal.

What fails to help this discussion, at all, is you confounding the pathos of trying to take another person's identity with the pathos of speaking of yourself as if you were another entity from yourself. Both practices are abnormal, but they are not the same.

Referring to others as others is what is normal. Referring to oneself as oneself is likewise normal.

As a full blown professional in the matter I can just suggest concerning your psychodiagnostic skills, you inform yourself about the proper context and situation of psychodiagnostics and get some basic training before trying to do so.
Cheers
~C.

I do believe you are the one who failed to use proper context and relevant examples, so as a self-blown professional, you should be quicker to see and admit to having a mild case of narcissism, when this disorder was correctly pointed out (and admitted-to by you) in the first place.

Cheers

Jack




.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

I strongly suggest that you do the re-reading.

Allright - I'll try to be humble and re-read:
I'm citing myself:

Statement one: I am used to get (psychologically) muddy.
Statement two: I usually don't play with (psychological) mud.
There is no contradiction, because I usually get muddy not by playing with mud, but by practising my profession.

Now, that the meaning of "mud" is clarified there still is no contradiction. There is no statement "A" and a statement "Not A" which I claim both to be true, thus there is no contradiction.

Self-examination, for the purpose of attempting to acertain one's own behavior, and how it might look from "another's" perspective, can indeed be a good thing. However, this is typically done in silence, and for the purposes of introspection.

Talking publicly about oneself, from the perspective of being "another self," however, in some habitual manner is something else entirely, and is neither normal nor a basic means of communication.

"Typically done in silence" is an assumption that may be true within the context of your experience, but that is not generally true. You also attempt to use the "talking publicly" as a weapon to stigmatise my argument as being abnornal which is grossly over the line and one of the classic dirty tricks to win a discussion. Schopenhauer wrote a great paper about these dirty tricks and you make very free use of these. I also can not see where from you conclude this behavior as "habitually" which raises the thought of it being simply another attempt to use dirty tricks.

Your example here completely misses the point. A mother taking the perspective of a baby is called "empathy." Empathy (or even sympathy) for another being, when used to try to understand its needs properly, is not the same thing as referring to oneself as another being separate from oneself.

A mother acting and speaking as if she's the child would be pathological, and so too is referring to oneself as if you're something other than yourself.

Actually it does not. Speaking of oneself in third person is taking the perspective of a fantasized third person, which is simply creative and a valid means in a discussion. Again you take judgements concerning whats pathological or not here which again is not only a grossly unfair attempt to dominate  the discussion, but also simply bad behavior.

Yes there are better examples. I gave one, in fact, where I suggested self-examination can be a good thing.

This is a blunt and transparent attempt to forbid me what I was doing. Nothing more.

I never suggested you were trying to take another's identity. I suggested that your speaking of yourself, as if you were separate from yourself, which is both annoying and abnormal.

What fails to help this discussion, at all, is you confounding the pathos of trying to take another person's identity with the pathos of speaking of yourself as if you were another entity from yourself. Both practices are abnormal, but they are not the same.

Referring to others as others is what is normal. Referring to oneself as oneself is likewise normal.

As stated above I was taking the perspective of a fantasized third watching person. Using the term "abnormal" in this context again is an attempt to apply  an "Argument ad Hominem".

I do believe you are the one who failed to use proper context and relevant examples, so as a self-blown professional, you should be quicker to see and admit to having a mild case of narcissism, when this disorder was correctly pointed out (and admitted-to by you) in the first place.

To name me a "self-blown" professional is a flat attempt of insulting. And again you are far over the line stating me a "case of mild narcisissm". This is repetitive overbearing.



To sum up my experience with the last exchange of posts I unfortunately have to say you are behaving increasingly overbearing, logically wrong and leaving the path of a civilized discussion. If I'd be mild I'd see this as a attempt of provocation to see more of what I meant and pull my reserves. Usually this kind of behavior is acceptable between good friends, but not in a first time discussion with someone you don't know.

You have shown to be a fighter in a discussion and you have some intellectual muscles. So what?

Therefore, and as a means of de-escalation (which the whole thread was lacking a lot) I see this discussion as closed and not meaningful anymore and I will only react if I see it as necessary.

Cheers
~C.



Source (That Schopenhauer thing): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Christoph,

Thanks for the plug. Reading (more like skimming) this thread, wondering how long it can go on without anything new of substance being added to either side of the argument, I couldn't help thinking of my "Consequences" gallery.

But reading this thread is taking too much time from doing photography. Life is too short.

Cheers,

Eric

[Joe Behar]

There are a few people at the top of the Israeli government who don't want to give concessions to the Palestinians and they seem to want to speak on behalf of all the residents of Israel. They seem to defy democracy. If I was one of the residents of Israel I would feel endangered by their attitude. Why? Because if America decides to loosen, as is possible, their ties to the country and they don't make concessions then there will be a lot of problems with respect to preserving their way of life. Are you in favour of concessions or should the small clique that seems to run the country brave it out. I suspect you will state it is a democracy and they speak for the country, but do they REALLY?

Stamper,

Of course they speak for the country..they were duly elected and if the majority of the population disagrees, they will vote them out next chance they get...this is democracy.

Maybe we should be asking the same questions of the other states in the region? Can you remind me of the last time the population of a single Arab state in the region got to voice their opinion in an election? Egypt? No, Syria? No, Jordan? No, Iran? No, Iraq? Getting there, but not till Sadaam was removed, Saudi Arabia? No Lybia? No, Lebanon? No...Shall I continue the list? I would argue that one of the reasons that Arabs still live in Israel is that they are treated better there than they were or would be in an Arab state.

Israel is the only democracy in the region and to take it even further, they actually have Arab members of parliament, duly elected. Can you name a single Jew in the government of any Arab state?

Do I think that concessions should be made? Yes, but it has to go both ways. How can you realistically negotiate with someone whose charter and constitution has, in its primary statement, that their main goal is your destruction and who will not even recognize your right to exist? If I were to tell you that I will do everything in my power to kill you any chance I get, would you share your guns with me? Would you give me a key to your house and tell me I could come in anytime I wanted to, or would you try to keep me as far away from you as possible?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I was somehow hoping for the thread to go quietly into the sunset (before it manages to obliterate half of the planet's population), but since it won't go away, I decided to try the impossible: to satisfy all the diverging requests so far.

So, let's see... some wanted more photography in the thread... some insist on discussing Israel and Palestine... some want to go back to the origin of the thread and discuss ignore/ignorance/truth... hence, allow me to present one thing that has it all:

- it is a photograph (two actually)
- it is about Palestine/Israel
- it is about [ignoring] truth

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100916/cm_yblog_upshot/egyptian-paper-doctors-photo-of-mubarak-and-obama

 

[Joe Behar]

Well done Slobodan,

But I think this discussion has proven to be something of an unsung success...we have manged to go 10 pages on some very controversial topics and no one has gotten completely out of line. We've come close a couple of times, but overall the maturity level has been excellent. As long as the debate remains civil, I see not reason it should fade away. We are discussing very important issues, and its actually a bit of a nice break from reading about 1/3 stop differences in dynamic range and the definition of diffraction.

[jeremypayne]

Wowsa ... I'm sure there are some folks here that could help the Egyptian paper do a better photoshop job!

One thing I've always been curious about ...

Why is it ok for TransJordan to cede its sovereignty to a Hashemite family from the Arabian peninsula?  Shouldn't the King of Jordan allow the indigenous East Bank Palestinians to have their own destiny just like that sought by their cousins on the West Bank?

I propose that the West Bank merge with Jordan and kick out the interlopers ... that would be a true Palestinian homeland.

Return TransJordan to its rightful owners ... the Palestinians!

[jeremypayne]

Bernard,

You allege that the official story of 9/11 was a fiction invented by the US government and hint that this was a cover-up for an act of treasonous murder perpetrated by our own government.

So to answer your question about "risking planting WMDs" ... Of course such a government as the one yiu allege we HAD would try that ... According to you, they murdered 3,000 US citizens.  If what you allege is true, Obama must be in on it, too.  As are legions of permanent civil servants in the "real" goverment.  It would be the greatest conspiracy of all time, with no leaks.  Amazing story ... Would make a great book.

I was not in the US that day ... I was in London.  But I was there on the 16th or 17th.  I smelled that smell.  I know people that died. 

From 2002 to 2005 I lived on lower Broadway and worked at 22 cortland street.  My office overlooked the hole from the 9th floor and my home was a five minute walk away.

Tell the truth ... What do you actually know about what happened that day?  It was only 10 years ago and we don't really joke about it ... I doubt we ever will.   

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... story of 9/11...

Now that I am on a roll (with inserting photographs into this thread, that is), I remembered that I have a photo of something very closely related to 9/11. I happened to be visiting NY and the 9/11 site when a fire in the Deutche Bank building, itself damaged in the 9/11 attack, killed two firefighters on August 18th, 2007. I added a bit of grain and split toning until I got the gritty feel of the event, much closer to how I felt that day: