Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

2287RE: [existlist] Discussing METHOD

Expand Messages
  • Eduard Alf
    May 31, 2001
      Joao et folks,

      yes, i agree with Poincaré ... there is a point where you need to accept the
      reality as perceived by people in common ...

      the artist taking photos may not need to know that light can be represented
      either as a particle or a wave ...but then he still has his own technical
      level .. he has to measure light (in lux) to know the available foreground
      and background illuminations ... such measurement is best understood in
      terms of particles ... the photographer also has to have an understanding of
      lens theory and to an extent this is dependent upon a wave concept ...

      it is not so much a concern for ability to record observed data, but to
      understand when one is dealing with data from an objective view or having
      interpreted data and thus a subjective view ...

      for example, i tend to deal with money in a subjective fashion ... and when
      im in the US i find myself giving 20s instead of 1s ... in Canada i know
      what the denominations are by the color of the bill ... quite honestly, i
      dont know how you guys manage with everything in the same color ... hey wait
      a minute, isnt a "clam" a five dollar bill ... hmmmm is someone trying to
      tell us something ...

      have fun (you can be serious when you're dead) ...


      -----Original Message-----
      From: João Silva [mailto:joao_csilva@...]
      Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:00 PM
      To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [existlist] Discussing METHOD

      > observing and recording the attributes of an object
      > without adding
      > subjective judgements ...>>

      Like Diana, I don't have such a good recording

      Our concept of an object (ex: light) is a definition,
      whose selection is based on its ability to handle the
      facts. To say that light is made of waves is not more
      true than to say that its made of particles.
      Nevertheless, one definition can be more advantageous
      than the other. In fact, the wave-particle definition
      is a very good one for modern physics. But what's its
      value for an artist taking photos?

      For different definitions, there are different

      oversimplifying.. a bit confused here:

      One can *objectively* communicate the attributes of an
      object if he/she and the receptor share its definition
      and those of its attributes. This allows the other to
      perceive the object as one has.

    • Show all 20 messages in this topic