"okay..we just see it differently from our perspectives.." Someone said that in a discussion today and it just has haunted me through the day.
One's line of sight changes with ones perspective. In short, look at a landscape from one perspective and move 100 feet closer or farther away from what it is you are looking at, and the perspective will change. Too close and you cannot see it, too far and you again cannot see it. All of that is pretty much accepted.
All of that information, however, can be shared. I mean you can describe what you see up close, in the middle and far away. and assuming your vision is good or at least functioning, most will agree with you. Occasionally, you might get a report that is unique. Someone might know the history of that landscape, or have some interesting insights on the trees or flowers being viewed, or the architecture. Someone might come at night and put on a pair of night-vision goggles. Even in reports involving such, they start with what is seen. Unique reports typically inform the viewer(s) on what they are seeing, what they are looking at.
Art, it is said, is subjective. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Is that really true? Perhaps in regard to people. You view someone for the first time and fall in love. It happens. Jaap van Zweden, the new Musical Director of the New York Philharmonic explained to Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes tonight that that is exactly what happened with him and his wife. So it does happen.
Going back to art, however, most people typically will have a response to art. They will like it, sometimes love it, sometimes not. On occasion, it might happen that those who are not familiar with art may not be engaged, or they just do not see something as art. One can imagine that happening with a work done by Jackson Pollock perhaps, or with Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain".
So there are pieces people do not get. There are likewise pieces that people get immediately. People are engaged by certain pieces of art. We could call this the 'aesthetics of selection'. There are pieces of art that provoke us and others that leave us unaffected.
It is at this point that we can appeal to our original quote, "okay..we just see it differently from our perspectives.." Two viewers picking out two pieces of art that most impress them, it happens routinely. I like Vincent van Gogh and you like Michelangelo. Now perspective is to where you are viewing, I might see why you arrive at that conclusion. It could be as simple as the van Gogh I am looking at is in fact behind you and likewise the Michelangelo is behind me. We are looking at opposite walls of the same room. Or it could be that you have studied Renaissance art, focusing on Florence. And myself, I just like the yellows and blues van Gogh often used.
We have gone from where one stands to one's personal history. A few items regarding where one is coming from is often times informative and explains one's decisions, even in art. Now what of the person who just likes a certain painting, such as van Gogh's Starry Night. Imagine I bring my brother over to check out this painting by van Gogh, and he knows nothing of the piece nor the artist. Yet he is just in awe of it. The color just grabs him. Yet, he is unable to tell me what he likes about it. He is just struck by it.
Is it the case that we often do not know why we like something? Do we routinely not know why we respond to something. Is that true? Do we really not know why we like stuff? It is commonly accepted that one's taste regarding the arts is subjective. Is subjectivity the same as our "perspective" above? Is the subjective the same as simply not knowing why one likes something? I would argue that the answer to each of these is yes.
Let us switch to pizza for a moment. I love pepperoni pizza. Do I really know why? You or I might have an answer but we probably have never sat down and formulated it. Perhaps those who make a good pepperoni pizza have but those consuming it. . . probably not. The same is true for many of us regarding art. We have not analyzed our responses. We have not studied the paintings and the traditions, the artists who make up those traditions, their methods, and so forth. So what we attribute to different perspectives and what we often claim is subjective, what is often unique to our individual taste, is just unknown. We might have a certain taste for art, but how we arrived there is often unknown.
The next question is whether such unknown items are unknowable? Is the reason for our selection of a certain piece of art unknowable? Traditionally, with the idea of art being subjective, there is a suggestion that it is unknowable. The thought is that it is just not possible for one to climb into another's head and see through their eyes what they are seeing. Obviously, one can't know what another is seeing. Your experience of red or blue or a painting could very well be different from mine.
We are entering into theories of perception now, discussions of qualia. Let's keep this at the level of art and aesthetics, taste. Let us go back to the pizza. There are people who can share and discuss the dynamics of a good pepperoni pie. The guy next to the oven at the pizza shop, making them, might have some idea. You just need to get him talking. Perhaps the owner of the shop can assist. And then you have yourself and your sister who is much more interested in the mushroom pie and loves to cook.
Through such a process, we start to understand the dynamics of what is so good there. Perhaps the same can be said of art and painting. Perhaps, we can understand what the expressionists were exploring in their paintings versus the realists before them. Perhaps we can see what van Gogh was exploring in his use of the blue and yellow. All of this informing our view of his art and others. Ultimately, all of this might allow us to qualify what we do and do not like, and acknowledge and share what it is we see differently. Such things I suggest are not unknowable nor beyond expression.
Granted, this essay might. . .
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Sunday, October 14, 2018
What Is So Good About Privacy?
Another Facebook discussion. This one starting over Lindsey Graham and Chelsea Handler's suggestion that he is gay. The common answer is that we do not care what his sexual preferences are. Such things have no relation to his public life. What he does behind closed doors in the privacy of his own residence and the like really does not matter.
I disagree. There are several reasons for this position that I will will try to tease apart here.
The first idea is in regard to privacy. I wonder if privacy is nice but not to be as celebrated as it is. It is necessary. The idea out there is that there are public and private spaces, spheres, and the two are kept separate. The public is your professional life, your engagement in the neighborhood, your involvement with the world. Your private sphere is that which is most intimate, most personal. These are to be kept in the confines of your home, away from the masses, away from others.
First off, in a nation of 330 million people that is a lot of private spheres.
If each has their own private life, which they do not share, do you actually know anyone? I wonder what it is I do not know. Typically, the things most important to people are not shared? Things they most care about they cannot or will not share? Is that a good thing?
Most good things we are willing to share. Becoming a parent, gaining a promotion, announcing an engagement. These are all things we share in various ways. So what good things do we not share? Sexual satisfaction. Aside from those most intimate we typically do not share such things. This is probably the biggest item in that we do not share. And even this is shared in taking of marriage vowels, or even just acknowledging that someone is special to us. We do not acknowledge the act but the person.
Much of what we want in our private life but not our public life are things that we are not proud of. Things that could embarrass or humiliate us. So we may not want to share our absolute fascination for oral sex, but we might acknowledge the person we share such with, just omitting some of the details regarding why. For those of you who remember the Sopranos, this was the case with Uncle Junior and his trip to Boca with a younger attractive girlfriend he had at the time. Despite his embarrassment though, I doubt this really hurt him. Tony tried to make fun of it, but he wanted to diminish his Uncle Junior. Tony was routinely competing against him, but I would want to say this tale probably in fact gained Junior standing or respect of the rank and file at the end of the day.
The whole premise of that show early on was that Tony, a NJ mob capo, was going to a shrink, a psychiatrist. They played with that for a season or two until it finally came out and no one really cared. Of course later on in the show you had Vito who was one of Tony's underlings, a mid-level manager, who was an "earner". He knew how to make a buck, and Tony respected that to the point where he was willing to look the other way regarding his being gay. Of course others in the organization did not agree on that.
All of the above are tales of the personal and private life versus the public. And the Sopranos may not be the ideal place to look for insight, but it is a start. Politics is not to far afield from the Sopranos, and the workplace is still a challenge regarding various personal secrets, regardless of the numerous EEOC laws and the like. Even in marriage there are things not shared.
This goes to one's authenticity. We want to be able to trust someone as we believe we know them. I know your values and history, and based upon that I can share this with you or be with you. With the challenge of public and private personas, however, we really do not know anyone. To trust someone always is to some degree a leap of faith. If we factor this in, that there is an unknowable part that will not or cannot be shared, then that leap just became that much bigger.
Families and relationships aside, politics require we see the person we are voting for as like ourselves, with similar views or at least acceptable views. If parts are hidden from view we are left trusting what they say. This is true often times in numerous situations, but it is certainly not the desired. We want to see who and what they are, what they do. We want this to be in concordance with what they say. It should not be a case of do as I say, not as I do. With the idea of privacy, of what one does behind closed doors, being truly your own, we will never know.
So the first point is that this is problematic for the voter or constituent, for the person who is asked to believe and trust this person who is in office, who is leading the city, state, or country. Nor does it help the the person in the position of mayor, of senator, house member. . . President. What is done in privacy, what is concealed from public view, is an albatross around their neck waiting to constrict. It is a burden they must constantly attend to and be conscious of. And it becomes heavier over time. it becomes a sticking point with unknown consequences.
A partly Freudian point here but an obvious one. A man who hides something will go out of his way to insure it stays hidden, contingent upon the value he places on the secret, on the thing he wants concealed - the thing he wants maintained as private. This can be seen in policy discussions and more importantly decisions where he or she wants to convey that they have no involvement, no interest. and with that will act exactly opposite their private lives, what they do in their homes and so forth so as to disassociate themselves from it. Again the issue of embarrassment and shame, humiliation. How does such actions effect them? How does it effect both their public and private lives? We all have such lives, but I am suggesting that the lesser the distinction the better.
Circle back to the initial point of 330 million people, each with a private life or lives. We can only get along if we trust. It is hard to trust in general. The existence of the private and making it so secured, so vested, further complicates an already challenging goal of 330 million people agreeing on something. So no doubt each of us has personal feelings and history, it should make up a small part of us. The smaller the better.
What is it about ourselves that causes such embarrassment and humiliation? Is it something that only this person endures? We need to ask, or the person needs to ask, ultimately is it better to share or not? Is the price of sharing such details with people, with voters, with constitutes, too costly? Or is it the case that keeping these things private is actually more costly? I suggest it is often the later, just as I did regarding Uncle Junior. That embarrassment, that shame I suggest is often not real. Perhaps, as in the case of Junior, it is real only because we gave it credence.
I disagree. There are several reasons for this position that I will will try to tease apart here.
The first idea is in regard to privacy. I wonder if privacy is nice but not to be as celebrated as it is. It is necessary. The idea out there is that there are public and private spaces, spheres, and the two are kept separate. The public is your professional life, your engagement in the neighborhood, your involvement with the world. Your private sphere is that which is most intimate, most personal. These are to be kept in the confines of your home, away from the masses, away from others.
First off, in a nation of 330 million people that is a lot of private spheres.
If each has their own private life, which they do not share, do you actually know anyone? I wonder what it is I do not know. Typically, the things most important to people are not shared? Things they most care about they cannot or will not share? Is that a good thing?
Most good things we are willing to share. Becoming a parent, gaining a promotion, announcing an engagement. These are all things we share in various ways. So what good things do we not share? Sexual satisfaction. Aside from those most intimate we typically do not share such things. This is probably the biggest item in that we do not share. And even this is shared in taking of marriage vowels, or even just acknowledging that someone is special to us. We do not acknowledge the act but the person.
Much of what we want in our private life but not our public life are things that we are not proud of. Things that could embarrass or humiliate us. So we may not want to share our absolute fascination for oral sex, but we might acknowledge the person we share such with, just omitting some of the details regarding why. For those of you who remember the Sopranos, this was the case with Uncle Junior and his trip to Boca with a younger attractive girlfriend he had at the time. Despite his embarrassment though, I doubt this really hurt him. Tony tried to make fun of it, but he wanted to diminish his Uncle Junior. Tony was routinely competing against him, but I would want to say this tale probably in fact gained Junior standing or respect of the rank and file at the end of the day.
The whole premise of that show early on was that Tony, a NJ mob capo, was going to a shrink, a psychiatrist. They played with that for a season or two until it finally came out and no one really cared. Of course later on in the show you had Vito who was one of Tony's underlings, a mid-level manager, who was an "earner". He knew how to make a buck, and Tony respected that to the point where he was willing to look the other way regarding his being gay. Of course others in the organization did not agree on that.
All of the above are tales of the personal and private life versus the public. And the Sopranos may not be the ideal place to look for insight, but it is a start. Politics is not to far afield from the Sopranos, and the workplace is still a challenge regarding various personal secrets, regardless of the numerous EEOC laws and the like. Even in marriage there are things not shared.
This goes to one's authenticity. We want to be able to trust someone as we believe we know them. I know your values and history, and based upon that I can share this with you or be with you. With the challenge of public and private personas, however, we really do not know anyone. To trust someone always is to some degree a leap of faith. If we factor this in, that there is an unknowable part that will not or cannot be shared, then that leap just became that much bigger.
Families and relationships aside, politics require we see the person we are voting for as like ourselves, with similar views or at least acceptable views. If parts are hidden from view we are left trusting what they say. This is true often times in numerous situations, but it is certainly not the desired. We want to see who and what they are, what they do. We want this to be in concordance with what they say. It should not be a case of do as I say, not as I do. With the idea of privacy, of what one does behind closed doors, being truly your own, we will never know.
So the first point is that this is problematic for the voter or constituent, for the person who is asked to believe and trust this person who is in office, who is leading the city, state, or country. Nor does it help the the person in the position of mayor, of senator, house member. . . President. What is done in privacy, what is concealed from public view, is an albatross around their neck waiting to constrict. It is a burden they must constantly attend to and be conscious of. And it becomes heavier over time. it becomes a sticking point with unknown consequences.
A partly Freudian point here but an obvious one. A man who hides something will go out of his way to insure it stays hidden, contingent upon the value he places on the secret, on the thing he wants concealed - the thing he wants maintained as private. This can be seen in policy discussions and more importantly decisions where he or she wants to convey that they have no involvement, no interest. and with that will act exactly opposite their private lives, what they do in their homes and so forth so as to disassociate themselves from it. Again the issue of embarrassment and shame, humiliation. How does such actions effect them? How does it effect both their public and private lives? We all have such lives, but I am suggesting that the lesser the distinction the better.
Circle back to the initial point of 330 million people, each with a private life or lives. We can only get along if we trust. It is hard to trust in general. The existence of the private and making it so secured, so vested, further complicates an already challenging goal of 330 million people agreeing on something. So no doubt each of us has personal feelings and history, it should make up a small part of us. The smaller the better.
What is it about ourselves that causes such embarrassment and humiliation? Is it something that only this person endures? We need to ask, or the person needs to ask, ultimately is it better to share or not? Is the price of sharing such details with people, with voters, with constitutes, too costly? Or is it the case that keeping these things private is actually more costly? I suggest it is often the later, just as I did regarding Uncle Junior. That embarrassment, that shame I suggest is often not real. Perhaps, as in the case of Junior, it is real only because we gave it credence.
Facts versus Questions - another tale from Facebook
Recently on Facebook, (and I know my primary source for material is sadly Facebook. . . .), but again on Facebook after going back and forth with two people on the topic of Hillary Clinton and the Democrats "behaving like a pack of wild animals attacking the civil society". I look at the topic and I ask myself, why did I bother responding at all, but I did.
I basically answered the post with frustration and disappointment. One of my first responses was that if this is how the American republic engages - by yelling at each other on Facebook and a series of minor brawls on the street, if these are the best we got then perhaps it is best we just go away. As I suggested, let Kim Jong-il just blow us up. We have nothing much left to offer anyway it seems. The other discoursers were not impressed.
The other tact that I followed with was to just point out the anger, the rage of their own words against the other side, against in this case the Democrats, the Clintons, and liberals in general. This got mixed results. Largely, the other two discoursers argued that they were angry and rightfully so. The other side they claim clogs the streets with protests, run around in bizarre vagina costumes, won't let people eat in restaurants, won't let people speak at universities, routinely infest the capital buildings and just behave poorly. They shared a picture of Kathy Griffin and her head. My response to all of that is to ask what is the problem? If that is the best the liberals and Democrats have to offer, that explains why the republicans have largely dominated in governor races, state elections, house and senate races and of course the 2016 Presidential elections. Why would one complain about your opponent's incompetence?
More importantly though is why do both sides hate so much? Why did Kathy Griffin need the head? That was the original question I was trying to get to. Both sides are blinded by hate and unable to deal with actual problems. Let's NOT focus on the evils of the Clintons' and their history, nor a fading comedienne. Your posts just help her sell books. There must be something more productive we can do?
At the end of the back and forth I conceded defeat and offered up a Tommy Bolin song from Youtube. Who can argue with Tommy Bolin? You simply can't.
One of the other discoursers, however, hoping for another round perhaps, argued that it was I who was hateful and that I had no facts to offer up. I could not provide any conservatives who had acted badly. I had failed to play their game properly. I was I guess expected to respond with my own list of bad deeds initiated by Republicans and conservatives. That game is too easy and not very fun. We could easily start with a House Speaker and go from there.
Instead I offer up only "hateful rhetoric". I try not to but I am sure it happens. today I will offer up only a series of questions. Not sure if that is rhetoric or what. They are questions I am interested in.
Here we go:
I basically answered the post with frustration and disappointment. One of my first responses was that if this is how the American republic engages - by yelling at each other on Facebook and a series of minor brawls on the street, if these are the best we got then perhaps it is best we just go away. As I suggested, let Kim Jong-il just blow us up. We have nothing much left to offer anyway it seems. The other discoursers were not impressed.
The other tact that I followed with was to just point out the anger, the rage of their own words against the other side, against in this case the Democrats, the Clintons, and liberals in general. This got mixed results. Largely, the other two discoursers argued that they were angry and rightfully so. The other side they claim clogs the streets with protests, run around in bizarre vagina costumes, won't let people eat in restaurants, won't let people speak at universities, routinely infest the capital buildings and just behave poorly. They shared a picture of Kathy Griffin and her head. My response to all of that is to ask what is the problem? If that is the best the liberals and Democrats have to offer, that explains why the republicans have largely dominated in governor races, state elections, house and senate races and of course the 2016 Presidential elections. Why would one complain about your opponent's incompetence?
More importantly though is why do both sides hate so much? Why did Kathy Griffin need the head? That was the original question I was trying to get to. Both sides are blinded by hate and unable to deal with actual problems. Let's NOT focus on the evils of the Clintons' and their history, nor a fading comedienne. Your posts just help her sell books. There must be something more productive we can do?
At the end of the back and forth I conceded defeat and offered up a Tommy Bolin song from Youtube. Who can argue with Tommy Bolin? You simply can't.
One of the other discoursers, however, hoping for another round perhaps, argued that it was I who was hateful and that I had no facts to offer up. I could not provide any conservatives who had acted badly. I had failed to play their game properly. I was I guess expected to respond with my own list of bad deeds initiated by Republicans and conservatives. That game is too easy and not very fun. We could easily start with a House Speaker and go from there.
Instead I offer up only "hateful rhetoric". I try not to but I am sure it happens. today I will offer up only a series of questions. Not sure if that is rhetoric or what. They are questions I am interested in.
Here we go:
- What is an education?
- What is the value of science?
- Should science have a seat at the table in relation to regulation and policy?
- Is there such a thing as "privacy"
- What is the limit of individual behavior?
- Can you have a proper democracy in a nation of 330 million?
- Can one infer from what you say? If yes, how far can one go in such inferences?
- What drives an economy?
- Can two or three numbers provide a full picture of the US economy?
- Does a President really have any effect on such an economy?
I stop there but these are questions and topics I am much more interested in. Further, discussion of these might help us get somewhere. . . maybe. Probably not. Best would be for me to go finish my degree or get a job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
