A Footnote to my Philosophical Tale. . .

So far (In my most recent posting titled "The Ramblings of a Rutgers Philosophy Student" I gave you a little background for where I am regarding philosophical positions. Despite some interest in the subject I have had little recent involvement. That said, I did read through Chalmers' paper with enthusiasm and and am left with several thoughts and opinions on the matter. So with that I want to step from the auto-biographical to philosophical. It is interesting or at least amusing, however, that am timid to enter such domains. Today, I am not writing in the safety of a classroom or seminar. I feel naked, exposed, vulnerable posting all this on the web for any and all to read. More likely few if any. . .
I find myself asking myself who am I to write such things? On what authority do I write such positions? And this is a concern. I do not want to be perceived as a buffoon much less simply be one. That said there are plenty of such people offering such positions, both in and out of academia. The fact that one is in academia does not guarantee the quality of one's writing, content or thoughts relating to any subject. What is gained in the academy is the ability to focus for extended periods on a particular topic and perhaps share this with peers. The value of this, however, can also be questioned. It is easy to find positions, often long held positions, which we look at today and ask what were they thinking? All too often especially in fields such as philosophy an appeal to sociology provides a far better explanation of how consensus on a topic or subject was arrived at, as opposed to the topic's truth and validity.

I do wish I could spend more time on these topics - to review the literature thoroughly. This is true of any analytical or decision process.There is, however, something to be said about being required to proceed, needing to arrive at a conclusion, decide a course of action - to act. As they say to those with writers block. . .just start writing. So the solution here is perhaps to simply start. Take the plunge and acquire the tools and texts as required.

So I proceed. Back to Dennett and for the moment, Chalmers.

The Ramblings of a Rutgers Philosophy Student. . .

A long time ago when I was an undergrad at Rutgers, I had taken a Philosophy of Mind class. Not one of my better efforts. The three things I remember from it were that we began with BF Skinner and a Behaviorist view of mind, that the Professor teaching the class was impressed with Daniel Dennett, and that I wrote probably the worst paper of my academic career. The paper embraced Hubert Dreyfus' What Computers Can't Do - arguments against the mind as some type of computer.

The topic here, however, is Daniel Dennett and his work. At the time of the above class I chose not to explore his work. That was spring of 1989. Dennett had written Brainstorms. Consciousness Explained came out in 1991. Basically as the undergrad I was I just lumped the Professor teaching the class and Dennett together, and ignored them both. That entailed both short and long term consequences. The short term was simply that I missed a big chunk of what was going on in that class, which led to a poor grade. Not the worst thing. It is the long-term consequences that I find much more interesting.

Since that time I have proceeded to pick up the Intentional Stance, and also read through Darwin's Dangerous Idea. Neither really resonated or grabbed me, but they were interesting enough for me to buy and read. How many philosophy text do grab one? There actually have been some, Now these readings have taken place over the past 20 years. In short, I appreciated that Dennett values Intentionality and Darwinism.

Jump to 2015, more than 25 years since that class and my introduction to Daniel Dennett. A constant theme of mine lately is to read more - things such as the philosophical traditions I had read at Rutgers. Meanwhile, a few years back, I had joined a website - Meetup.com for both work and amusement. In January of 2015 they had announced a new group doing readings of Analytic Philosophy in NYC. That was perfect as my Rutgers' philosophy studies was largely in that space.

Now strangely this group on Meetup.com were asking for a writing sample. At first I had sent them some things I had written back during that Rutgers period. They responded that the material was dated and that they were passing. OK. That, like the class I mention above, could be a blog post or two. I was a bit annoyed, a bit amused. Meanwhile, they had also posted an article which was to be the subject of their first meeting. It was a paper written by David Chalmers, Consciousness and its Place in Nature. It is an overview of the positions taken by philosophers on the subject, dating back to Descartes.

To be continued. . .

The Photograph - Another Moment in Time

Watching Charlie Rose this evening. He has on Sally Mann. I had not heard of her but from the half hour on Charlie Rose, I was impressed with both her work and herself. What she offered seemed so rich. Perhaps it was simply fresh. . . foreign to me. I know nothing of photographers and photography. I doubt it is purely the novelty. Once again the beauty of Charlie Rose is evident. I have something new to explore in Sally Mann and her work.

The show that night was focused on photography with not only Sally Mann but two others and that focus did make me pause. The last thing I wrote focused on storytelling and the corresponding technology that has effected and changed the craft. As I take in the show I realize that the photograph is responsible for the moment.

Stories, whether read, spoken, or viewed provide a progression, a sequence. This happens, then that, and then somehow this. The beauty and wonder of a story is in that sequence. Photography, however, locks you in the moment. It captures and holds the moment. It might shock or provoke. A photograph frames or is framed. A photograph is focused.

To go back to Sally Mann she said several times in the course of her conversation with Charlie that a photograph has a story. At least that was what I was left with. For her that is success. Perhaps. She also comments how critical it is to capture the right moment. One tenth of second before or after that moment and you missed it. You missed the story.

I am not sure it is the story that is missed. It is the image that changes in that moment, in that tenth of a second. It is what is seen, what is viewed, that is effected. For the viewer, that image makes you want to see more. The image makes you want to know the story behind the image. You ask what is going on in that photograph. The image pulls you in.

I know, who am I to make assertions on something I know nothing about. I began this essay with the premise that I know nothing of photography. Yet it is obvious that a photograph cannot offer a story. How could it. It can only invite one to find a story. It can only pull the viewer's eyes to it. The best photograph will lead one to a story. You will search for meaning in that photograph and that translates to a story. A story provided by either the photographer or imagined by the viewers. Either way, it starts with only the desire or need to see and know more about that photograph. It begins with a response- one sees and one responds. The photograph provokes. The photograph leads one to ask what it is that is being viewed. With a successful photograph a story is what is arrived at.

The most interesting photograph is perhaps the one that leads to incredulity about what is seen. That is the photograph that leads one to ask what is really being viewed. That is the photo that leads one to a story, which then is questioned. The story is not believed, the photograph is not believed, yet the photograph is there before my eyes,

The beauty of photography it seems is again tied to storytelling. That said my original intent was to suggest that it is not story but moment. It freezes time. You see an image of a beach and you can smell the ocean. To witness an image of a battle is to smell gunpowder and sulfur. It is all in the moment and so sensual. It is all senses. You see and you taste and you smell. You can hear the gulls, the cannons. It is not about what happened the moment before, nor about what will happen.  It is what is there before you - and your response.

Story or no story, a photograph evokes,

For those who are not familiar with Sally Mann do check out her site - sallymann.com/. And I do encourage you to check out the Charlie Rose segment that inspired the above, Interestingly, the photographer that followed her was Russell James, whose work most have seen. Among other things his credits include Victoria Secrets and his conversation is interesting too.

The Death of Storytelling. . . or not

This week I attended an event in the WeWorks suite that my office is located in. This is truly one of the perks of working at a WeWorks facility. The number of things going on is pretty amazing. Now I think I am lucky in that we have on my floor one of the larger spaces for such events. Either way it is nice being wined, dined, and sometimes even entertained, even challenged intellectually.

So this week I was introduced to Eventsy, which partnered with another group M.E.T (Media-Entertainment-Technology) to present a panel discussion titled: "The Slow Painful Death of Storytelling".

The general premise was that with the ever changing distribution channels - broadcast television, cable, digital, etc. . . storytelling suffers. Somehow we would lose the ability and focus on storytelling. To explore that theme they brought in a panel of speakers coming from various areas of the media and entertainment sectors.

A few days later I continue to dwell on various thoughts they provoked in the course of their conversations so I thought it appropriate to detail some of them here. Below are some of the thoughts that i keep going back to.

 At the core of my thought is the  title of the panel. The death of storytelling from where I stand is not happening anytime soon.  It might take on new twists and turns, but at the end of the day storytelling is not going anywhere. I am afraid it is practically hardwired into us. It seems to entail parts of our perceptual system. . .what we see and what we hear, And then we try to explain what is happening - what we are seeing, what we are hearing, and why. What materializes is a story that may explain, or amuse or challenge, perhaps all of those, but always it is a story.

With that I just look at the history of storytelling, and technology. With Gutenberg we had the printing press and the Bible. In  the 19th century it was the serial and with it Huck Finn, and a Tale of Two Cities. In the early 20th Century there was radio with the War of the Worlds, and silent movies which allowed for the likes of Charlie Chaplin. The timeline can run right up to today, with cable with Tony Soprano and  Mr White.

And it could be argued that those technologies lent themselves to those stories. The Bible could not have happened without the printing press. The serials allowed for long large stories to be broken up and digested by a newly literate cultures. Charlie Chaplin though he did do one or two talkies, was a Silent Picture Star.

Lastly, HBO and others really had to introduce their stories on cable. They could not be shown at 10 PM any night on broadcast TV. They had to wait till we had cable. And to really see and feel the story we did need a visual image-which grabbed us through the screen. On the TV we could literally see where the bodies where buried unlike Capote's In Cold Blood. And to understand and feel these characters we needed at least a season.

No the story is alive and well. It has evolved but is still with us. It will digest reality TV and all other absurdities and come back even stronger.

Now at the end of the event the focus moved to funding. Crowdfunding is quite amazing. I have seen numerous musicians take advantage of it. One artists who I follow has offered up jam sessions, living room concerts, and background vocals on his latest album. In the process he is able to spend more time in the studio with a range of musicians, just adding to the quality and duration of the material. In short, for musicians crowd funding is an amazing tool and allows them to truly work with and interact with their audience. Filmmakers I am sure can have a similar relationship with their audience. In both cases I am talking about the "indie-artist", with little or no relation to the studios and record companies.

I will end with one sad note regarding movie financing. Specifically movie futures and a movie futures market. Futures are a type of financial instrument allowing one to invest in various goods and commodities. A famous play in the futures market is the end of the Eddie Murphy Danny Aykroyd film - Trading Places. If you recall they manipulate the price of Concentrate Orange Juice, much to the chagrin of their former masters.

Such markets for the movies would allow traders to bet on the gross receipts that a movie pulls in during its opening. Just as fans are allowed to support their favorite director or production company, with this market, financially driven investors looking for a return on their investment would also have a place to play. At least that was the way it looked, Shortly after getting initial regulatory approval in June of 2010, however, it was killed. The Dodd-Frank banking bill basically prohibited such markets.

Considering all that we have seen evolve otherwise, it is a shame that such markets were not allowed. We might have been forwarned of the success of Mission Impossible this weekend, maybe even made some cash of it.

Once again, a nod to WeWork, Eventsy and the M.E.T. for a fun and provocative evening!

Progress and Progressions - an Update

Awhile back I wrote a post, Progressions. . ., detailing three progressions that our world was experiencing. Actually that was back in 2011, not that long ago. Basically I pointed to three general trends and pointed to how culture and technology are intertwined and evolve based upon that relationship. Whether it is low-brow entertainment such as the Three Stooges, Jackass, and today Youtube, to recruiters moving from the New York Times to Monster and LinkedIn. Our culture and our technology do evolve, and there is an interaction between the two.

Another theme that I stressed or pushed upon in that post is that progressions are are not progress. And in the same breath they are more of an evolution. Which brings me to another topic that has haunted me for a long while: what is progress or Progress with a capital "P"?

Progress as I speak about it here is something expected in the world. It is a view of world as constantly improving. Whether you look at social issues, the economy, or technology there is a certain view that things are changing for the better and that is Progress. There is also the related and more limited version where only science and technology progress but not the social world. Here we continue to see the anticipated innovation in technology but not in regard to poverty and the economy.

Let me make one more point on what I mean by progress here. When I apply this concept I am not referring to a specific situation that happened to improve. Rather, I am saying it was inevitable that the specific situation and all situations will improve. In short there is or was a certain faith in Progress. It is Progress as the general improvement of life as the months and years unfold to which we are pointing to.

Going back to my original post, highlighting three cultural progressions, I doubt they involve this Progress with a capital "P" which I reference above. That said there is a certain progression that can be associated with the word Progress itself involving both "Progress with a capital P" and progress as a progression or evolution. It has a certain history or evolution.

To be continued. . .

Views and Values

The Jay Estate in Rye and Jay Homestead in Katonah do make you realize the history around you. Here are the properties of men and a family that shaped the early history of the United States. You see how people lived in those times, and what was valued, what was important.

What was important was the land. The Estate in Rye was 400 acres. The Homestead in Katonah was 600 acres. The views seen from the front door of their respective houses were views of their property, their land. In Rye, this meant down to the Long Island Sound allowing them access to the water, and the preferred method of transportation and the distribution of goods.. 

These views were not just amazing views but amazing views of the Jays' property. They become a unique category, different from the view seen from let us say a NYC penthouse suite. In today's NYC suite, you have a range of views, from New York Harbor, to the East River and the bridges across it, to the towers and buildings making up the New York skyline, but these are not views of your properties.

Generally. I suppose that their are people who may own some of those buildings. Even that though is different. Viewing the building or even the block that your own in today's New York, is not the same as owning all that you can see. In this case the hills in front of you  or the hill and valley between you and the Long Island Sound. It is a case of even with your own building or block in NYC, you still see so much more.

I labor a point and upon reflection 400 or even 600 is not that huge. They are between a third to half of Central Park. The King of England in the sixteenth century owned all of it before giving land grants to his subjects. (And it should be noted he saw none of it.) Regardless, what was seen from Jays' porches was largely their property and it stresses I believe what they valued. Wealth in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century translated largely to land ownership.

Before Big Screen TVs

Continuing from my last post, the two Jay estates, the one in Katonah and the other in Rye are both beautiful locations. Go visit either of them and you will experience this.

The Rye residence you enter from Boston Post Road, driving past the house with its neo-classical design, with these amazing pillars, and then down into a back parking lot. We parked and walked back up to the front of the house and then up the steps to the front porch or portico. Colonnade is perhaps too much.

It was a warm sunny summer day when we checked out the Rye house and the large front door was open. The rear door at the back of the house was open. We came up the steps onto the portico, entering into the house. From the front door you could see out of the rear door down the rolling hill, down to the Sound, across the Long Island Sound proper, and even Long Island across the way.

That view was framed by the interior of the house. And I did not realize the hill we were on and the view we had until we stepped onto that porch and walked through that front door-only to see the view out the back door.

Now in Katonah you have a similar experience. You drive up this long straight driveway, parking next to the herb garden. The garden distracts, but you are again walking up the hill to the house.

The house in Katonah is a large colonial era farmhouse. It is much simpler, but still with a lovely porch the length of the house. And this porch once again offers a beautiful view. Once again it is not realized until you turn around and take in the fields and hills from which you came. Once again you have climbed up to this beautiful perch, this porch with a several chairs for you to relax in, and just take in this view of the land and hills surrounding the place.

Again, to be continued. . .

And do check out the John Jay Homestead in Katonah NY, and the Jay Estate in Rye NY.